qcmadness

http://www.hk-spot.com/?p=1

62561

AMD食屎

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 62561 於 2014-7-21 00:01 發表
AMD食屎

睇你點用

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2014-7-20 14:03 發表

睇你點用

While these may look good, Haswell Celeron really outperforms them to a large margin with a similar price.

[ 本帖最後由 ccw 於 2014-7-20 17:56 編輯 ]

tat0801

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2014-7-21 05:36 發表

While these may look good, Haswell Celeron really outperforms them to a large margin with a similar price.

agree..
still my IVY pentium still works..

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2014-7-21 05:36 發表

While these may look good, Haswell Celeron really outperforms them to a large margin with a similar price.

Power consumption

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2014-7-21 18:53 發表

Power consumption

Minimal difference, unless you need passive cooling at a low price.

ccw

This shows how decent the Haswell Celerons are.

tat0801

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2014-7-22 10:04 發表
rtKWgNMLGxs

This shows how decent the Haswell Celerons are.

50W whole system

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2014-7-22 10:04 發表
rtKWgNMLGxs

This shows how decent the Haswell Celerons are.

Athlon 5350 is less than 40W
J1900 is even less with less than 35W

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2014-7-22 09:40 發表

Athlon 5350 is less than 40W
J1900 is even less with less than 35W

It they were 10W vs 20W, it's a 50% difference,
but now 40W vs 60W, there isn't much advantage I can point out for the former (except for passive cooling, but I could do the same with more cost using the latter).

And this is talking about Full Load, which could be only 10% of the time,
where most of the time Haswell Celeron consumes only 17W idle (same as your test actually) - 40W (fair load I assume)of power for daily use.

Finally it is worth to point out the difference in performance (from Passmark):
Intel Celeron J1900 @ 1.99GHz  1,959  
Intel Celeron G1840 @ 2.80GHz  2,837  
with G1840 can decode 4k.
*AMD Athlon 5350 APU with Radeon R3  2,621  
Surprisingly the 5350 is actually close in score.

I do think New Atoms and AMD low power CPUs have the potential, but at this point they don't really shine imho.

[ 本帖最後由 ccw 於 2014-7-22 10:58 編輯 ]

dom

引用:

原帖由 tat0801 於 2014/7/22 21:22 發表

50W whole system

我 i3-4130 都得啦
(IDLE , Full load 過 60W)

dom

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2014/7/22 22:44 發表

It they were 10W vs 20W, it's a 50% difference,
but now 40W vs 60W, there isn't much advantage I can point out for the former (except for passive cooling, but I could do the same with more cost using ...

If it's fit in a notebook / ultrathin case, that's different case

Why Intel and AMD bother to "waste time" to make these new low-power but "marginal" performance
For fanless embedded system these are very useful , Celeron G1840/1820 just doesn't cut it.
(of coz some ppl always want more performance , even myself )

Even ARM side start pushing Quad Core powered smartphone as baseline model , if you still selling "Dual Core" it's hard for OEM/ODM to sell their product.

ccw

引用:

原帖由 dom 於 2014-7-24 12:51 發表


If it's fit in a notebook / ultrathin case, that's different case

Why Intel and AMD bother to "waste time" to make these new low-power but "marginal" performance
For fanless embedded system these  ...

For normal case yes, but I managed to fit G1840 in a fanless case recently:
http://bbs.hk-spot.com/viewthread.php?tid=92141

These low power CPUs were intended to be used on very low power devices, the desktop versions are actually by-products;
with the current trend, it's likely after 1-2 generations we will have latest micro-architecture Celerons running fanless with a heatsink like those on Atoms now.

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2014-7-25 10:19 發表

For normal case yes, but I managed to fit G1840 in a fanless case recently:
http://bbs.hk-spot.com/viewthread.php?tid=92141

These low power CPUs were intended to be used on very low power devices, t ...

Don't think so

Too similar in power consumption, it is pointless not to merge two microarchitectures