![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Anyone have an Atom-based desktop?
- Thread starter palmboy5
- Start date
True, it doesn't need speedstep.. especially since the CPU isn't the power hog of the system (STUPID old chipset). I'm just disappointed to see a full 40W idle usage with a CD-RW, 80GB HDD, and 4GB flash drive plugged in. I want to lower that usage.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
I would say 12W of that is the 80GB hard drive. Are you using a 200W or lower ps? Using a higher wattage PS unless it is 80+ will add 10W or more of wasted power because of PS inefficiency at low loads.
Unplugging the 80GB and running Ubuntu Live CD lowers the wattage to 34, so the HDD uses half of your estimate.
Its currently running off a 420W. My final build (its a work in progress NAS) will use a 300W since I'm trying to just use parts I already have... I have a 230W Powmax PSU but I don't trust that brand with my primary storage HDDs.
Have you guys successfully installed linux to a flash drive on the D945GCLF2? I keep getting errors such as
after rebooting from the installation. This probably has less of a relation to Intel or the Atom CPU though.
Its currently running off a 420W. My final build (its a work in progress NAS) will use a 300W since I'm trying to just use parts I already have... I have a 230W Powmax PSU but I don't trust that brand with my primary storage HDDs.
Have you guys successfully installed linux to a flash drive on the D945GCLF2? I keep getting errors such as
Code:
[ 16.402549] Kernel panic - not syncing: No init found. Try passing init= option to kernel.drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
Is this a 3.5 inch desktop drive or a 2.5 inch laptop drive?
I would try the 230W one and see if it makes a difference.
I use linux 50/50 with windows (home and work) but I have not experienced this problem in a very long time. I will try to think about it.
The atom in your wind is not the same as the one in the desktops. Off the top of my head from when I looked at them the other month the one in your wind has half the cache and half the TDP of the desktop version. I am not sure how else they differ if at all.
I also recall an atom platform that came with software for overclocking the FSB. So along with the possibility of speed step you also may be able to lower or increase the FSB with software.
Western Digital 3.5" 80GB 7200RPM 8MB cache
Actually, I remembered I had a 145W from a really old Gateway (2000) that powered a Pentium Pro. Trying that got me 31W or so with nothing but a 2GB stick of RAM and a 16GB flash drive booted into Ubuntu. No optical or HDD. Not that great of a drop from 34W considering the optical drive was removed as well.
EDIT:
Tried the
300W and got 38W...
350W and got 39W...
230W and got 45W...
LOL Nothing makes sense in this world! These are all idle usages at the desktop in Ubuntu.
Well I got it to install on a 16GB flash drive, I'm going to guess that the 4GB flash drive is flawed in some way.
The Atoms in netbooks have the same specs as the Atoms in nettops. The perceived half TDP and cache are due to comparing a netbook's single core Atom with the Atom 330 dual core available for the nettop only.
The possibility of modifying the FSB sounds real nice
. I find it strange that while the Atom 330 has no SpeedStep, it has a Vcore range of 0.9-1.162V...http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLG9Y
Why is there a voltage range if it doesn't change clock speed?
Jakalwarrior
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,189
just a note, wind can software oc. bios goes to 1.96. setfsb can take it from there.
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
You have to factor in PSU efficiency. FAQ on that:
http://www.jonnyguru.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3989
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
Good article on PS efficiency. Short enough and not too difficult to understand.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
Does the bios have any way to set the VID? Perhaps setting it lower will reduce the power draw a little. Remember that this cpu does not use much power so do not expect more than 2W as the CPU supposedly consumes 8W under load.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Atom
After looking at this. It really looks like other than replacing the PS (with an 80plus unit) there is really little you can do.
Something like:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151055
Although I can only speculate, I would say this would draw less power than the 145W PS you have. How much lower, I don't know. I am basing this off the fact that that 145W supply was probably 60% efficient under 80 percent load and probably lower at low loads. But then the replacement is a 300W unit and even though it is guaranteed to be at least 80% efficient at all loads its probably only 80% at this load.
The BIOS has nothing, I was surprised it even let me set memory timings.. and even then, only the primary four. This page is pretty complete in showing the BIOS:
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/D945GCLF2_atom_330/4.html
I know I should just get a suitable PSU, but I'd like to spend as little as possible on this NAS build since it honestly is more for-fun than a needed system and I do have quite a few spare parts of all varieties.
I'd like to know what the hell Intel was thinking by including the ATX12V plug. There is no way the 8W max Atom 330 needs two 12V wires feeding it power. Needing that plug proved bothersome when I was testing with the older PSUs that didn't have it.
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/D945GCLF2_atom_330/4.html
I know I should just get a suitable PSU, but I'd like to spend as little as possible on this NAS build since it honestly is more for-fun than a needed system and I do have quite a few spare parts of all varieties.
I'd like to know what the hell Intel was thinking by including the ATX12V plug. There is no way the 8W max Atom 330 needs two 12V wires feeding it power. Needing that plug proved bothersome when I was testing with the older PSUs that didn't have it.
Speedstep isn't the only power saving feature.The possibility of modifying the FSB sounds real nice
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLG9Y
Why is there a voltage range if it doesn't change clock speed?
Even without multiplier changes, the CPU can still run in different power modes, full speed (C0) and auto-halt (C1). Sleep and deep sleep are available for control through the chipset (Table 14). http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/319977.pdf see section 2.-----
The power consumption you see on your Atom is the reason why I haven't moved to one yet. The 945GC based boards are pretty inefficient. My BE-2400/NF7025 with 4GB, a hard drive (7200.10 SATA) and burner idles/runs a light load at ~36W from the wall with the hard drive spinning. The PSU in it is an Enhance 200W model. My retro system uses even less power.
I'm waiting for a system on a chip Atoms coming next year.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
Agreed. Have you tried booting with nothing connected to this plug?
I got one of the Intel Atom 330 boards off of newegg. It's great I'm using it for low-end performance testing for Paint.NET.
Interestingly enough, with 4 logical threads (2 cores + HyperThreading), it manages to run the Paint.NET benchmark (PdnBench) about as fast as a Pentium 4 3.0GHz "E" Prescott (1 core + HyperThreading). And that sucker was melting motherboards back when it first came out!
I'm using it for low-end performance testing for Paint.NET.Interestingly enough, with 4 logical threads (2 cores + HyperThreading), it manages to run the Paint.NET benchmark (PdnBench) about as fast as a Pentium 4 3.0GHz "E" Prescott (1 core + HyperThreading). And that sucker was melting motherboards back when it first came out!
I bought the board knowing that. I'm not going to wait around for half a year or more so I chose to go for this thing.. EVEN after I read that the 945GC has a TDP of 22.2W which doesn't match the CPU at all. It's still a neat device.
Yes I've tried, it will not POST. Watt consumption in this state indicate that the CPU isn't even being powered. Once I have access to a soldering iron and related items, I'm going to just solder wires to the bottom of the board, connecting the ATX12V pins to GND and 12V pins at the ATX connector.
Yes it pretty much matches my P4 HT 3GHz Prescott performance, although a little slower.. Considering the Atom 330 is a dual core and the 200MHz (1.6GHz * 2) advantage would make up for the slight multithreaded performance loss, that would put it at about the same performance per clock as the Pentium 4s. Not too surprising since it had be compatible with the Pentium 4 chipset it uses.