Downsizing is a key trend across a lot of industries recently. When you get small, you often save energy and resources (at least, that's the idea). But that's not always the case with PC platforms, since power consumption has little to do with size and form factor.
On the bright side, at least small computers can be quite attractive, so long as they deliver the performance and features we expect.
The Mini-ITX (Integrated Technology Extended) form factor has been around for many years. Initially driven by VIA, it has outgrown its low-cost, small form factor origins and has become an industry standard for SFF computing, regardless of specific sub-segments. Sporting a footprint of only 170x170 mm, Mini-ITX is 61% smaller than full ATX, less than half the size of microATX, and even one-third smaller than FlexATX.
Early Mini-ITX solutions were typically equipped with low-end hardware, such as VIA’s Eden processor. Recently, Mini-ITX has become popular for Atom-powered nettop PC solutions. However, motherboard manufacturers have discovered this form factor as an attractive option for enthusiasts that don’t insist on products being fully equipped so much as blending performance, features, and small dimensions. Arriving at a LAN party with an SFF Mini-ITX PC capable of outperforming most big towers is pretty freaking sweet.
We used an AMD and an Intel platform to look at what state-of-the-art Mini-ITX solutions can do today. The AMD machine is based on a Sapphire-based motherboard sporting AMD's 785G chipset. Our Intel candidate utilizes a Zotac-based platform with Intel's H55 chipset. In both cases, we tried various processors to cover different price points and performance segments. Who came out on top?
Sapphire's product page emphasizes that the "highly-integrated" IPC-AM3DD785G consumes less than 100 W of power. While this is true, we should add that this doesn't only apply to Mini-ITX boards. Similar ATX or microATX boards can also be low on power—even down to an idle draw between 35 W and 44 W, depending on the processor used. But even Sapphire's peak power stayed below the 100 W mark, ranging from 50 W to 97 W. The 50 W result is particularly interesting. We also tested to see if this low power consumption translates into high power efficiency.
The AM3DD785G is a fully-featured Socket AM3 motherboard. It only has two (instead of the usual four) DDR3 slots, supporting 8 GB maximum. There just isn’t room for more on the 170 x 170 mm motherboard. Sapphire pairs AMD's 785G chipset with the SB710 southbridge and provides four SATA 3Gb/s ports, the UltraATA/133 port for two legacy drives, and a total of ten USB 2.0 ports. Gigabit networking comes complements of an Atheros PHY and PCI Express x1 link.
If your case can fit it, Sapphire's single x16 PCI Express 2.0 slot will accept a double-slot graphics card, and the three-phase voltage regulator should accept almost all Socket AM3 processors. The new Phenom II X6 and other X4 processors require a 125 W or even 140W thermal envelope. This board offers VGA and HDMI display outputs, so it's set for HTPC applications, whether or not you install add-on cards.
There are a few LGA 1156-based Mini-ITX options. DFI and Intel sell two of them, but Zotac is probably the most popular. Since Sapphire's board comes ready to support either built-in or discrete graphics, we decided to do the same for the Intel platform and got ourselves a Zotac H55-ITX WiFi. Armed with dual-band 802.11n (via a Mini PCIe module), DVI, and HDMI, Zotac obviously skews this board toward more flexible, demanding uses with the latest in connectivity options.
The H55-ITX WiFi features six SATA 3Gb/s ports, two DDR3 slots (8 GB maximum), and a x16 PCI Express 2.0 slot for add-on graphics. A four-phase voltage regulator supports most current LGA 1156-based processors. The I/O panel not only sports 10 (yes, ten—with another four optional) USB 2.0 ports, but also a system reset switch, gigabit Ethernet port, 7.1 analog and SPDIF audio connectors, and an eSATA port.
AMD provided four different processors for testing with our Sapphire board. Why not try all of them?
AMD Athlon II X2 240e
The 240e is a low-power, dual-core processor that stays within a 45 W power envelope. Two cores running at 2.8 GHz should still provide more than enough performance for office and multimedia applications. The processor costs just over $100.
AMD Athlon II X2 260u
The "u" stands for ultra-low voltage, and we'd agree that 25 W is seriously low. To reach that level, AMD throttled the clock speed to only 1.8 GHz, which noticeably impacts performance benchmarks. This chip isn’t really efficient, but it's the lowest-power solution we can think of without jeopardizing desktop features. Still, Intel platforms provide lower idle power at much higher performance.
AMD Phenom II X3 705e
The Phenom II X3 705e is AMD’s low-power, triple-core offering, coming with 6 MB of L3 cache and three cores that run at 2.5 GHz. The chip specifies a 65 W TDP.
AMD Phenom II X4 905e
Last but not least, we tested the quad-core Phenom II X4 905e, also 2.5 GHz and based on a 65 W thermal envelope. However, the 905e packs more horsepower than the 705e. The benchmarks, particularly our efficiency run, prove that this CPU delivers the best performance per watt.
Overview Table
| Processor | AMD Phenom II X4 | AMD Phenom II X3 | AMD Athlon II X2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 905e | 705e | 240e | 260u |
| OPN Tray | HD905EOCK4DGI | HD705EOCK3DGI | AD240EHDK23GQ | AD260USCK23GQ |
| OPN PIB | HD905EOCGIBOX | HD705EOCGIBOX | AD240EHDGQBOX | N/A |
| Operating Mode 32 Bit | Yes | |||
| Operating Mode 64 Bit | Yes | |||
| Socket | AM3 | |||
| Revision | C2 | |||
| Core Speed (MHz) | 2500 | 2800 | 1800 | |
| System Bus Speed (MT/s) | 4000 | 3600 | ||
| Voltages | 0.825-1.25 V | 0.80-1.25 V | 0.85-1.15 V | |
| Max Temps (C) | 70 | 72 | 81 | |
| Wattage | 65 W | 45 W | 25 W | |
| L1 Cache Size (KB per core) | 128 | |||
| L2 Cache Size (KB per core) | 512 | 1024 | ||
| L3 Cache Size (KB) | 6144 | - | ||
| CMOS | 45 nm SOI | |||
| Virtualization | Yes | |||
We didn't use any Intel quad-core processors, since these are typically rather expensive. Instead, we opted to use an entry-level and a top-end dual-core model, both based on LGA 1156.
Intel Core i3-530
The Core i3-530 is specified to run at 2.93 GHz with two physical cores and Hyper-Threading support, providing four logical processors to the operating system. Our second Intel CPU, the Core i5-661, comes with Turbo Boost technology enabled, dynamically increasing clock speed when needed. Unfortunately, the Core i3 lacks this feature.
However, the i3-530 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache and a 73 W TDP. Operating in the real world, our Intel system provides a relatively low peak power figure of 82 W. An idle power of only 30 W is even more impressive.
Intel Core i5-661
The Core i5-661 is based on the same 32 nm Clarkdale dual-core design as the Core i3-530. Notably, though, the Core i5 offers Turbo Boost and a higher nominal clock rate of 3.33 GHz.
In Turbo Boost mode, it can sprint to 3.6 GHz, ensuring that this processor dominates almost all of our benchmarks, including those that scale well on more than two Phenom cores. The 32 nm Core i5 series carries an abundantly evident advantage in encryption testing thanks to its AES acceleration.
Comparison Table
| Name | Intel Core i3-530 Processor (4 MB Cache, 2.93 GHz) | Intel Core i5-661 Processor (4 MB Cache, 3.33 GHz) |
|---|---|---|
| Code Name | Clarkdale | Clarkdale |
| Status | Launched | Launched |
| Launch Date | Q1'10 | Q1'10 |
| Processor Number | i3-530 | i5-661 |
| # of Cores | 2 | 2 |
| # of Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Clock Speed | 2.93 GHz | 3.33 GHz |
| Max Turbo Frequency | N/A | 3.6 GHz |
| Cache | 4 MB Intel Smart Cache | 4 MB Intel Smart Cache |
| Bus/Core Ratio | 22 | 25 |
| Bus Type | DMI | DMI |
| System Bus | 2.5 GT/s | 2.5 GT/s |
| Instruction Set | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| Instruction Set Extensions | SSE4.2 | SSE4.2 |
| Embedded Options Available | No | No |
| Supplemental SKU | No | No |
| Lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Max TDP | 73 W | 87 W |
| VIDVoltageRange | 0.6500 V-1.400 V | 0.6500 V-1.4000 V |
| 1ku Bulk Budgetary Price | $113.00 | $196.00 |
| Memory Specifications | ||
|---|---|---|
| Max Memory Size ( Dependent on Memory Type) | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory Types | DDR3-1066/1333 | DDR3-1066/1333 |
| # Of Memory Channels | 2 | 2 |
| Max Memory Bandwith | 21 GB/s | 21 GB/s |
| Physical Address Extensions | 36-bit | 36-bit |
| Graphics Specifications | ||
| Integrated Graphics | Yes | Yes |
| Intel HD Graphics | Yes | Yes |
| Graphics Base Frequency | 733 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Intel Flexible Display Interface (Intel® FDI) | Yes | Yes |
| Intel Clear Video HD Technology | Yes | Yes |
| Dual Display Capable | Yes | Yes |
| Expansion Options | ||
| PCI Express Revision | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express Configurations | 1 x 16, 2 x 8 | 1 x 16, 2 x 8 |
| # of PCI Express Ports | 1 | 1 |
| Package Specifications | ||
| Max CPU Configuration | 1 | 1 |
| TCASE | 72.6°C | 69.8°C |
| Package Size | 37.5 mm x 37.5 mm | 37.5 mm x 37.5 mm |
| Lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Processing Die Size | 81 mm2 | 81 mm2 |
| # of Processing Die Transistors | 382 million | 382 million |
| Graphics and IMC Lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Graphics and IMC Die Size | 114 mm2 | 114 mm2 |
| # of Graphics and IMC Die Transistors | 177 million | 177 million |
| Sockets Supported | FCLGA1156 | FCLGA1156 |
| Halogen Free Options Available | Yes | Yes |
Source: IntelARK
| System Hardware | |
|---|---|
| Hardware | Details |
| Performance Benchmarks | |
| Motherboard I | Sapphire IPC-AM3DD785G (Rev. 1.0), Chipset: AMD 785G, BIOS: (01/21/2010) |
| Motherboard II (Socket LGA1156) | Zotac H55 ITX-WiFi (Rev. 1.0), Chipset: Intel H55, BIOS: 1.3 |
| CPU AMD I | AMD Athlon II X2 240e (45 nm, 2.8 GHz, 2 x 1 MB L2 Cache, TDP 45 W, Rev. C2) |
| CPU AMD II | AMD Athlon II X2 260u (45 nm, 1.8 GHz, 2 x 1 MB L2 Cache, TDP 25 W, Rev. C2) |
| CPU AMD III | AMD Phenom II X3 705e (45 nm, 2.5 GHz, 3 x 512 KB L2 6 MB L3 Cache, TDP 65 W, Rev. C2) |
| CPU AMD IV | AMD Phenom II X4 905e (45 nm, 2.5 GHz, 4 x 512 KB L2, 6 MB L3 Cache, TDP 65 W, Rev. C2) |
| CPU Intel I | Intel Core i5-661 (32 nm, 3.33 GHz, 2 x 256 KB L2 and 4 MB L3 Cache, TDP 87 W, Rev. B1) |
| CPU Intel II | Intel Core i3-530 (32 nm, 2.93 GHz, 4 x 256 KB L2 and 4 MB L3 Cache, TDP 73 W) |
| RAM DDR3 (dual) | 2 x 2GB DDR3-1333 (OCZ3G2000LV4GK 8-8-8-24) |
| Hard Drive | Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, 500 GB (ST3500320AS), 7,200 RPM, SATA 3Gb/s, 32MB Cache |
| Power Supply | Enermax Pro82+, EPR425AWT |
| System Software & Drivers | |
| Operating System | Windows Ultimate x64 Updated on 2010-03-03 |
| Drivers and Settings | |
| Intel Chipset Drivers | Chipset Installation Utility Ver. 9.1.1.1025 |
| Intel Storage Drivers | Matrix Storage Drivers Ver. 8.9.0.1023 |
| Intel Graphics | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 15.17 |
Benchmarks and Settings
| Audio Benchmarks and Settings | |
|---|---|
| Benchmark | Details |
| iTunes | Version: 9.0.3.15 Audio CD ("Terminator II" SE), 53 min. Convert to AAC audio format |
| Lame MP3 | Version 3.98.3 Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min. convert WAV to MP3 audio format Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kbps) |
| Video Benchmarks and Settings | |
| Benchmark | Details |
| Handbrake CLI | Version: 0.94 Video: Big Buck Bunny (720x480, 23.972 frames) 5 Minutes Audio: Dolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-channel, English to Video: AVC1 Audio1: AC3 Audio2: AAC (High Profile) |
| MainConcept Reference v2 | Version: 2.0.0.1555 MPEG-2 to H.264 MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec 28 sec. HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2) Audio: MPEG-2 (44.1 kHz, 2-channel, 16-bit, 224 Kbps) Codec: H.264 Pro Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS) Profile: H.264 BD HDMV |
| Application Benchmarks and Settings | |
| Benchmark | Details |
| 7-Zip | Version 9.1 beta LZMA2 Syntax "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5" Benchmark: 2010-THG-Workload |
| WinRAR | Version 3.92 RAR Syntax "winrar a -r -m3" Benchmark: 2010-THG-Workload |
| WinZip 14 | Version 14.0 Pro (8652) WinZIP Commandline Version 3 ZIPX Syntax "-a -ez -p -r" Benchmark: 2010-THG-Workload |
| Autodesk 3ds Max 2010 | Version: 10 x64 Rendering Space Flyby Mentalray (SPECapc_3dsmax9) Frame: 248 Resolution: 1440 x 1080 |
| Adobe Photoshop CS4 (64-Bit) | Version: 11 Filtering a 16MB TIF (15000x7266) Filters: Radial Blur (Amount: 10; Method: zoom; Quality: good) Shape Blur (Radius: 46 px; custom shape: Trademark sysmbol) Median (Radius: 1px) Polar Coordinates (Rectangular to Polar) |
| Adobe Acrobat 9 Professional | Version: 9.0.0 (Extended) == Printing Preferenced Menu == Default Settings: Standard == Adobe PDF Security - Edit Menu == Encrypt all documents (128-bit RC4) Open Password: 123 Permissions Password: 321 |
| Microsoft PowerPoint 2007 | Version: 2007 SP2 PPT to PDF Powerpoint Document (115 Pages) Adobe PDF-Printer |
| Fritz | Fritz Chess Benchmark Version 4.3.2 |
| Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
| Benchmark | Details |
| 3DMark06 | Version: 1.2 Patch 1901 Default Settings |
| SiSoftware Sandra 2010 | Version: 2010.1.16.10 Processor Arithmetic, Cryptography, Memory Bandwith |


Four AMD cores are required to compete with two Intel Core i3/i5 units.

Nothing beats Intel’s AES new instructions when it comes to encryption with this algorithm. Since this type of workload scales well with additional cores, the AMD triple- and quad-core chips do well compared to Intel’s Core i3-530.


AMD’s quad-core wins if no encryption acceleration is used. Keep in mind that the processor is cheaper than the Intel Core i5 offering.




3DMark Vantage favors the Intel processors with few exceptions.


Creation of a PDF document from a 100+ page PowerPoint file takes quite some time, and it's quickest on the Intel dual-cores, since the app isn't very well threaded.

Photoshop is well-optimized for multiple threads, allowing AMD’s Phenom II X4 905e to compete with the Intel dual-core CPUs.


WinRAR is thread-optimized, but it doesn’t run as well on AMD's quad-core model as it does on Intel's dual-core chips.

WinZip is single-threaded. Since Intel pairs high clock speeds with more performance per clock, it dominates here.

With the exception of MainConcept and Handbrake, which take full advantage of multiple processing cores, Intel dominates again with its Core i3/i5.





System idle power is probably one of the most important results if you intend to run your machine 24x7. A low idle power translates directly into lower energy costs, as well as lower system temperatures.
In our testing, we enabled all power saving mechanisms, so the AMD system took advantage of Cool’n’Quiet, while the Intel system used Enhanced SpeedStep and all of its deeper C-states to reduce power during idle. Nevertheless, more cores for AMD translates into higher idle power. It takes AMD’s lowest-power processors to even get close to Intel’s power consumption levels, which are reached without any extra optimization.

Peak power depends on the processor's TDP rating. The AMD CPUs that stay within 25 W and 45 W TDP remain at low power levels. A 50 W peak power on the Athlon II X2 260u is impressive. Intel’s processors are extremely low on idle power, but they require more power when operating at peak loads. Yet, this combination could be ideal to dominate the efficiency tests.

The single-threaded workload finishes quickest on the solutions with the fastest clock speeds, naturally.

The average power required between our test systems stays fairly similar.

However, total power for the efficiency workload is much lower on Intel's CPUs because they complete the workload much faster.

In the multi-threaded workload, AMD looks much better, as the triple- and quad-cores are competitive.

Interestingly, average power between the fastest AMD and Intel processors is actually even. It’s two cores against four, 3.33/3.60 GHz against 2.5 GHz.

Total power used is again a bit lower on the Intel machines, but the AMD quad-core comes very close. This proves impressively that a quad-core CPU provides better performance per watt when it's kept occupied.

The total time taken for the full efficiency run, including single- and multi-threaded applications, is lower on the Intel machines because of their advantages in the single-threaded section of the test run. AMD’s dual-cores fall behind.

Average power for the full efficiency workload is lower on the AMD quad-core chip than on Intel’s high-speed dual-core processor.

Once again, the total power required is lowest on the Intel systems.

Efficiency-wise, nothing beats the Intel dual-core CPUs. They simply deliver the best performance per watt. However, AMD’s low-power quad-core chip doesn't trail far behind.
Our two Mini-ITX motherboards come with impressive feature sets, and they have nothing to fear from comparisons against mainstream ATX motherboards. Due to their compact footprints, Mini-ITX solutions won’t ever be seen with multiple expansion slots, extra memory sockets, or a plethora of add-in components. But all of the features you’d expect from a decent, modern PC are present: plentiful USB 2.0 connectivity, a handful of SATA ports, HD audio, gigabit Ethernet, support for more than 4 GB of memory, and accommodations for powerful processors and discrete graphics cards.
Zotac’s H55-ITX WiFi, outfitted with DVI, HDMI, S/PDIF, eSATA, and dual-band 802.11n, is geared for high-end PC and HTPC environments. Sapphire’s AM3DD785G is a bit cheaper, but also less feature-laden. You’ll have to live without WiFi, DVI, and digital audio.
Processor choice makes a huge difference in performance, power consumption, and power efficiency. Zotac's H55-ITX WiFi benefits from the very low idle power and high performance per clock of the Core i3/i5 processor family. Even the entry-level Core i3 does very well, beating all four AMD systems in many benchmarks, including idle power and power efficiency. AMD only shines in a few heavily-threaded workloads.
On the other hand, AMD has the more comprehensive low-power portfolio. Although no AMD setup was able to reduce system idle power to Intel's amazing 30 W levels, the low- and ultra-low voltage Athlon II X2 offerings restrain peak power consumption to numbers lower than Intel's. To get there, though, forget about performance. You're looking at basic office systems or industrial applications that won't need much cooling.
Lastly, consider cost and your expected applications. AMD still provides better bang for the buck with these Mini-ITX platforms. Intel costs more on average, but it will give you more performance per watt. The more you work with threaded applications, the easier it is to go with a quad-core AMD machine, as these are significantly cheaper than Intel’s lineup.
















