Pentium J5005 (Atom) outperforms the legendary Core 2 Quad Q6600 with 10% the TDP

how did it take them that long to make a tiny 10% improvement

Everyone that bought a Q6600 did so because it could be overclocked to 3.6ghz. It is the same as the higher clocked ones, Intel wanted to capture the lower end premium market. This atom is still fucking slower with a mildly overclocked q6600, pretty pathetic after 10 years

It said 10% OF the TDP, not a 10% improvement

J5005 10W
Q6600 105W

If you're still using Q6600, you're a moron and should kill yourself

10 watts cpu outperforms a 105 watt cpu

>atom based
>but still 10W TDP
Garbage. Intel should sell Core M shit instead

so what even is pentium anymore? its like part atom part i3 or something?

> Processor that uses 14nm++ beats processor that uses 45nm

The cost of upgrading alone cost more than the power consumption

Jow Forums isn't any better, moron.

Intel doesn't know anymore, they just sell what they can.
>We got this dual core with hyperthreading....but no one wants to buy it and our shareholders will have our balls if we drop prices....
>INTRODUCING OUR NEW PENTIUM DUALCORE WITH HYPERTHREADING!!!!

Sad desu

Fellow ex Intel fag here God they have dun goofed hard lately

im very happy with my 1700. at the time inetls offerings were shit, even now compared to a 8700k its a better choice for me. i just wish we had an igpu, maybe one day...

Anything past Broadwell-E is rubbish. If it wasn't for the cum inside, Skylake (non -E) would have been decent for a multimedia PC.

quite amazing since no active cooling needed, would buy

Okay but the real question is have they fixed spectre/meltdown in hardware yet?

Attached: 1526398030860.png (479x506, 412K)

>1700
mah nigga, I will upgrade to 4xxx series, its 7nm refresh, might become 12 core Ryzen 7 4700X.

>at $161.00
So? That shit cost me $200 when I bought an OEM one back in 2008.

>would buy
Not at that price, $115 for a CPU on the level of a shitty C2Q, I mean wtf man.
I mean for the same price I can get an used i7-2860QM on ebay that rapes it 8 ways.
Even a 2620M is better. I get the 10W deal but still, not worth it.

Isn't 10W actually bad for an Atom processor? Shouldn't it be like 6?

Its 10%TDP but it has also an iGPU, meaning its even lower. Q6600 was 105W and chipset (intel gma x3100 inside chipset was 20W+)

You rang?

Attached: Lurch.jpg (690x719, 30K)

It's probably a "desktop" atom for small systems like NUCs and such. The mobile ones usually start with and "n" in their SKU.

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-Silver-J5005-vs-Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600/m487063vs1980

J5005 absolutely smokes Q6600, it's not even close

But its weird because how fucking neutered the Atom archs like goldmont are compared to a Core arch

The Q6600 was 65nm.

make me faggot, i'll use q6600 till i fuckin die

This, my Q6600 hit 3.2Ghz even with a mild undervolt.

If I had a Q6600, it would've taken me 2 years to save enough on electricity to warrant upgrading even if I ran my PC at full load 24/7.

Intel gives a common TDP for the entire line-up. All desktop Atom derivatives are 10W, all mobile/MFF ones are 6W, but that doesn't really give you real power consumption - lower "10W" CPUs will likely dissipate less than higher-end "6W" ones.

That's why they're called Jewtel

Attached: 10Ghzby2011.png (1080x1920, 157K)

and cheap little ARM chips out perform the J5005 at half the TDP lol

They don't. Go to any raspberry pi thread to find fags complaining that every ARM SBC runs like shit if you try using it as a PC.

NO

Qualshit's chips do not even come close to J5005 in performance and APPLEL's shit doesn't exist unless you pay for overpriced APPLEL shitty devices

Feel free to look up the benchmarks if you think you're right

Are you trying to get (you)s from pajeets and other anons with buyers remorse who get triggered even by some low end cpu as long as it has the intel logo in it?
Why do you take pleasure tormenting children with autism and third worlders, OP?

>It's not AMD therefore it's bad!
AMD

So it took them 10 years of making enough security holes in CPU to outperform core 2 quad, nice

Attached: 1496954629640.jpg (1280x720, 103K)

845 is very close to J5005 in single thread and faster in multi-thread.
Highest scoring J5005 on Geekbench: browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8071021
Snapdragon 845: anandtech.com/show/12420/snapdragon-845-performance-preview/2

And that's with a typical power of 4.5W

How long an atom like that would last in let's say a 9 cell battery used on the average chinkpad?
If it's more than 20 hours Intel already got a winner there no matter how many anons sperg about muh jews.

>And that's with a typical power of 4.5W
The actual power consumption of J5005 is likely close to that figure too, low-end desktop CPUs typically have a shit ton of TDP headroom. (Hell, I have a board with a "6W" N3050 that has a small fan, but no combination of CPU stressing utilities could get it to spin).
Total platform power is likely gonna be fairly heavily in favor of 845, though, due to the lack of shit like DP, SATA and legacy ports.

Considering that a X230 can run for 8 hours on a 9-cell battery with an ancient 35W CPU, it should be entirely possible. But you won't find any Atom laptops with 9-cell batteries because a) muh thickness and b) once a laptop can comfortably last through an entire work day, adding even more runtime won't get you appreciably more sales.

Enjoy your pozzed cpoo :-)

notebookcheck.net/Acer-Swift-1-SF114-32-N5000-SSD-FHD-Laptop-Review.303606.0.html

>The Swift 1 achieves a runtime of 12:20 hours, which is an excellent value. With this, it lasts a whole 80 minutes longer than its predecessor (11:01 h), while having almost the same battery capacity.

THANK YOU BASED INTEL

>geekbench

feel free to post other benchmarks that compare these two different chips. I couldn't find many

Well, Snapdragons usually run Android and Atoms run Windows, so there's pretty much zero software overlap. Sure, you can do comparisons in Linux, but who is really interested in GIMP benchmarks?

The fact that you're able to disagree like that without being silenced right away is the proof that you're wrong.

Attached: oh my.jpg (260x366, 22K)

someone could always make a custom board that can be used in a thinkpad

>4 physical cores
it's only been 2 years and my i3-6100 has already been obsoleted by fucking pentiums
:-/

>14 inch
i knew there was a catch

my E8500 doesn't have this problem

Congratulations you're our 1 millionth goyim poster. To commemorate this special occasion we've deposited 3 shekels in your good goyim account instead of the normal 2.

Attached: 1526282288770.png (430x430, 312K)

>ironically linking to reddit
Fuck off

TDP reduction would be exciting as fuck if it translated directly in to battery time. Instead they just reduce the weight because the soiyim are getting weaker these days. Every time we get a power reduction or increase in battery energy density, all we get for our troubles is more fragile, cheaper to produce, harder to service hardware.

Attached: 1526071902049.jpg (640x632, 59K)

Go back to /Reddit/ and fucking stay there you fag

when will laptop manufacturers actually configure ryzen properly

t. Links rebbit unironicly

fuck off, retard

My laptop with a Core M lasts like two days on a charge and ten years ago there was not a single laptop on the market that could do that. Even the original Macbook Air had shit battery life. What the fuck planet do you live on?

>configure ryzen properly
When AMD stop asking people to wait for it and just make something good for once.

how's 2012 lol idiot

When AMD fixes the fact that Ryzen needs more robust motherboards that eat up energy.

how do more robust motherboards use up more energy, ryzen is a complete soc just like intel's.

>my 1GHz movie player goes 2 days without a charge
Nice I could only squeeze 24 hours out of mine in 2006 by throttling it that hard.

Attached: 1525921266090.jpg (545x686, 248K)

Nothing to see here.

Attached: chrome_2018-05-27_18-24-52.png (728x435, 26K)

>surprised risc isn't as capable as cisc
Shocker

Active power regulation, filtering, etc. Same reason why ARM motherboards are almost always simpler and use less power than Intel's, even their Atoms.

>Pentium J5005 costs just under $2 a year in electricity
>costs $200
>C2Q costs just under $20 a year in electricity

It will take you literally a decade to save the purchase price of the new CPU in reduced power costs. That's before you pay for the new mobo, RAM, and whatever.

I don't think the ryzen was intended for umpc like the atom is.

That's not even taking AMD's superior graphics performance into account.

this. the atom thing is a festering botnet

>rpi
oh wow no way really i thought they were the fastest top of the line high performance arm chips ever

This entire thread is about low power processors. It must be nice believing that the entire planet should acquiesce to your particular value judgements that just so happen to have nothing to back them up other than your autism.

That's a doubling of power efficiency only every 3.1 years. Not impressive.

The J5005 is a mobile processor. You have to look at it in terms of battery life, not energy cost. Although, there are places where electricity is more significantly more expensive and the energy savings are more relevant. Parts of Europe and Asia have energy prices as high as 40 cents per kWh.

it also outperforms motorola 68000 which was 0.13W CPU in CMOS, so what is your point?

Seriously why is this news? Laptop ryzens blow this shit out of the water

Are reddit's intel shills really this bad?

The comparison is more complex than that, really. The J5005 can do things the Q6600 can't. Imagine trying to decode H264 on the Q6600, for example.

Corefags unite

>AMD doesn't have a price in the comparison
>Consumes more energ
The only thing it has going for itself is the integrated graphics and even so we don't even have a price there to compare with the low end atom.

What the fuck man, you guys talk about shills but why not just put all the data in? Do you think that ryzen would lose to a fucking atom? aka the almost cellphone tier low end chromebook cpu?

It's not, higher transistor count isn't really important here.

It's only in laptops there is no price shill

>Consumes more energ
It has integrated graphics that actually do something, so it shouldn't be that surprising that the TDP is higher. Under a purely CPU load, I'd guess that they have fairly similar consumption.

>but why not just put all the data in
Because the price of the 2200U is not publicly available, genius

Not about the transistor count, it's about the things that the J5005 can do. If you were to sacrifice the die space for hardware decode on the J5005, it would score higher. The hardware stuff on the J5005 isn't reflected in that synthetic score, so you can't actually make a very accurate comparison of power efficiency that way. You'd have to measure the power consumption of each processor in given tasks to really find out the difference. The 10W measure of the J5005 is only relevant in modern tasks and the Q6600's power efficiency isn't being tested that way.

>2200U
>15W
Not even on idle

Attached: untitled-2.png (714x335, 12K)

disregard that I suck cocks

The j5005 is a BGA cpu, the cost includes a motherboard, and whatever else, assuming it's a nuc. You can get it for $120 for just the cpu/mobo. It also only supports single channel memory. I wasn't even talking about the power savings so I have no idea why you brought that up. I think you completely missed the point that I compared them agains a ryzen dual core apu that completely trounces both of them. Though from the power standpoint there is the argument of reduced cooling costs.

Ryzen is designed to scale to any configuration, but they do not actually have any specific skus for it, no. The mobile apus have spec leeway for configurable TDP's based on the manufacturer's intended market and cooling solution. According to AMD it's configurable to 12w, but it could go lower if you wanted. The one issue you might run into in a UMPC setup is the die size. Pic related is an 1800x configured to different TDPs with the subsequent CBR15 scores charted vs a q6600 stock.

Because atom cores are shit, basically.

Aspire 3 Laptop - A315-41-R0GH Is a $400 low end laptop with a 2200u, the pentium's price is either a nuc, or some other mini pc without any peripherals.
>consumes more energy
The gpu in the 2200u is almost as large as that entire pentium, and it's 50% more power at 100% load while being able to produce 28% higher single thread performance, and nearly 70% more performance in the overall score. This isn't even accounting for the much better gpu.

Forgot pick because retard.

Attached: 1800xcTDPvq6600 CBR15.png (1290x535, 229K)

You'd be making a terrible mistake buying into a new mobo standard and using that CPU, where it could just be achieved with a used LGA775 and Q6600. Way cheaper

please reflect on your mistake

My eyes read that as 2021.
Then I saw 2011.
My god they are delusional.