>1.4GHz Atom x5-Z8300
>1.6GHz Atom x7-Z8700
>2.16GHz Intel Celeron N2840
I don't know what the fuck that means.
What are these 'mobile' things equivalent to in real processors? i3? i5? pentium 2?
The Atom X5 and X7 are below i3s, and a step above Core M in real world usage.
The Celeron N2840 is a dual core, slower than both the X5 and X7 in CPU performance overall, and much worse Graphics performance.
The X7 is about a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo.
Or a Dual Core Skylake at 1.1GHz.
X7 compared to Broadwell Core M.
1st run, Core M beats Atom because it started cold. 2.1GHz TurboBoost vs. Atom
2nd run, Atom wins by a large margin, because Core M is heavily throttled. 800MHz Throttled vs. Atom.
Oh wow its been a lot since i've seen such misinformation. X5 and X7 atoms are way under the performance of core M and surely are still under a core duo @2.4ghz. They have 4 shitty smartphone cores clocked not even particularly high. Their ipc is about that of a Pentium 4 or even less. You are right on the celeron grafics tho, except that you ought to say it runs the same core architecture as the atoms so the only difference is that it has 2 cores against 4
Remember, cherry trail and bay trail are the atom architectures. They can have as much as 4 cores @2.4ghz but they will still be destroyed in benchmarks by any dual core past sandy bridge, even if it runs at 1ghz
Depends on how much CPU is used by the NSA.
I really don't like those small things. The smaller they get, the easier it becomes to hide shit in it. I already lost all confidence in software, and I'm not far from losing confidence in hardware too.
i had a tablet with a x5-z8300. and my core 2 duo p8400 destroyed it in CPU performance, but severely lost out when it came to graphics and video, as cherry trail atoms, hardware decoding up to 4k h.265.
I remember the good times when my t9300 @2.5ghz could handle youtube 1080p no problem and even managed to play 'original resolution' videos. Then youtube changed the player and now sometimes even 720p struggles, 480p is the new 1080p
>They can have as much as 4 cores @2.4ghz but they will still be destroyed in benchmarks by any dual core past sandy bridge, even if it runs at 1ghz
Now that's a large exaggeration, too.
core M's are the equivalent to the ULVs which were in the weird UMPCs, and have the full transistor count, while the atoms are extremely cut down core Ms.
that's because intel focused on GPU performance rather than CPU for cherry and bay trail, as my z8300 could play 4k youtube videos, but couldn't render anything in photoshop,
throttling is heavily dependent on the passive cooling ability of the laptop
Atoms are modern cpus with an hardware decoder for running videos. If they had to run videos in software mode (like a core duo does because no such thing existed integrated inside the cpu that time) they'd struggle really hard with anything above 720p too. You can have a weak ass Pentium 3 paired to a decent decoder and you could play 4k videos without lag at all
Atoms are pretty much terrible. The only reason they look reasonably fast is their core count and optimized design. As was mentioned multiple times, the can play 4k videos without breaking a sweat and support the newest instruction sets that accelerate a lot of modern programs and Web browsing. Old cpus had none of that and thus in comparison seem slower in a lot of benchmarks.
But ok, I take back 1ghz and raise you with 1.5ghz no hyperthreading. That's about the same performance
Cherry trail Atoms use silvermont cores which are pretty energy efficient but also have worse performance compared to kabini cores (which in turn have worse performance compared to kaveri cores).
That said you're gonna want something with the Z8700 if you want to do a little bit of multi-tasking. The Z8300 has really bad multi-core performance and probably also won't be enough to play 1080p VP9 youtube streams stutter free.
Sure, but it results in better usability.
Yeah, I'm just saying they are usable, not that they are fast CPUs.
>I take back 1ghz and raise you with 1.5ghz no hyperthreading
I can probably get on board with that.
I've used a z3735 with 1GB ram as my main PC when traveling and it wasn't so bad actually.
>I've used a z3735 with 1GB ram as my main PC when traveling and it wasn't so bad actually.
That must have been excruciatingly painful. You're a brave person. I already start to panic on any system with only 4GB of RAM.
I use a celeron with 8gb of ram. At least this thing can run Civ 5
x7-8700 is 4 celeron M's from 2008 put together (almost catches up to Core 2 Duo e8400 in total performance), x5 z8500 is 3 celeron M's from 2008 in total performance (but it's quad core huehue) n2840 is basically a single core of core 2 duo e8400 split into two cores (snappy enough for chrome chinese cartoons etc)
I have a rugged tablet with an 2011 Atom, and a Toughbook with an even older mobile Celeron. Its really not that bad, both of them have SSDs, so I don't notice anything being slower aside from the inability to play video in a web browser.
More modern atom chips are probably higher performance than my Athlon X2 4200 system I played DOOM 3 on.
It is a laptop. Dell Inspiron 15-3521. It came with only 4GB of ram but I have a collection of hardware from computers/laptops given to me because they were "broken" so I just slapped in another 4GB stick.
The one thing that confuses me is this.
If i use the atom cpus or like even the N3700, all the browsers lag on heavy pages if you scroll, but if you use spartan the scrolling is smooth. The fuck?
Ah, found some 50$ motherboard with that exact celeron version embedded and that's why I asked. how does it perform? is it snappy?
I wonder if spartan is using the GPU heavily. use ublock and everything will be smoother on the other browser too
ah, Spartan being a purely C++/C# application and having no extension system etc might be contributing to increased performance or it uses the GPU / CPU better somehow, chrome devs are the "Let's use abstractions and Node.JS it's 2016 duuuh" type, fuck chrome
It is not really that snappy but it definitely gets the job done. Compared to my desktop(4790k) it is slow as balls
Yesterday I repaired an i7 4770 PC and had to give it back to owner after 3 days of usage and I almost cried, I didn't want to give it back and go back to my N2840 ;-; thanks for the feedback man
>or it uses the GPU / CPU better somehow
There are two very simple explanations for this. First off, Microsoft have been dumping tons of money into IE since the refocus to optimising for tablets and phones. The second reason is that they're developing for their own OS, of course they'd known how to utilise it better.
>use a $500 laptop to play Civ 5
>shitty discrete GPU goes up to 80 C, same goes with the CPU
I thought it would run a 2010 game.
And I also thought the iGPU would manage it.
Simply put: Core M are notebook CPUs, Atom are tablet CPUs. Celeron is a lowend desktop CPU, afaik, with some mobile versions.
But, it depends which generations are you comparing, because 6th gen Core Ms are much better than previous ones. I think their integrated graphics have improved a lot.
Actually the cheapest one ($159) seems the only one which is worth the money.
Sure, you can get a tablet for that money, but it's gonna be a shitty chink-made tablet with a small screen.
>Core M are notebook CPUs
So I assume Core M compared to mobile i3/i5/i7s are basically much lower voltage and passively cooled rather than crammed ovens? Haven't been keeping up with Intel side of things outside of Desktop CPUs.
Still it's way to much. Is it the z3735 one?
It's clear they are making a lot of money of those sticks, when you can get a tablet for $100 with the same CPU. I have a $100 tablet and it's not bad actually, as I have said many times in this thread.
These sticks have at least one fan, I think. Well, the first generation had one fan, not sure about these.
According to the reviews I've read the fan only kicks in if you watch HD videos or do heavy multitasking. If you're just browsing the web, the fan normally shouldn't start.
Those are the 2015 models.
This year there won't be a cheaper Linux stick. Just 2 models without a preinstalled OS. But those are from the Core M models.
What could you be doing with 4 USB ports on a device that is meant to be plugged in the back of a display? It already has one USB 3 and one USB-C, if I'm not mistaken. Plus the SD card slot. And a 2x2 WiFi antenna, so it can handle simultaneous uploads and downloads. There's also Bluetooth 4 on it. Imo, seems enough for a TV stick, if you ask me.
What sucks is that because of Microsoft's restrictive policy on licensing, they couldn't ship the cheaper model with 4GB of RAM. Microsoft wouldn't allow these small devices to come with preinstalled Win10 at such a low price.
Nevermind, it doesn't have usb-c.
>Form Factor 113 millimeters by 38 millimeters by 12 millimeters (4.4488 inches by 1.4961 inches by 0.4724 inches)
>Processor • Soldered-down Intel® Atom™ processor
>― Integrated graphics
>― Integrated memory controller
>― Integrated PCH
>Memory • Soldered-down single-channel DDR3L-RS 1600 MHz memory • 2 GB total memory
>Graphics • Integrated graphics support with Intel® HD Graphics Technology:
>― High Definition Multimedia Interface* (HDMI*)
>Audio Intel® High Definition (Intel® HD) Audio via the HDMI interface
>Peripheral Interfaces • One full size USB 3.0 port
>• One full size USB 2.0 port
>Storage • 32 GB soldered-down Embedded MultiMediaCard (eMMC) onboard storage
>• One Micro SD card slot (SDXC v3.0 with UHS-I support)
>BIOS • Intel® BIOS resident in the Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) Flash device
>• Support for Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI), Plug and Play, and
>System Management BIOS (SMBIOS)
>Wireless LAN Soldered-down Intel® Dual Band Wireless-AC mo
The stick form factor is silly. It doesn't fit everywhere. It's the reason the it needs a fan. If you insist on it being behind your TV.. include a small piece of double sided tape.
2+ USB3 ports would make it the perfect home server for most people too. I swear they are doing something with every cheap device to make sure it can't be used as a server.
Sure you could use a hub but those are a bit pricey for an already pricey stick.
I mean if you was your only PC yeah it would suck but I've gotten by on pretty terrible specs and I've still been able to do most of what I do on my main machine except high-end gaming. for like 2 years the only PC I have was an old aspire one (atom n25 or something?) and then an x41t (L7400?). both weak as hell but with the right software you can still get a good experience, even play HD video and play old games. I ran windows 7 on both machines.
Browsing the web on your TV basically and watching youtube.
As well as doing some light productivity shit, like writing a a text document.
You could also watch movies on it, though I think they would suck for 4k, only HD.
Dunno, does a smartTV cost just 159 bucks more than a non-smart TV? You tell me.
Can you do whatever you can do on a desktop PC on a smartTV? Can you open an office doc or download some files from your server?
They probably are if i look hard enough for one
>Can you do whatever you can do on a desktop PC on a smartTV?
On Android ones you can basically do everything you said thee. No clue about the other ones.
Hell if you actually wanted your TV to become a PC just fucking hook up an HDMI 2.0 cable to it from your gpu and bam, you can do whatever the fuck you want and not be limited by some shitty compute stick.
Honestly who the fuck is going to sit in their living room and type documents out or play some program that needs a keyboard/mouse on a fucking TV.
May as well just plug in your desktop to it and use it like a monitor.
Well, let's say I want to watch a football match with my dad in the living room and I want to load a football stream on a PC.
Why the fuck would I use a massive HDMI cable to bring the signal from my PC, when I could just plug one of these sticks in the TV, turn it on, then use my smartphone as both a keyboard and a mouse, and launch the stream. This 2016 model includes a program which is launched when the stick boots up and which pairs your smartphone with the stick, if you have the intel app installed on your phone. Easy peasy, time to watch football. No huge-ass hdmi cable needed and no need to have an extra box next to the TV (a htpc) for such a humble task.
LITERALLY THE ENTIRE POINT OF A SMART TV
The vast majority of TVs over 50" are smart, especially if they are 4k. You'd have to go out of your way to find some old 1080p model that happens to not have smart just to make use of these compute sticks.
Give it another year or two and they'll probably stop making non-smart TVs all together.
Why would I go through the hassle of connecting a tablet to a TV using cables, then control the content via the tablet, etc etc? When I could just sit on the couch and use the phone to do all this, while the stick is plugged in the tv, I don't even have to see it. It's far enough that you won't hear any sound from the fan. And I'm watching football, so I'll blast the speakers up to hear the match.
Also, I have a desktop OS on the stick, can do anything you can do on a desktop on it. Heck you could run Photoshop on it, probably, if you really insist. Though the performance should be shit.
You can run a full-fledged Office on it too. You know, not the gimped mobile version, the real program.
It's not like you're going to start your usualy desktop routine on it and open 100 chrome tabs, a music program and 30 torrents in the background and then complain it's throttling.
It's good for running just one or a few tasks at most at a time. Which is what I would be doing if I'm watching a match or a movie on it. Or just writing a fast text document on it.
There's a plethora of arm devices you keep behind your TV. Why would you use a tablet?
Mobile office is good enough for normalfags actually. I sure hope no one is going to do serious office work on a stick and TV, much less PS. This is meant to be used in environments where there is better PCs in the same building you can use, unlike a tablet.
I have t-this.
CPU: Amlogic S812 Quad core ARM Cortex-A9r4, 2.0GHz
GPU: Octa-core ARM Mali-450
Memory: 2GB DDR3
It plays 4k with no problems, and it works great with youtube, chaturbate and other streaming sites and it only cost 47€.
The Core m5-6Y57 vPro will most likely be able to do gaming as well as an average or lowly laptop.
But paying 499 bucks to game on a PC stick plugged into a TV seems kinda retarded. At that price you get a capable NUC, I think.
Only the cheapest model is the best value per performance, imo. Even that seems a bit pricey compared to other alternatives. I'm sure there will be chink ripoffs for like half the price, but with shit cooling and worse performance, so at least you'll be able to get a cheaper one, if you really want one.
You can get similar things in x86 with Atoms.
I have a pipo x7s, it has an atom Z3736F, 2gb RAM and 32gb eMMC, dual boots win10 and android. I use it for XBMC, browsing and also emulation. It's nice because it's a completely separate computer that uses about 2 watts idle and there's no reason to ever turn it off, I offload tasks to it from my desktop.
Except that the pipo is like 10 times bigger than these sticks, basically the size of a router. It does have extra USB ports and ethernet, but that makes it a less portable device, imo.
(Well, actually, if you take into account that these Intel sticks come with a small brick as an external power source, they're not that portable, come to think of it.)
Everything else seems the same, spec for spec, except maybe the intel sticks have newer CPUs and cost $ 50 more.
because it lets you have an HTPC that's small and cheap (though without the mass storage, but then you could stream from your main). having an actual computer hooked up to your TV is miles better than using smart TV shit or a console/player box.
I haven't played an epic on this machine yet because I was more interested to see if it would actually work. So far I am on turn ~200 and it only takes about ten to twenty seconds. Getting the game loaded is what takes the longest but after that it is smooth sailing.