Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison
#2Unfortunate that an actively cooled N100 was not in the mix, would have been interesting to see how much cooling affects performance.
Also, echo the comments on the site, what is up with that naming scheme for these CPUs?
Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison
#3Why do we never see such cheap, low-wattage CPUs with ECC memory controllers? There’s absolutely a market for these, starting with home NAS and generic servers. I just don’t get it, such a missed opportunity here!
Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison
#4There are lots of people out there saying to get one of these low(er) power Intel systems instead of, say, an Orange Pi 5 or some other ARM machine, but I think some of the information from the comments tells us a little more about their suitability for certain applications:
"In fact ‘whole systems’ were benchmarked and not just Intel CPUs (under identical environmental conditions) since as we know in the meantime on Alder Lake-N Intel chose to throttle down the memory controller above a certain thermal treshold (sic) which affects all those benchmarks needing high RAM bandwidth or low RAM latency."
I thought the idea of having a CPU that runs at crazy speeds for the first minute or two, only to thermally throttle to something more realistic, was something that only applied to the marketed-to-gamers, high end CPUs, but apparently not. Low power CPUs should be simple to cool and should only ever thermally throttle in extreme cases (like running in a hot attic or car or something similar).
When I consider that an Intel N100 takes twice the power yet doesn't deliver even close to twice the performance of an Orange Pi 5, I can't help but lose interest.
Even comparing the N100 with my long time favorite low power x86, the AMD Athlon 5350 from ten years ago, I can't help but feel like Intel really hasn't innovated much here. I'd love to do some benchmarks, but I think the N100 isn't even twice the IPC of those decade old CPUs, yet those ran four cores at 2 GHz using so little power that their tiny little fans don't even turn on much of the time, even when all the cores at 100%. Where's your version of that CPU, Intel?
Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison
#5Why do we never see such cheap, low-wattage CPUs with ECC memory controllers? There’s absolutely a market for these, starting with home NAS and generic servers. I just don’t get it, such a missed opportunity here!
True. I've wondered the same thing, and always come back to inexpensive Ryzens on ASRock motherboards that I simply underclock.
Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison
#6Why do we never see such cheap, low-wattage CPUs with ECC memory controllers? There’s absolutely a market for these, starting with home NAS and generic servers. I just don’t get it, such a missed opportunity here!
True. I've wondered the same thing, and always come back to inexpensive Ryzens on ASRock motherboards that I simply underclock.
We're kind of stumbling into a golden age of home NAS devices and while there aren't any ready-to-go ECC options yet, you can buy lovely little cases to support your own components. I think we'll surely see ECC in the next generation of AOOSTAR and similar devices, nobody making these devices has any motivation to never implement ECC.
Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison
#7Why do we never see such cheap, low-wattage CPUs with ECC memory controllers? There’s absolutely a market for these, starting with home NAS and generic servers. I just don’t get it, such a missed opportunity here!
True. I've wondered the same thing, and always come back to inexpensive Ryzens on ASRock motherboards that I simply underclock.
The problem with those inexpensive Ryzens is that they don't have iGPUs with Intel QuickSync so they can't transcode video with high efficiency. This makes them unsuitable for use for media servers, which is what a lot of people are doing with these chips these days: building home NAS/media servers that combine both functions into a single, small, low-power unit. You put a bunch of HDDs in it so you can store tens of terabytes of movies using RAID to protect against drive failures, and run Jellyfin or Plex on it. Plus you can use the box for other regular NAS tasks too, as well as many other convenient applications. Intel chips are virtually required here since AMD chips are useless for transcoding, and require external GPU cards which destroy the system's power efficiency which was one of the main points of getting one of these low-power Intel chips in the first place.
Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. I've wondered the same thing, and always come back to inexpensive Ryzens on ASRock motherboards that I simply underclock.
We're kind of stumbling into a golden age of home NAS devices and while there aren't any ready-to-go ECC options yet, you can buy lovely little cases to support your own components. I think we'll surely see ECC in the next generation of AOOSTAR and similar devices, nobody making these devices has any motivation to never implement ECC.
How exactly are companies like AOOSTAR going to implement ECC if it's not supported by the CPU vendor (which is Intel)? AMD CPUs are useless for these home NAS devices if your goal is to build a low-power media server, which I think is one of the main use-cases (why else would you want to store tens of terabytes of data at home?).
Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison
#9Why do we never see such cheap, low-wattage CPUs with ECC memory controllers? There’s absolutely a market for these, starting with home NAS and generic servers. I just don’t get it, such a missed opportunity here!
I saw this $390 Ryzen NAS enclosure yesterday but it’s never clear with these configurations if the motherboard supports ECC, even if the CPU does:
https://liliputing.com/aoostar-launches-a-ryzen-7-5825u-vers...
Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're kind of stumbling into a golden age of home NAS devices and while there aren't any ready-to-go ECC options yet, you can buy lovely little cases to support your own components. I think we'll surely see ECC in the next generation of AOOSTAR and similar devices, nobody making these devices has any motivation to never implement ECC.
How exactly are companies like AOOSTAR going to implement ECC if it's not supported by the CPU vendor (which is Intel)? AMD CPUs are useless for these home NAS devices if your goal is to build a low-power media server, which I think is one of the main use-cases (why else would you want to store tens of terabytes of data at home?).
ECC has been growing in support since ~12th generation Intel (currently 14th) and before that for AMD I think, so it is only a matter of time before this trickles down into the little NAS boxes.