Gaming is out of the question but we were shocked to see that playing a Shrek DVD with CyberLink PowerDVD 7.2 brought the Atom to its knees with a CPU load of 80 per cent. The picture was jerky video and the audio stuttered. Again, you'd get better performance with XP on board instead of Vista.
For a laugh, we tried to watch a Blu-ray of Casino Royale but it wouldn’t play as the Intel graphics driver is incompatible with Blu-ray playback but that’s probably just as well.
As a comparison we tested another low-power Intel system that we’ve had on the shelf for some time. It’s an Asus N4L-VM DH motherboard with 945G chipset that supports Socket 479 mobile processors. We plugged in a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo T2600 processor.
System Power Consumption Results
Power consumption in Watts
Thanks to the layout of the Asus we could use 2GB of DDR 2 in dual-channel instead of a single module a la Atom.
This isn’t exactly an apples-to-apples comparison as the N4L-VM DH and T2600 cost £200 together but the result is a small, quiet, low-powered system that works like a proper PC. DVD playback is flawless and it only loads the CPU at 15-20 per cent.
Verdict
You can build an incredibly small and cheap PC around the D945GCLF, but the Atom CPU is a severe disappointment on the desktop as it doesn’t have the grunt to do any useful work. The bizarre form-factor and layout of the I/O panel also reduce the options for finding a niche for this incredibly cheap motherboard and processor. Perhaps the next-gen, dual-core Atom will make a world of difference but for now this is one to avoid unless you're really keen to build an internet-oriented PC.
Intel Atom 230 ultra low-power desktop CPU
COMMENTS
A word on wattage
Given how utterly patethic that review was and I can't even work up the entusiasm to flame it, here's a word on what was ignored:
I recently built one of these using a "noah" case with a DC-DC converter in it, a samsung 1TB drive (about 16W idle, 17W active) an old laptop CDRW drive and a 2GB stick of DDR2. Whilst copying a buttload (technical term) of stuff across the network to it, the CPU usage was sitting pretty at ~5% in XP-64 and the power usage (as measured by a maplin plug-into-the-wall meter) was 37 watts. The most I've ever managed to get this machine to consume was 51W on startup when the drive was first spun up. This quickly dropped back to 40 and idle is usually around the 35W mark.
As for the "dark ages" ports, all I can say is thank christ they're there, I work on embedded systems and it's great to have a machine with useful connectivity. When you need something to "just work" and it's playing lame, it's so much easier to debug over serial or parallel interfaces. Most embedded systems have a UART hidden away somewhere, even if it's only an internal header. USB->RS232 converters just don't work reliably enough.
Next time, let's have a review that doesn't compare melons to the krasnoyarsk tractor museum.
Interesting alternative
Interesting that the Intel D201GLY2 motherboard has very similar power consumption overall and a PCMark05 CPU rating about 50% higher.
I think Intel rushed to market
I am waiting for the MSI Atom board with no fans.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7549&Itemid=37
I am an opinionated shit... so here goes
Actually, when it comes to doing WORK - by this I mean typing in stuff and scanning in the odd document and all, that sure - HIGH PERFORMANCE PC's and the TIME IS MONEY factor, do actually count for a real lot.....
But for all the really mundane "shit" it's probably a really good thing..
CHEAP, LOW POWER, SMALL and can play the really dumb basic kind of games... like Donkey Kong...
The ONLY 2 reasons I EVER upgrade is because my CHEAP, LOW POWER PC's either die (in part/s) from old age, or they just cannot hack having to scroll (page up / down) through 350 page documents, without coughing up their arse in the process.
But I have been computing away quite happily, on the last of the good stuff, remaining on the shelf - after it came out 3 or 4 years ago...
And I hang onto it all for a verrrrrrrrry long time.
So as to why I need to be buying the truck type PC's with the equivalent in power consumption, space taking, and running costs, the tripple bypass CPU's, the $900 graphics cards, the liquid cooling and screaming fans is beyond me.
CHEAP is good, and SUFFICIENT is enough.
Our call center is buying exactly one of these
We're getting one into our Indian (Pune) call center in order to give our applications atomic testing.
If it works then we'll roll out a few hundred systems with lower power chipsets and hopefully a smaller form factor, such as system in monitor.
It's not just the power for the systems themselves, we also have to worry about running the air conditioners to clean up that power wastage afterwards, because of course all call centers must be located in tropical countries with poor electrical grids rather than say Iceland or Norway.
