3770k Ivy Bridge benchmarked, power usage.

[DanceswithUnix]

I'm not sure what metric they use for 'absolutely lousy' and 'dog slow', I've been using that CPU on my everyday rig for months and it's plenty fast enough for any normal tasks, heck I often have 3 VMs running at the same time doing their own thing and it copes fine, leaving the system responsive. Not to mention they're comparing a £56 CPU against a £255 one, nearly 5 times the price, I don't see any benchmarks where it has 5x the performance...

To be fair, they do go on to point out that the Intel platform failed to even run some of their gaming benchmarks and of those that did run only one (Portal 2) was playable frame rates.

But those power figures reinforce my view that Atom is pretty pointless.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It seems IB runs hot when overclocked and overclocks less according to the overclocking article in this thread:

http://forums.hexus.net/cpus/233625-...k-preview.html

The IB Core i5 is running as hot as the SB Core i7 when overclocked and the SB Core i7 was overclocked 600MHZ higher!!

[watercooled]

I think Atom would look more reasonable if the rest of the platform was carefully designed to draw far less power, the chip itself is quite frugal. But even so, with even high-end modern chips having very low idle consumption it's not that impressive any more, it was more so in the 775 era where the chipset alone would draw more power than an Atom. But then Intel royally chuffed it up by releasing it on the desktop with one of those chipsets...

I was hoping Atom would appear in more embedded systems like those ALIX boards commonly used (myself included) for routers/firewalls, allowing more demanding systems than the Geode can cope with; pfSense 2.0 will run but barely, so realistically you're limited to m0n0wall or doing something from scratch. But TBH I'm more interested in Brazos now.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/01/03/i...bullet-points/