The pfSense Store

Author Topic: SB Celeron vs Atom  (Read 5432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smackover

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
SB Celeron vs Atom
« on: January 24, 2012, 02:22:33 pm »
I'm seeing a lot of people building SB based systems. Why choose that rather than an Atom system? Personally, I'm looking at this, for it's low power consumption. Am I missing something? Should I also be looking at SB?

Offline nexusN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2012, 02:34:39 pm »
I'm seeing a lot of people building SB based systems. Why choose that rather than an Atom system? Personally, I'm looking at this, for it's low power consumption. Am I missing something? Should I also be looking at SB?
Personally my SNB Celeron router is built on a basis of sufficing the performance need;
A 1Gbps internet service is provided and such a router is needed that the bandwidth can be projected onto the lan.

And price-wise, Intel MB + SNB Celeron is almost the same as that Atom combination costs...the only difference is the power consumption.
While for the 10 W more consumption you get like 3 times the processing power from G530 over D2700.

In short, it depends if you need performance, or a green router that you find it enough for your purpose.

Offline stephenw10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2012, 06:44:57 pm »
That particular board uses the Realtek 8111EVL chipset and I don't think that is supported by FreeBSD yet.
What are you bandwidth requirements?

Steve

Offline Smackover

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2012, 09:11:33 am »
That particular board uses the Realtek 8111EVL chipset and I don't think that is supported by FreeBSD yet.
What are you bandwidth requirements?

Steve

My setup right now is 50Mb cable coming in to a home. I've got 2 desktops, 2 laptops, a NAS, Xbox, and Blu-ray player that all need internet access (laptops via wireless, but everything else is wired). The house is wired with GigE, I've got a couple of GigE switches, and I would probably upgrade to 1Gbps if it comes to my area.

Anyone know off hand how much it would actually cost to run a Celeron vs an Atom? Guess I'll have to crunch some numbers  :)

Offline stephenw10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2012, 10:57:31 am »
An Atom router will not handle 1Gbps.
The current D525 Atom will max out around 550Mbps, the newer Cedar trail something higher than that. Perhaps the D2700 at 2.13GHz might get 1GBps throughput but I wouldn't bet on it and you won't have any spare cpu cycles to play with for other things.

Some great real world numbers for a G530 were just posted today, here.

A system like that will probably average, say, 35W so very approximately 300kWh per year.

Steve

Offline dreamslacker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2012, 02:43:10 pm »
The current D525 Atom will max out around 550Mbps, the newer Cedar trail something higher than that. Perhaps the D2700 at 2.13GHz might get 1GBps throughput but I wouldn't bet on it and you won't have any spare cpu cycles to play with for other things.

The Cedartrail is basically a D525 with lower power consumption and higher speed.  The scaling should be linear so it should max out around 640Mbps if your figure for the D525 is right.
Except for passive cooling capabilities, I find it hard to justify getting an Atom these days.  Even a Zacate is much better especially if you use VPN.  The Athlons tend to have very good encryption performance.

Offline jms703

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2012, 11:25:55 am »
I'm seeing a lot of people building SB based systems. Why choose that rather than an Atom system?

1. Atom boards aren't *that* cheap.
2. Sandy Bridge CPUs, are *very* efficient.
3. You can *do more* with your SB system (openvpn, snort, squid, etc)

For instance:

Supermicro X7SPA-HF-D525  $240

-vs-

Intel G620    $73
Intel S1200KP  $163
Total: $236

I don't know how to justify an Atom board. The Intel G620/S1200KP runs at 34 Watts. I know because I built one.

Side note: When I talk about Atom vs Sandy Bridge, I limit my product selection to DUAL INTEL GIGABIT NICS ON-BOARD. I don't waste time with other nics, or adding PCI-E cards, because I want to keep the device in a small case.

Offline atamido

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2012, 01:07:23 pm »
Side note: When I talk about Atom vs Sandy Bridge, I limit my product selection to DUAL INTEL GIGABIT NICS ON-BOARD. I don't waste time with other nics, or adding PCI-E cards, because I want to keep the device in a small case.

It depends on your needs.  I have a much slower internet connection, so my needs are less.  But I can pick up a whole Atom netbook for <$200 that has a battery, screen, and keyboard all integrated together in a small package.  For me that's much cheaper, and consumes less power and space while having better functionality.

Offline jms703

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2012, 01:47:44 pm »
[quote author=atamido link=topic=45452.msg237855#msg237855 date=1327604843
It depends on your needs.  I have a much slower internet connection, so my needs are less.  But I can pick up a whole Atom netbook for <$200 that has a battery, screen, and keyboard all integrated together in a small package.  For me that's much cheaper, and consumes less power and space while having better functionality.
[/quote]

Totally agree. Curious, with an Atom Netbook, do you use usb nics?

Offline taryezveb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2012, 10:30:58 am »
Perhaps he is using VLANs. Is what I did when I used an old Thinkpad[T23].

Offline MMacD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2012, 04:08:37 pm »
Side note: When I talk about Atom vs Sandy Bridge, I limit my product selection to DUAL INTEL GIGABIT NICS ON-BOARD. I don't waste time with other nics, or adding PCI-E cards, because I want to keep the device in a small case.

It depends on your needs.  I have a much slower internet connection, so my needs are less.  But I can pick up a whole Atom netbook for <$200 that has a battery, screen, and keyboard all integrated together in a small package.  For me that's much cheaper, and consumes less power and space while having better functionality.

What do you do about a second Ethernet port?  I'd assign my old Latitude C600 (P3) laptop to the firewall role except that it only has one E'net port.

Offline wallabybob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5262
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2012, 04:30:27 pm »
What do you do about a second Ethernet port?
USB ethernet adapters and PCMCIA adapters are possibilities.

Offline taryezveb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2012, 04:48:44 pm »
Or use a smart switch like the Netgear GS108T-200. This should help on using/setting up VLANs:
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,28379.0.html

Offline bman212121

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2012, 09:05:35 pm »
This has always been the great debate for whether or not atom even needs to exist. The power savings difference has always been there, but the performance hasn't. Atom would no doubt be a killer cpu if it performed better, but it's kind of hard to want one if you're going to be giving up performance. If you had a P4 system it costs more to run it, but since atom isn't outperforming it by much you're not really gaining anything by upgrading it. The best way to describe it is that atom has great performance per watt, but poor performance per dollar. The SB celeron has both which is what makes it more attractive than atom.

Like NexusN said, a lot of single users will probably choose to pay a bit more for sandy bridge even if atom could do what they needed. We're all enthusists here because otherwise we would just be using a soho router that costs less and uses less power than even atom (least power and least performance). So given the choice between SNB (performance) or atom (price) it's not hard to see what people pick. If you were setting these up for a business price comes before performance so atom would likely win. If both processors were able to accomplish the job, atom is still going to do it for less. Let's say it costs $15 per year less to run atom. If I were building 100 of these setups that would mean each year it's operational we're saving $1,500. So you could lower your TCO by $4,500 over a 3 year period.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 09:22:36 pm by bman212121 »

Offline jms703

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SB Celeron vs Atom
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2012, 01:59:46 am »
Regarding cost, a quality Atom motherboard with dual Intel NICs will cost a bit more than the *cheap* Atom boards that everyone talks about and the price starts to even out with a SB/1155 solution.

Regarding performance, Atom vs Sandy Bridge could be summarized this way:

* If you want to do firewalling only, Atom is fine.
* If you want to do anything more than firewalling, you will need SB or better.