News Headlines
- Thu, May 23
- Saints Row 4 trailer video series focuses on the completely randomness of Saints Row
- Ninja Theory, developers of DMC: Devil May Cry, tease "something new to show" for tomorrow
- Grand Theft Auto V Special and Collector's Editions announced by Rockstar, now available to pre-order
- Dead Island studio Techland announces new shooter 'Dying Light,' published by Warner Bros.
- Xbox One HUD image could be teasing half a dozen unannounced games
New Articles
Related Articles
Power Consumption
The main advantage the Atom 330 has is low power consumption - supposedly it has a maximum total power draw of 8W.
Here is some experimental data:
- E8500 @ 3.16GHz on Asus P5E3 Premium: 92W idle, 118W loaded
- Atom 330 @ 1.6GHz on Intel D945GCLF2: 41W idle, 45W loaded
So it looks like going to full load from idling at the desktop the Atom 330 only used 4W more - so the 8W TDP figure is quite believable.
If Intel had used a less power hungry chipset for the motherboard they could have built a motherboard that idles at 10W or less, and uses less than 14W fully loaded!
Now why does this matter to us?
Let's say I make a home server for all my media files. Most of the time it would be idling... so let's calculate how much power would be used in a year.
24h/day * 365 days = 8760 hours
Atom 330 @ 41W * 8760 hours = 359,160 W/hr = 359.16kWhr
E8500 @ 92W * 8760 hours = 805,920 W/hr = 805.92kWhr
Now let's say we pay $0.10/kWhr
Atom 330 would use $35.91 in electricity running for a year
E8500 would use $80.59 in electricity running for a year.
Now let's say we are in a place that charges $0.25/kWhr
Atom 330: $89.79 for a year
E8500: $201.48 for a year
Where electricity is expensive, a small Atom 330 based home server would save the cost of the motherboard in less than a year!
As an aside, I have no idea why Intel insists on a 4-pin additional power connector - there is no way that the board really needs it, yet the manual warns that it may damage the board if it is run without it.
Conclusion
We have to put things into perspective. These days we tend to forget just how much processing power we have available to us.
The early VAX 11/780 "supercomputers" ran at one million instructions per second.

The first Cray ran at 80MHz, and its successor, the Cray X-MP was rated at 800MFLOPs - that is, 800,000,000 floating point operations per second.
Hang on a second.
On page 12 we see that the Atom 330 scored 6,744 Whetsones (6,744 million Whetstone operations).
That's 6.744 BILLION Whetstone operations per second.That's more than eight times as fast as a Cray X-MP.
The fact of the matter is that except for 3D games, large databases, and very compute-intensive applications such as MPEG2/4/H.264 encoding, an Atom 330 will more than do the job for a regular desktop user. If Intel did not limit expansion to a sole PCI slot, adding a decent GPU would even enable usable gaming.
The D945GCLF2 costs about $90. Add a 2GB memory stick for about $33. A small mini-ITX case with power supply for about $40. Add $50 for a hard drive - these days you will get at least 250GB for that, 500GB if you are lucky. Add a $25 DVD burner, and $25 for a cheap keyboard and mouse. Download and install Ubuntu. You don't even need a monitor, you can use the S-Video output to display 800x600 (almost) to your TV.
Guess what?
You have just built a nice little general purpose computer for $263, and its only the size of a shoe box. And it is about eight times the floating point performance of a Cray XM-P, which was classified as a weapon.
Want it even cheaper? Lose the hard drive and dvd burner, use a $10 1GB flash stick for pendrivelinux. You only spend $198 then!
I am as guilty - if not more so - as the next guy in wanting faster computers all the time. I love overclocking and tweaking the last drop of performance out of systems; but the fact is that for normal, every day usage, the Atom will do.
Ok, I would not use it as a high end server, for video editing, or rendering (for those tasks, I'd use a Core 2 Duo or Quad). But browsing, email, spreadsheets, wordprocessing?
You don't need any more.
And neither do I.

- Comment on this article (19)
- check out our other Socket 775 Motherboards articles
- read more Intel D945GCLF2 reviews
- visit our Socket 775 Motherboards section
Article Index
|
|

next
1 2
I'm sure a lot of people are still running mobile chips in their systems to scrape by with performance and lower power compared to full on desktop parts. I have a 35w mobile 2500+ xp running -.150v on a media center right now as an example.
From what I hear though the Atom is a good performer if you don't plan to do a lot, the demonstrations seemed to highlight that quite a bit, it would be interesting to see how it would have all panned out had it been out of order execution instead.
M.A.M.E.?
Autocad 2002?
Aspen Engineering Suite?
SimSci Pro-II?
Thanks
Be calm, be polite, be enlightened.
it sure does have Gigabit Ethernet. how could someone solve the redundancy problem, using RAID??? is there any PCI card to do the job???
thanks
HD playback in XP using CoreAVC & MPC-HC works brilliantly (Screen resolution is 1280x1024 at the moment, so its not full HD), but Im playing a 1080p Sample of Transformers.
Tried using XBMC but its horrible and drops frames left, right & center. Apparently it'd be better using the newer ffmpeg builds which better support dual-core CPU's etc, but Im not sure, havent looked into it enough. Was Googl'ing for answers hoping somebody else had when I found this thread.
Have yet to try the XBMC LiveCD to see how it goes, will do soon-ish
Anyway, xp runs a lil faster than Ubuntu, and this beta build of Vista 2 or windows 7(call it what you will) seems to be a lil faster than xp.
Have only had one program that wouldn't install right and it was an old dvd ripping program i bought at wal-mart 5 years ago for $3.95usd.
Other than that everything seems to work correctly but its hard to tell since I've never used Vista, so only comparing to xp.
Theoretically, you could pull a D945GCLF2 out of the box and other than case assembly, you could be up and running in about 20-25 minutes
I have to say this board is a cracker for the cash, overall I liked your review but trying it to run various games, its not what this board is about. I agree if they had used a better chipset the power requirements would have even been better, but for me using an older GPU has meant most of the os's work with it right out of the box.
P.
Thanks!
I've checked in control panel and the drivers appear to have been installed correctly.
Can anyone help me here please - I don't know where to go next.
Thanks
Mike
Sorry for any time wasted by anyone - found the problem. I didn't realise that not only did I have to play with the bios setting but also disable the onboard graphics from within Windows control panel.
Mike
next
1 2