Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs Atom Z3580?

[sm625]

Keep in mind Baytrail is cheap; under $10 for the low end chip (Z3735F/D)
Core M... not so much - $250-300+ per chip

That's the problem in a nutshell. Core M costs 10 times as much even though the die sizes are nowhere near 10 times apart. Intel just doesnt want to compete with itself, so they release grossly castrated hardware. They could easily double atom IPC if they wanted to.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Revised. I ran the test a few more times and came up with this avg. result.

Intel Z3735D

Cinebench R10

Single core - 959
Muti-core - 2939
OpenGL - 1767

That's quite a big jump in performance for only 30MHz and another memory channel. The Z3740 is 15.4% faster than the Z3735D in Cinebench. The Z3770 scores 4000 points flat in CB10, so I guess that means a Q6600 would be right a bit over 2x faster at 9700 points.

But also consider a TDP of 4W vs 95W and the fact the Atom is an SoC and therefore includes a Northbridge, Integrated Memory Controller, Southbridge, audio, amongst other things Conroe/Kentsfield did not. Also consider the tray price of around $280 vs. $12-60.

 

[SPBHM]

4K would place you on the same level as a high end desktop CPU from 2005

in any case, the 64bit version should give you a gain for CB, but not really for many other programs.

 

[Face2Face]

That's quite a big jump in performance for only 30MHz and another memory channel. The Z3740 is 15.4% faster than the Z3735D in Cinebench. The Z3770 scores 4000 points flat in CB10, so I guess that means a Q6600 would be right a bit over 2x faster at 9700 points.

But also consider a TDP of 4W vs 95W and the fact the Atom is an SoC and therefore includes a Northbridge, Integrated Memory Controller, Southbridge, audio, amongst other things Conroe/Kentsfield did not. Also consider the tray price of around $280 vs. $12-60.

Great points! Not too bad considering it's only 4W.

Thanks for running this. What device are getting these numbers with? My results was with an Onda V975W Chinesse tablet. I also have a Zotac PI320 with the same SOC, so I may try it out on that as well. Comes to think of it, I have the same SOC also on an HP Pro Slate tablet running Android 4.4. If anyone wants to see anything, just let me know.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Great points! Not too bad considering it's only 4W.

Thanks for running this. What device are getting these numbers with? My results was with an Onda V975W Chinesse tablet. I also have a Zotac PI320 with the same SOC, so I may try it out on that as well. Comes to think of it, I have the same SOC also on an HP Pro Slate tablet running Android 4.4. If anyone wants to see anything, just let me know.

I have a Lenovo Miix 2 8". Got it used/like new for $100 to try out Modern UI and because I didn't have a tablet, and it's been great. Modern UI works awesome in tablets and the CPU/RAM combo gives pretty good performance. It boots up in around 6-7 seconds and can handle a dozen tabs in Chrome along with OneNote/Word/PowerPoint and streaming music at the same time and the CPU only gets to around 7-10% usage. Windows 8 is surprisingly good with memory management, I must say. Running about the same type of apps as in my ZenFone 2 (2GB RAM/16GB storage) Windows uses maybe 100-200MB more RAM yet it's a full-fledged OS.

 

[dark zero]

Only one thing... No Atoms will reach the lowest Quad Core performance for at least 10 years due their architecture

 

[Arachnotronic]

Only one thing... No Atoms will reach the lowest Quad Core performance for at least 10 years due their architecture

I disagree; it'll be far sooner than that.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I disagree; it'll be far sooner than that.

I concur. They will have to reach Core 2 Quad levels of performance in a few years due to competition from ARM in the smartphone and tablet market.


I think Intel's still leaving a decent amount of performance on the table with Atom to avoid it getting too close to Core M... that's the only thing holding it back.

 

[tynopik]

want to see a winrar bench as it's also highly memory dependent

 

[teejee]

Only one thing... No Atoms will reach the lowest Quad Core performance for at least 10 years due their architecture

Intel will of course update the atom architecture.

 

[jhu]

Hyper thread is relevant

Heh

Anyways I still consider it useful simply as comparison, e.g. If we know how much faster those newer architectures are...

Edit; OK big difference, no comparison, we need that dude to rebench

Fine. Just for you guys, I'll pull a VirtualLarry and get a cheapo Atom laptop.

 

[ninaholic37]

That's the problem in a nutshell. Core M costs 10 times as much even though the die sizes are nowhere near 10 times apart. Intel just doesnt want to compete with itself, so they release grossly castrated hardware. They could easily double atom IPC if they wanted to.

Do you think this trend of castrating CPUs will never end? Will the next iteration of Core M bring only minor improvements, so Atom will have to follow suit? This is a really depressing for any enthusiast who visits tech forums. For a we know though, maybe most of the low hanging fruit with Atom has already been picked, and they are reaching walls everywhere, where Core M won't be able to scale down and Atom won't be able to scale up, and they'll have to invent a completely new technology to get Core 2 Quad performance into phones. Remember the "we will reach 10GHz in 2005" claim? Maybe "good enough" phones (which are not actually good enough) will be just as common as with desktops and laptops very shortly and all companies will start moving at a snails pace.

 

[dark zero]

Intel will of course update the atom architecture.

They must. Braswell mades me think about their stepping back.

And if Intel is launching those dissasters, it will kill the whole Notebook industry.