An Atom CPU is faster than my Phenom II x6! (they use a weird x in the command, replace the "×" with an "x" if you want to run the benchmark) 

I've actually tested with the same benchmark and I got 103 seconds on my 1045t and the Atom C2750 got 86 seconds, so I did a little bit of math. I multiplied the time in the c-ray benchmark by the number of cores and multiplied by the number of clock cycled in Ghz to get a good idea for the c-ray performance per thread clock cycle. (not too scientific, but it gives a general idea)

So, I got 86×8×2.4=1651.2 for the Atom C2750 and 103×6×2.7=1668.6 for my Phenom II x6 1045t. I can't believe this dinky Atom beat my Phenom II x6 per clock cycle! (even if it's slightly, It's still an accomplishment at 20 watts vs. 95 watts) This isn't your grand-dad's shitty Atom N270 from his old Windows XP MSI Wind, the C2750 is a Server-class CPU that's 64-bit, supports visualization, ECC Memory and out-of-order execution.


I'm thinking of building a Workstation out of this! Well, nothing that needs real speed or expandability, this is more of an emphasis on saving energy and staying rock solid. But, yeah this is pretty rad!

Not that surprising since its a $400-500 8 core cpu but 20w is impressive for 8 cores.

um... what? did intel forget what the atom cpu stands for

an intel atom cpu is meant to set the bar for horrible-ness in every area it compeats, what are they thinking?

Actually, it's a $171 CPU. (but you need it soldered to a board)

$170? humm that sound tempting.

I'm guessing it would be between $250-$350 for a board with CPU. But, hey if I used it, I would use less than a quarter of the electricity as I do now and in the North-East, it would pay for itself within 4 years if you're used to maxing out your CPU 24/7. (faster if you live in Hawaii)

That's AMD's job now

No it's not, the Atom isn't fast by any stretch of the imagination, it's made for mobile devices and scaled server applications, where it will perform quite good in a perfectly scaling linux environment, but it will never be a fast all-round processor, because it doesn't have a full instruction set. It's a very simple processor, a wonderful product (I'm a big Atom fan, they are perfectly scalable and make a lot of sense in particular server applications and on devices), but it's not a fast processor for general computing. You can benchmark towards any result, benchmarks, except open source benchmarks, mean nothing. Everyone knows that the commercial benchmarks are made for certain manufacturers.

Also, there is still a lot of issues with the new Atoms, like very small memory bandwidth and even congestion, no hardware passthrough support for virtualization, which is quite a big problem, and still a relatively high power consumption, as afaik none of the new Atom chips, when deployed on a motherboard without further peripherals, uses less than 32 Watts of power, which is still pretty high. The litho at 22 nm is still way too large for a product like this, it's a good product already, but the technology still has to evolve for it to become legendary.

It's also still overpriced, although that will change soon with wider availability, and there aren't a lot of server-grade boards for it yet, besides the SuperMicro boards I haven't seen any yet.

But I'm interested in a huge way in the Atom range, and I'm following up on it very closely.

I trust Open Source Benchmarks more than Futuremark because I know they're not bias in any way. Hell, Asus even uses Open Source Benchmarks in RealBench. I would like to see a Blender and Kdenlive Test to get a better idea and even if it does half as well as an entry level 2008 8-core mac pro running Linux in said tests, it's still good because of the power consumption I've been thinking of getting an old dual Xeon Workstation for added stability, but it uses less power.

Speed is my lowest priority, (but still important to a degree) I'm more concerned about energy usage, multitasking and the added stability from ECC Memory.