The processor from AMD runs on the 780G chipset. Compared to Intel’s 945G platform, it provides several extra features, and uses less energy.
We compared the Intel and AMD chipsets based on how they were implemented and used on the motherboard.
|Chipset Northbridge||Intel 945GC||AMD 780G|
|Energy Consumption||22.2 Watts (TDP)||11.4 Watts (TDP)|
|HDMI + HDCP||No||Yes|
The AMD chipset uses only a fraction of the energy that the Atom’s platform uses on the desktop, and offers a whole set of additional functions. The onboard graphics solution performs better, and offers superior video acceleration as well as a DVI/HDMI port.
|Platform||Intel Atom||AMD Athlon 64|
|Chipset Southbridge||Intel ICH7||AMD SB700|
|Energy Consumption||3.3 Watt (TDP)||X.XX Watt (TDP)|
|USB||4x USB 2.0||12x USB 2.0 2x USB 1.1|
It is hard to comprehend why, though the ICH7 southbridge from Intel technically offers four SATA ports, that manufacturers implement no more than 2 ports on their boards. On the other hand, the AMD solution with six SATA ports offers more options for file servers and other applications.
The better functionality of the AMD solution comes at a price. The board uses the microATX form factor, whereas Intel’s Atom board is available in significantly smaller miniITX and miniDTX versions. The microATX board from AMD is for the desktop market and larger cases. We used the microATX board in the comparison because it is currently the smallest version with most energy-saving chipset for AM2 sockets. This obviously comes with a disadvantage in size.
- AMD Athlon 64 2000+ At 8 Watts
- AMD Athlon 64 vs. Intel Atom
- Chipset Comparison: AMD vs. Intel
- Cooling And Temperature
- System Power Consumption
- Processor Power Consumption
- Web Browsing Speed
- Real World Use: LAN, DVD And HD Speed
- Athlon 64 vs. Atom 230 vs. Celeron 220
- Test System, Drivers, Benchmarks, Settings
- Lame, iTunes, AVG, Winrar
- Cinema 4D, Fritz, PCMark
- SiSoft Sandra
- Conclusion: Athlon 64 Is More Economical, Faster, And Quieter