LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Hardware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/)
-   -   AMD E-350 vs Intel Atom D525 (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/amd-e-350-vs-intel-atom-d525-872734/)

erhardm 04-03-2011 01:21 PM

AMD E-350 vs Intel Atom D525
 
Hi:

I want to make a x86 based router using a mini-ITX board and I found 2 options, Asrock AMD-E350M1(~$140) and Intel Atom D525MW(~$94).

1. AMD-E350:

Pro:
It's slightly faster than atom D525.
It has AMD-V(virtualization support)
It can be used as HTPC(1080p)
It can be used for GPGPU
Uses ~max 25W for CPU+(capable)GPU

Con:
Single Channel Memory
PCI-e slot is bad for router( I found 4-port PCI NIC at $25. 2-port PCI-e cards are $60 and 4-port PCI-e cards are $150 )

2. Intel Atom D525:

Pro:
PCI slot(see above)
Dual Channel Memory
Cheaper than AMD E-350
Passive Cooling

Con:
Uses SODIMMs
It cannot be used as HTPC(doesn't play 1080p, not even 720p)
It cannot be used for GPGPU

I plan to use the mini-ITX board with 4GB RAM:
AMD E-350 with 4GB ram(1x$51)=$191 -> cpubenchmark.net score is 744. Regarding the CPU the value is 3.8952/$
Intel Atom D525 with 4GB(2x$29)=$152 -> cpubenchmark.net score is 714. Regarding the CPU the value is 4.6973/$

Ideal scenario: I would like to have a mini-ITX board that is capable of having one VM runing the router OS and 2nd VM runing pyrit on the GPU.


If it is possible to run pyrit on the APUs GPU I would choose AMD E-350 because I can put in PCI-e NIC to run the router OS.
If not, I have to stick with Intel Atom D525, 4GB RAM would be a waste, but also I would waste a lot of CPU time.

What would you choose
?

Do you have any other sugestions?

cascade9 04-03-2011 02:16 PM

Atom + Ion should play at least 720p, and maybe 1080p. Atom + Ion is more expensive than the intel chipsets though. Does XvBA/VA-API work well enough for 1080p output? No idea, I havent use XvBA for a while, it was pretty buggy last I tried...

If you really cant find a PCIe x2 or x4 network card cheap enough, find a miniITX version that has a PCI slot, like a jetway NC85-E350-LF-
http://www.jetwaycomputer.com/NC85.html

BTW, I wouldnt touch that for the use I think you're going to be putting it to, VIA1705 is going to sound pretty bad IMO.

Or you could get a Sapphire IPC-E350M1-
http://www.sapphiretech.com/presenta...00102&pid=1034

Yeah, its PCIe again. :( But its got a mini PCIe slot. I cant recall how much a miniPCIe wired network card is (and that could vary a lot by country) but a miniPCIE wired network + a normal PCIe network card could be less than a 2 port PCIe network card. They are even avaible in 1 x and 2x network connections, so yuo could use the PCIe slot for smething else if the need arises-

http://www.bvm-store.com/ProductDeta...dProductId=547

http://www.bvm-store.com/ProductDeta...dProductId=316

Both of those boards have the SO-DIMM problem though....

I know, you said you want miniITX but if it was me I'd get the AMD in microATX, like an Asus E35M1-M or E35M1-M Pro with 1 x PCIe x16, 1 x PCIe x1 and 2 PCI slots).

http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_I...607&templete=2

Not quite as small, but at least its got good expansion, and uses normal desktop RAM.

*edit- dual channel RAM is nice to have, but its not like it will have much impact on system performance. Not worth worrying about IMO.

erhardm 04-03-2011 03:48 PM

The Intel Atom D525MW I'm talking about doesn't have ION graphic card, that why it's cheaper and has poor performance.

Anything above ~$190 for mainboard+CPU+GPU+RAM is a problem, I'm a student and I'm on budget. Being used as router it has to max 50W(the whole system) for power consumption constrains and to be quiet as possible.

The Jetway NC85(this would be ideal) and Sapphire IPC-E350M1 are not available in my country(Romania).

The Asus E35M1-M or E35M1-M Pro is $35 respectively $45 more expensive than the Asrock AMD E-350 that I considered.

The Asus boards seem to have cooling problems.

Thank you for letting me know that the memory channel is not worth to worry.

I just found out that pyrit runs on the APUs GPU, so in the end I will consider an AMD E-350 based board. The next challenge would be which board to choose. I'm hunting the prices for all the parts I need and I will do the math to see which one is cheaper.

jefro 04-03-2011 05:29 PM

I think the atom is way more energy efficient. I looked at a dell product and a similar atom and selected the atom.

cascade9 04-04-2011 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefro (Post 4312740)
I think the atom is way more energy efficient. I looked at a dell product and a similar atom and selected the atom.

Not as far as I know.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._12.html#sect0

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Z...review/?page=8

Yes, both tests are agianst Atom + Ion, which is a fair comparison IMO. You might get slightly less power consumption with an intel chipset, but then you would have 1080p playback problems, and the Atom systems using 945GC will use more power for the chipset than the CPU.

If you've got any data to backup your 'Atom is way more energy efficient' claim, I'd like to see it.

*edit- E350 is still very new as well, so I'd expect power consumption to drop a least a little as the drivers mature.

jefro 04-04-2011 03:55 PM

Compare a Q150 to a Zino. I saw posts of about 22W for the atom and 44W for the amd based on system useage. The Atom's idle was lower. I did not personally test both. http://www.wegotserved.com/2010/08/0...centre-q150/8/ and a few others agree with the about half as much watts used and lower standby useage.

I run HD video fine after the latest amd drivers. I will agree that netflix hd still stinks based on flawed silverlight.

cascade9 04-05-2011 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefro (Post 4313863)
Compare a Q150 to a Zino. I saw posts of about 22W for the atom and 44W for the amd based on system useage. The Atom's idle was lower. I did not personally test both. http://www.wegotserved.com/2010/08/0...centre-q150/8/ and a few others agree with the about half as much watts used and lower standby useage.

ZinoHD doesnt use a E350/AMD Fusion. Its Phenom II/Athlon II based.

Comparing a Phenom II/Athlon II system to Atom, even the low power variants, is comparing apples and oranges.

jefro 04-05-2011 04:59 PM

http://shop.amd.com/US/_layouts/shop...o&region=us-en

dunno what they sell today but it did have it when I compared.

You are welcome to suggest what you wish to the OP but I use the atom and am happy with it. It is the very least of what is really needed but plays HD fine all day long and uses very little energy. If I can get a CE4100 or CE4150 I may replace it but only if they don't fix silverlight.

cascade9 04-05-2011 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefro (Post 4315057)
http://shop.amd.com/US/_layouts/shop...o&region=us-en

dunno what they sell today but it did have it when I compared.

From the page you linked-

Quote:

AMD Athlon II X2 P340
Then see here-

Quote:

P340 2.2 GHz
http://www.amd.com/us/products/noteb...-platform.aspx

Like I said above, the Zino uses a Phenom II/Athlon II CPU. That is NOT a E350. P340 =/= E350.

Its also a 2010 system, AMD fusion wasnt released utill 2011.

Quote:

E-350 1.6 GHz
http://www.amd.com/us/products/deskt...-in-one.aspx#3

Thats the E350 specs. Quite a difference, even on the basic CPU speed.

If you had of bothered checking the power consumption links I posted (post #5) you would have seen that the E350 is at least on a par with the Atom for power consumption.

erhardm 04-06-2011 07:19 AM

Looking at this http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._12.html#sect0 it's clear that AMD E-350 is a winner about power consumption at idle, CPU full load, CPU+GPU full load and 1080p playback. But for my use(mainly a router) it isn't that clear. If power consumption was the main issue, I could use the Atom D525 without ION, with it's TDP of only 13W. But that means to loose some features.

cascade9 04-07-2011 03:34 AM

I tried finding a E350 vs non-ion power consumption test, but I couldnt get one. All the tests I saw were vs ion.

I would guess that even an intel chipset + D525 would have a higher idle power consumption, at worse they would be very similar to the E350. That guess based on part of the xbitlabs review-

Quote:

When doing no work at all, the Brazos has fantastically low power consumption. In fact, it is the most economical platform in idle mode that we have ever seen and tested. Clearly, AMD made a right decision by implementing deep power-saving states in its new energy-efficient processor microarchitecture. The turning off of unused circuits in the semiconductor die comes in handy, too.

By the way, Intel’s Atom processors are not that progressive in this respect. Trying to make them cheaper, Intel cut off a lot of technologies that help minimize power consumption in idle mode. On the other hand, the rather high power draw of both versions of the ION platform is due to the chipset and graphics core rather than to the CPU.
I dont think that ion would have a huge difference in idle power consumption vs a intel chipset. The intel chipset power consumption would be lower, but it probably wouldnt drop quiet as low as the E350. But like you said its hard to be sure...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 AM.