ATOM PROCESSOR

[Mindy_Jacks77]

I am planning to buy a new PC just for home use. I found some cheap ones but with ATOM processor. What can you advise about ATOM processors? Are they good enough? Will it work fast if I watch videos online, surf the net, view photos and sometimes work on video editing (my hobby)? Thanks in advance for your inputs!

[biffzinker]

Pentium G630 or AMD A4-3400 might be a better fit. The Intel Atom is somewhat pokey compared to it's rival AMD E-350/450.

Here's a review of the AMD E-350 compared against a Atom D525.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20401

[Arclight]

I am planning to buy a new PC just for home use. I found some cheap ones but with ATOM processor. What can you advise about ATOM processors? Are they good enough? Will it work fast if I watch videos online, surf the net, view photos and sometimes work on video editing (my hobby)? Thanks in advance for your inputs!

What's the budget and what form factor do you want? Atom is not BAD it's just weak for many typical workloads for desktops.

Video editing you say? Doesn't that mean that the CPU will be very important? Why not buy a Sandy Bridge dual core. Even a Pentium dual core based on SB architecture should be a good step up from the ATOM.

[JdL]

Atom processors are NOT fast enough - they are barely faster than processors found in modern mobile phones such as the iPhone 4S or Samsung Galaxy S2. Atoms perform VERY poorly with even basic tasks such as browsing web sites with lots of content, especially JavaScript / Flash content. They are certainly not fast enough to do any sort of video editing.

Avoid Atom. Get an Intel Core 2, Core i3/i5/i7, or AMD Athlon X2/X3/X4 or Phenom X2/X3/X4. AMD Fusion CPU's are ok, but not much better than Atom. The Intel Core i3/i5/i7 have the best value/performance right now.

[biffzinker]

Core i3 2100 perhaps would be more than enough.

[apertur3]

Core i3 2100 perhaps would be more than enough.

+1. Or a 2120.

[Waco]

Atom processors are NOT fast enough - they are barely faster than processors found in modern mobile phones such as the iPhone 4S or Samsung Galaxy S2. Atoms perform VERY poorly with even basic tasks such as browsing web sites with lots of content, especially JavaScript / Flash content. They are certainly not fast enough to do any sort of video editing.

Avoid Atom. Get an Intel Core 2, Core i3/i5/i7, or AMD Athlon X2/X3/X4 or Phenom X2/X3/X4. AMD Fusion CPU's are ok, but not much better than Atom. The Intel Core i3/i5/i7 have the best value/performance right now.

Depends on the price point. For uber-cheap builds Atoms work just fine (especially the dual-core ones). My old EeePC 900A handles Windows 7, Chrome, and basic productivity tasks with ease. HD video is a no-no though.

[DPete27]

I vote Intel G620. Its MUCH better than an Atom 525 or E-350/450. It has more CPU power than the A4-3400 and if you're not playing any 3-D games, you dont need the extra IGP horsepower in the A4-3400
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fusion-intel-core-i3_5.html#sect1

[xgsound]

To see the raw scores of various CPUs go to http://www.cpubenchmark.net
Here are raw scores of Atom compared to CPUs mentioned and the Intel I5.
Atom D525 711
AMD E350 728
Intel 620 2465
Intel I5 2400 6159

The $300 dollar netbooks (atom) might work for all but the video editing. I believe 1 GB memory, starter windows, and video would make editing painful. An AMD e350 (?$400 and up) might allow you to struggle through video editing with it's superior video and 4 GB. As you can see, the I5 2400 will provide a different magnitude of CPU power for the extra money, especially with a decent Video card for the editing.

!! wow !!! biffzinker's link has a page that compares all the above items and more with video decoding times. Exactly what you need to see! http://techreport.com/articles.x/20401/9


Jim

[JdL]

Depends on the price point. For uber-cheap builds Atoms work just fine (especially the dual-core ones). My old EeePC 900A handles Windows 7, Chrome, and basic productivity tasks with ease. HD video is a no-no though.

My point is Atom does NOT work "just fine." Unless you are browsing the Web from the year 2000. I like to use The Verge (http://www.theverge.com) as a benchmark for how the Web will perform by the end of 2012. Web fonts, SVG, HTML5, CSS3 animations, transforms, and effects, and Javascript driving everything.

Facebook, YouTube, and Google Apps (docs etc.) all strain when running on older / slower hardware. Seriously. There is no future in the purchase of a current-gen Atom.

[JustAnEngineer]

Atom is an underpowered joke that has no place on the desktop.

You would be much better off with:
$88 Intel Pentium G850 dual-core 2.9 GHz Sandy Bridge LGA1155 processor
or $130 Intel Core i3-2120 dual-core hyperthreading 3.3 GHz Sandy Bridge LGA1155 processor

[Buzzard44]

Eh, Atom processors generally have low performance. This is because quantum processing isn't quite there yet.

We need a few more minds like Richard Feynman before we can get there, but once we do, the rewards will be (theoretically) amazing.

For now though, the Atom processor's relatively low performance compared to that of most x86 processors is a testament that quantum computing isn't there yet. It's not easy having a machine be in multiple states at once. I predict Atom processors will be more powerful in 5 years from now, however, as we get more advances in the physics.

[DPete27]

As you can see, the I5 2400 will provide a different magnitude of CPU power for the extra money, especially with a decent Video card for the editing.

The OP is looking at systems in the $300-400 range. I doubt they're going to want to spend 50% or more of that on JUST a processor. I would say the best we're going to get out of this budget will be the Econobox with less graphics power.

[just brew it!]

Eh, Atom processors generally have low performance. This is because quantum processing isn't quite there yet.

We need a few more minds like Richard Feynman before we can get there, but once we do, the rewards will be (theoretically) amazing.

For now though, the Atom processor's relatively low performance compared to that of most x86 processors is a testament that quantum computing isn't there yet. It's not easy having a machine be in multiple states at once. I predict Atom processors will be more powerful in 5 years from now, however, as we get more advances in the physics.

Umm... what?

Quantum computers (assuming we could actually build practical ones) are theoretically very good for solving certain narrow classes of problems, and absolutely terrible for general computation. If anything, we *might* eventually see quantum computing based coprocessors for certain specialized applications; but I think it is a pretty safe bet that we won't see a quantum-based CPU as the main processor in a consumer desktop/mobile device in 5 years... probably not even in our lifetimes.

That said, yes Atom will be more powerful in 5 years... assuming Intel keeps the name around that long.

Edit: Ohh... wait a minute, I get it. You were making a joke about the name "Atom". *Groan*

[Mr. Bamboo Head]

Just got a HP with an AMD E350 1.6ghz dual core for $329 (with an combo deal for an extra 2gb ram for $.99) for a friend. It's no powerhouse, but the integrated gpu outpaces anything intel by miles. 1080p and h.264 etc runs perfectly fine. I dont know how it compares to current dual core atoms, but for simple consumption it's quite adequate.

[JJCDAD]

I have a customer who made the mistake of purchasing 2 "workstations" that use ATOM D525 processor. Dog slow! I just loaded Windows 7 Pro 64-bit on a couple C2D E4500 (circa 2007) workstations to replace them. The 5 year old processor wipes the floor with the "New" ATOM processor.

[just brew it!]

Yeah, one of the engineers here bought an Atom-based nettop a while back, with the intent of using it on one of the test benches in the lab. With so much test equipment being USB-based these days, this isn't as crazy as it would've been a few years ago. Except that once we hooked it up, we discovered that it is absolutely dog slow, and will only run our test scripts at about half speed. D'oh!

On the flip side, I got my youngest daughter a dual-core AMD Fusion based netbook when she started college last fall, and she's been quite happy with it. In spite of having a fairly low clock speed, it runs rings around her old (Socket 754) desktop. Two cores plus a modern (and non-Intel) IGP will do that...

[Flying Fox]

Yeah, one of the engineers here bought an Atom-based nettop a while back, with the intent of using it on one of the test benches in the lab. With so much test equipment being USB-based these days, this isn't as crazy as it would've been a few years ago. Except that once we hooked it up, we discovered that it is absolutely dog slow, and will only run our test scripts at about half speed. D'oh!

I suppose if the Atom nettop is used as a dumb terminal RDP-ing to some other computers it may even be acceptable.

[JustAnEngineer]

Not likely. We've got HP Atom-based thin clients at work that can't run the CBT software for our training programs. The current generation of Atom is junk, all the way around.

[sschaem]

I am planning to buy a new PC just for home use. I found some cheap ones but with ATOM processor. What can you advise about ATOM processors? Are they good enough? Will it work fast if I watch videos online, surf the net, view photos and sometimes work on video editing (my hobby)? Thanks in advance for your inputs!

It was all ok if you are getting a great deal on this system... but when you mentioned video editing, and you are serious about it? if so skip breakfast and put that toward an A6-3500 or better based system.

[MixedPower]

As you can see, the I5 2400 will provide a different magnitude of CPU power for the extra money, especially with a decent Video card for the editing.

The OP is looking at systems in the $300-400 range. I doubt they're going to want to spend 50% or more of that on JUST a processor.

The OP has neither specified a budget nor given much indication on how much processing power is necessary. Without knowing a budget and seeing as the OP edits video for a hobby, I'd say that i5 chip is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

[Waco]

My point is Atom does NOT work "just fine." Unless you are browsing the Web from the year 2000. I like to use The Verge (http://www.theverge.com) as a benchmark for how the Web will perform by the end of 2012. Web fonts, SVG, HTML5, CSS3 animations, transforms, and effects, and Javascript driving everything.

Facebook, YouTube, and Google Apps (docs etc.) all strain when running on older / slower hardware. Seriously. There is no future in the purchase of a current-gen Atom.

I don't have any issues with mine. 2 GB of RAM, Windows 7, and a 32 GB SSD keeps it pretty peppy. The only real slowdowns occur when messing with badly coded Flash and HD video.

Anyway - theverge.com loads and works just fine in Chrome on my EeePC. It's even the older single-core version of the Atom. I don't expect 60 FPS when I load up webpages on my EeePC.

[Buzzard44]

Apparently my troll of appearing to confuse the "Atom" processor with a quantum processor and seem really ignorant has failed.

As such, my suggestion is to skip over the extreme low-end (Atom processors and the like), and go for a mid or medium-low end processor. A few dollars more will go a long way towards performance, as $/performance is, in general, on a bell curve. I won't rehash particular processors, since you seem to have plenty of input there from the knowledgeable gerbils who posted before me.

Edit: Now that I see jbi got my joke, I feel that I have fulfilled my duty, and my really good day is even better.

[thegleek]

I am planning to buy a new PC just for home use. I found some cheap ones but with ATOM processor. What can you advise about ATOM processors? Are they good enough? Will it work fast if I watch videos online, surf the net, view photos and sometimes work on video editing (my hobby)? Thanks in advance for your inputs!

Yet another SPAM account. Interesting how they come in without posting a URL and everyone thinks this is a human being.

Mindy_Jacks77 leads to a website called "onetouch ultra", and has signed up on 100's of forums. proof:

http://www.reinventedsoftware.com/discu ... dy_jacks77
http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/membe ... &uid=26110
http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums-profi ... 61568.html

and again, another 458 links as proof this account is a damn SPAMMER... ( http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mindy_jacks77 )