View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:20 pm



Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
 fitlet2 performance 
Author Message

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:20 pm
Posts: 18
Post fitlet2 performance
How does the fitlet2 performance compare to the fitlet1? Have you run geekbench on any of them so I can compare to the numbers on this chart: http://www.fit-pc.com/web/products/prod ... on-charts/

Thanks
Kent


Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:09 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 2330
Post Re: fitlet2 performance
fitlet2 (E3950/J3455) is significantly faster than fitlet1.

Geekbench3 scores:
fitlet2-J3455: 4707
fitlet2-E3950: 4325
fitlet1-A10 (6700T): 3036
fitlet1-A (6400T): 2400


fitlet2-E3930 is not recommended for applications that depend on performance
fitlet2-E3930: 1605

_________________
-------------------------
Irad Stavi
fit-PC forum admin

-------------------------


Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:31 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:32 pm
Posts: 44
Post Re: fitlet2 performance
I'm curious about the difference between the J3455 and the E3950. The J3455 has ~10% higher geekbench with a ~20% lower TDP and even costs less.

What would be the advantage of choosing the Atom E3950 over the Celeron J3455? Does it have lower idle power consumption? Better performance in another area I haven't considered?

Thanks!


Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:48 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 12:42 am
Posts: 49
Post Re: fitlet2 performance
IntensePC_User wrote:
What would be the advantage of choosing the Atom E3950 over the Celeron J3455? Does it have lower idle power consumption? Better performance in another area I haven't considered?


Here's a comparison of the two CPUs:
https://ark.intel.com/compare/95594,96488

The only important difference is that Atom x7-E3950 has Intel HD Graphics 505, versus the J3455 which has HD Graphics 500.

HD Graphics 505 has 18 execution units, versus 12 for the HD 500. However, the turbo frequency of the GPU in the HD 500 is 100MHz faster than the 505. I can't guess how this would affect 3D performance, but usually the GPU with more EUs fares better.

The only other differences between the two are the availability (the E3xxx series is long life) and ECC memory, which CompuLab doesn't support anyway.

I have measured idle power consumption to be around 4.5W on my unit (x7-E3950) sitting at the Linux desktop.

Neither CPU is very powerful when compared to typical notebook or desktop CPUs, and the difference between the two in benchmarks is only around 10%. If you are a business customer and are concerned about availability over 5+ years, buy the Atom x7-E3950 version. Otherwise I'd see no reason not to buy the Celeron J3455.

Also TDP numbers are guidelines to cooling designers, and do not really reflect the actual peak consumption of the CPU. Both Intel and AMD have for years been using the TDP to represent the "scenario design power" of the chip, meaning how much heat needs to be dissipated under typical loads. It would be interesting to see the watt-hours consumed by the Celeron J3455 and Atom x7-E3950 during benchmarks, because I would wager they're nearly identical.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:32 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 4 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.