打印

[硬件] Biostar J1900NH2 vs A68N-5000

Biostar J1900NH2 vs A68N-5000

TOP

AMD食屎

TOP

引用:
原帖由 62561 於 2014-7-21 00:01 發表
AMD食屎
睇你點用

TOP

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 ]

TOP

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..
願燈力與我常在

TOP

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

TOP

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.

TOP



This shows how decent the Haswell Celerons are.

TOP

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
願燈力與我常在

TOP

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

TOP

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 ]

TOP

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)
天然系長髮眼鏡娘 最高
Lucky Star 聯盟 - 美幸
Kancolle - 大淀, 翔鶴 (太太)

TOP

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.
天然系長髮眼鏡娘 最高
Lucky Star 聯盟 - 美幸
Kancolle - 大淀, 翔鶴 (太太)

TOP

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.

TOP

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

TOP