Zotac's Ion vs. Intel's D945GCLF2 in Application Performance

Up to now I focused on Zotac's strengths but how does the platform compare across the board to the far cheaper Intel D945GCLF2? Zotac's Ion supports faster memory (DDR2-800 vs. DDR2-533), more memory (4GB vs. 2GB), has a much faster GPU and uses a newer SATA controller. What does that translate to in the real world? The next few pages of benchmarks will show us just that.

I ran through my benchmarks with both 4GB and 2GB of memory installed in the Zotac Ion to see if there was any difference. Most of my benchmarks showed no performance difference so I performed all of the Ion tests with 4GB of memory while the Intel based Atom boards used 2GB, the maximum that you can use in those systems.

I compared performance between the Zotac Ion, the Intel D945GCLF and the D945GCLF2. For reference I included a 1.6GHz Intel Celeron 420 and a 2.0GHz Intel Celeron 440 as well as the recently released Pentium E5300. All of these chips sell for between $30 - $70 but they are all based on modern day out-of-order, speculative execution cores. Remember that the Atom is an in-order processor, long proven not to be the fastest design for absolute performance.

All benchmarks were run under Windows Vista. The rest of the systems use the same configuration as our normal CPU reviews.

Motherboard: Intel DX48BT2 (Intel X48)
MSI DKA790GX Platinum (AMD 790GX)
Chipset: Intel X48
AMD 790GX
Chipset Drivers: Intel 9.1.1.1010 (Intel)
AMD Catalyst 8.12
Hard Disk: Intel X25-M SSD (80GB)
Memory: G.Skill DDR2-800 2 x 2GB (4-4-4-12)
G.Skill DDR2-1066 2 x 2GB (5-5-5-15)
Qimonda DDR3-1066 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20)
Video Card: eVGA GeForce GTX 280
Video Drivers: NVIDIA ForceWare 180.43 (Vista64)
NVIDIA ForceWare 178.24 (Vista32)
NVIDIA ForceWare 185.85 (Ion)
Desktop Resolution: 1920 x 1200
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit (for SYSMark)
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit

Putting It in Perspective: The Atom Takes on a Single-Core Pentium 4 SYSMark 2007 & Adobe Photoshop Performance
Comments Locked

93 Comments

View All Comments

  • tshen83 - Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - link

    A good article. GF9300 has a TDP of 12W. So combined with 8W Atom 330, and 80-90% efficient power supply, gives you the 25W load power figure you see which is phenomenal.(Not to be confused with the brand name from AMD that stands for Opteron rejects)

    Let me ask you, Anand, a question: just what the fuck is Johan doing these days pumping Quad Socket 8393SE(you can assume the 137W TDP Istanbuls when they come out too) against Nehalem Xeon X5570? One of them is a $10,000 set of CPUs, and the other is $3,000 worth of CPUs let alone (137W*4 power consumption vs 95W*2 on the Xeons) Besides that, now that the fucker is trying to invalidate VMmark. What a Belgian joke.
  • Griswold - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link

    You're quite the asshole, arent you?
  • AshleyComputer - Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - link

    ION have different, use MCP79 or MCP7A,
    can do GF9400+Atom 330, GF9400+Atom 230; or GF9300+Atom 330, or GF9300+Atom 230.
    If any want to know more about ION, please try to browse: www.micputer.com.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now