Comparison Table And Test Setup
Comparison Table
| Manufacturer | iBase | Intel | Zotac | Zotac |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | MI950AF | DQ45EK | GeForce 9300 ITX WiFi | GeForce 8200 ITX WiFi |
| Socket | LGA 775 | LGA 775 | LGA 775 | Socket AM2+ |
| allowed CPUs | up to QX9000 Series | 65W TDP | up to QX9000 Series | up to Phenom II X4 955 |
| Voltage Regulators | 4 Phase | 3 Phase | 4 Phase | 3 Phase |
| Chipset | Intel Q45 + ICH10DO | Intel Q45 + ICH10DO | GeForce 9300 | GeForce 8200 |
| RAM | 2 x DDR3 | 2 x DDR2 | 2 x DDR2 | 2 x DDR2 |
| Ethernet I | Intel 82567 Gigabit LAN | Intel 82567LM Gigabit LAN | RTL8211CL Gigabit LAN | RTL8211CL Gigabit LAN |
| Ethernet II | Intel 82574L Gigabit LAN | |||
| WiFi | N/A | N/A | 802.11b/g via USB VIA VT6656 | 802.11b/g via USB VIA VT6656 |
| Panel Connectors | 2 x Ethernet 6 x USB 1 x RS232 1 x eSATA 1 x DVI-I 1 x Sub-D | 1 x Ethernet 6 x USB 1 x eSATA 1 x DVI-I 1 x DVI-D | 1 x Ethernet 6 x USB 1 x PS/2 1 x eSATA 1 x DVI-I 1 x Sub-D 1 x HDMI 1 x Antenna | 1 x Ethernet 6 x USB 2 x PS/2 1 x DVI-I 1 x Sub-D 1 x Antenna |
| Expansion Slot | 1 x PCI | 1 x PCIe x1 | 1 x PCIe x16 | 1 x PCIe x1 |
| Onboard Connector | 4 x SATA | 4 x SATA | 2 x SATA | 4 x SATA |
| Pin-Header | 4 x USB 3 x RS232 | 4 x USB | 6 x USB 1 x RS232 | 4 x USB |
| Audio | ALC888 7.1 Channel 3 x RCA Jacks 1 x Front Panel Audio | ADI AD1882 5.1 Channel 3 x RCA Jacks 1 x Front Panel Audio | ALC662 3 RCA Jacks SPDIF Optical + Electrical 1 x Front Panel Audio | ALC662 3 x RCA Jacks 1 x SPDIF Pin-Header 1 x Front Panel Audio |
| Accessories | 2 x SATA 1 x RS232 Bracket | 2 x SATA 1 x DVD-I, 2 Sub-D | 2 x SATA | 2 x SATA 1 x SATA Power 1 x DVI-to-HDMI |
Test Setup
| System hardware | |
|---|---|
| Hardware | Details |
| Performance Benchmarks | |
| AMD Platform I (Socket AMD2+) | Zotac GeForce 8200 ITX WiFi (Rev. 1.0) Chipset: Nvidia Geforce 8200 BIOS: 2K090202 (02/02/2009) |
| Intel Platform I (LGA 775) | iBase MI950AF (Rev. 1.0) Chipset: Intel Q45 BIOS: 1.42 (09/08/2009) |
| Intel Platform II (LGA 775) | Intel DQ45EK (Rev. 1.0) Chipset: Intel Q45 BIOS: 0101 (09/28/2009) |
| Intel Platform III (LGA 775) | Zotac GeForce 9300 ITX WiFi (Rev. 1.0) Chipset: Nvidia Geforce 9300 BIOS: 1.42 (09/08/2009) |
| CPU AMD | AMD Phenom II X2 550 (45nm, 3.1 GHz, 2 x 512KB L2 and 6MB L3 Cache, TDP 80W, Rev. C2) |
| CPU Intel | Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 (45nm, 3.33 GHz, 6MB L2 Cache, TDP 65W, Rev. E0) |
| RAM DDR2 (Dual) | 2 x 2GB DDR2-1200 (Apogee AU2G732-12GH001) |
| RAM DDR3 (Dual) | 2 x 2GB DDR3-1600 (Corsair CMD4GX3M2A1600C8) |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital VelociRaptor, 300GB (WD3000HLFS) 10,000 RPM, SATA/300, 16MB Cache |
| Blu-ray Drive | LG GGW-H20L, SATA/150 |
| Power Supply | Enermax ERP425AWT (Pro 82+) |
| System Software & Drivers | |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Enterprise Version 6.0 x64 Service Pack 2 (Build 6000) |
| Drivers and Settings | |
| AMD Chipset Drivers | Radeon 9.4 |
| Intel Chipset Drivers | Chipset Installation Utility Version 9.1.1.1020 |
| Intel Graphics Drivers | Version 15.13.6.64.1908 |
| Intel storage Drivers | Matrix Storage Drivers Ver. 8.8.0.1009 |
| Nvidia 8200 Chipset Drivers | Nforce 15.49 |
| Nvidia 9300 Chipset Drivers | Nforce 20.14 |
| 3D Games Benchmarks and Settings | |
|---|---|
| Benchmarks | Details |
| Far Cry 2 | Version: 1.0.1 Far Cry 2 Benchmark Tool Video Mode: 1280x800 Direct3D 9 Overall Quality: Medium Bloom activated HDR off Demo: Ranch Small |
| Grand Theft Auto IV | Version: 1.0.3 Video Mode: 1280x1024 - 1280x1024 - Aspect Ratio: Auto - All options: Low - View Distance: 1 - Detail Distance: 1 - Vehicle Density: 1 - Shadow Density: 0 - Definition: On - Vsync: Off Ingame Benchmark |
| Left 4 Dead | Version: 1.0.0.5 Video Mode: 1280x800 Game Settings - Anti Aliasing none - Filtering Trilinear - Wait for vertical sync disabled - Shader Detail Low - Effect Detail Low - Model/Texture Detail Low Demo: THG Demo 1 |
| Audio Benchmarks and Settings | |
| Benchmarks | Details |
| iTunes | Version: 8.1.0.52 Audio CD ("Terminator II" SE), 53 min., Convert to AAC audio format |
| Lame MP3 | Version 3.98 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 |
| TMPGEnc 4.6 | Version: 4.6.3.268 Video: Terminator 2 SE DVD (720x576, 16:9) 5 Minutes Audio: Dolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-Kanal, English Advanced Acoustic Engine MP3 Encoder (160 kbps, 44.1 KHz) |
| DivX 6.8.5 | Version: 6.8.5 == Main Menu == default == Codec Menu == Encoding mode: Insane Quality Enhanced multithreading Enabled using SSE4 Quarter-pixel search == Video Menu == Quantization: MPEG-2 |
| Xvid 1.2.1 | Version: 1.2.1 Other Options / Encoder Menu - Display encoding status = off |
| MainConcept Reference 1.6.1 | Version: 1.6.1 MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264) MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2) Audio: MPEG2 (44.1 kHz, 2 Channel, 16 Bit, 224 kbps) Codec: H.264 Mode: PAL (25 FPS) Profile: Settings for eight threads |
| Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 | Version: 4.0 WMV 1920x1080 (39 sec) Export: Adobe Media Encoder == Video == H.264 Blu-ray 1440x1080i 25 High Quality Encoding Passes: one Bitrate Mode: Vbr Frame: 1440x1080 Frame Rate: 25 == Audio == PCM Audio, 48 kHz, Stereo Encoding Passes: one |
| Application Benchmarks and Settings | |
| Benchmarks | Details |
| Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus 8 | Version: 8.5.287 Virus base: 270.12.16/2094 Benchmark Scan: some compressed ZIP and RAR archives |
| Winrar 3.9 | Version 3.90 x64 BETA 1 Compression = Best Benchmark: THG-Workload |
| Winzip 12 | Version 12.0 (8252) WinZIP Commandline Version 3 Compression = Best Dictionary = 4096 KB Benchmark: THG-Workload |
| Autodesk 3D Studio Max 2009 | Version: 9 x64 Rendering Dragon Image Resolution: 1920 x 1280 (frame 1-5) |
| 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 |
| Deep Fritz 11 | Version: 11 Fritz Chess Benchmark Version 4.2 |
| Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
| Benchmark | Details |
| 3DMark Vantage | Version: 1.02 Options: Performance Graphics Test 1 Graphics Test 2 CPU Test 1 CPU Test 2 |
| PCMark Vantage | Version: 1.00 PCMark Benchmark Memories Benchmark |
| SiSoft Sandra 2009 | Version: 2009 SP3 Processor Arithmetic, Cryptography, Memory Bandwith |
38
Comments
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Latest Desktops News
Latest Desktops reviews
- 05/11 – Do-It-Yourself: Upgrading Apple's 27" iMac With An SSD
- 10/10 – Nettop Round-Up: Four Tiny PCs, Benchmarked And Reviewed
- 10/05 – Building A Liquid-Cooled MicroATX Gaming Monster
- 09/27 – Intel vPro: Three Generations Of Remote Management
- 09/26 – System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2011: System Value Compared
-
Latest Intel News
- Intel Picks UK for Research Institute on Sustainable Cities
- Specs for Dell's Windows 8 Clover Trail Tablet Leaked
- Thunderbolt Will Become Key Motherboard Spec in 2H 2012
- AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- Intel Hopes New Batteries Can Reduce Ultrabook Cost
-
Latest Intel reviews
- Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: May 2012
- Intel SSD 330 Review: 60, 120, And 180 GB Models Benchmarked
- Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
See more
Ads
Sponsored
All about Desktops
Must-see
Others
Ads

For HTPC build, I wonder Zotac Gefore 9300 ITX + Intel Celeron E3200 will be a better choice in terms of performance/price and power efficiency.
Celeron E3200 should be powerful enough to play HD video and flash even without the help of GPU acceleration.
this is an article that i do not really see what is trying to achieve. you compare a intel dual core @3.3ghz with and amd x2 550. x2 550 is actually not the most efficient value cpu that amd has to offer. you can actually find a lot less power hungry dual cores and triple or quad cores from amd. it depends on the purpose of the machine. also i don't see anybody using a velociraptor in a system like these. you did not specify what you want to achieve... htpc? home server? light destop system? powerful desktop system? the purpose of this article somehow eludes my comprehension.
Been keeping an eye on mITX boards for some time now, due to my interest in home servers and HTPCs. I also helped a friend of mine build a car PC recently, an idea that has been fascinating me for some time now. He ended up opting for an Atom 330 Gigabyte board, due to power and price considerations.
and an HD 5770 would fit nicely on it.
My eye has been on the Zotac as well. My wife needs a new HTPC anyway
If only they were more affordable, 'cause right now, a micro ATX solution proves more powerful while cheaper.
Antec's Dimension 96mm X 222mm X 328mm
Does anyone know for sure if the Zotac 8200 board will take the 'new' Athlon X4 605e 45w CPu, its AMDs new quad efficiency CPU. I cannot find anywhere including zotac website if their 8200 boards supports this new CPU?
all this will mean little when dfi unleashes it's lga 1156 p55 based mini itx board in Q1 2010. that thing will friggin rock! i have the zotac 9300 board and it's awesome but the new dfi board will be even better.
I don't think you'd have a problem with a 605e 45w processor on the 8200 board.
The below processor compatibility doc from Zotac specifically states "supported processor wattage up to 65W" and it lists other Phenom II based quad cores. This includes the Phenom II X4 900e, which is a 65w part.
http://www.zotac.com/httpdocs/broc [...] 20WiFi.txt
this is an article that i do not really see what is trying to achieve. you compare a intel dual core @3.3ghz with and amd x2 550. x2 550 is actually not the most efficient value cpu that amd has to offer. you can actually find a lot less power hungry dual cores and triple or quad cores from amd. it depends on the purpose of the machine. also i don't see anybody using a velociraptor in a system like these. you did not specify what you want to achieve... htpc? home server? light destop system? powerful desktop system? the purpose of this article somehow eludes my comprehension.
Then, obviously it wasn't written, specifically for you. Really...I don't really see what your post is trying to achieve...
How does comparing a $140 mobo + $270 cpu (total=$410) to a
$130 mobo + $270 cpu (total=$400) to a $100 mobo + $102 cpu (total=$202) even work?
This review doesn't accurately show anything, except that the Core 2 Duo 8600 is indeed faster than the Phenom II 550 (this has been known for quite some time). For all we know, the better graphics may be due to the faster cpus powering them.
This review would have worked better if cpus of the same price range were used, such as the Phenom II 550 against a Pentium Dual Core E6500 ($95) or a Core 2 Duo E7400 ($117).
They all SUK! None of them have 802.11n so right away I wouldn't buy one of these yesteryear technology item
true, the comparison of intel dual core processors to amd dual core processors would be an accurate comparison, as compared to a comparison of intel dual core vs amd trip or even quad core, but the price difference is to great to merit a dual core to dual core comparison.
the intel core 2 duo is more than 2x the price of the phenom II x2 at retail pricing. so maybe a better processor choice would be more appropriate..
For anyone interested in some real-world info:
I have the Zotac 9300 board (rev 1.1), and a Pentium (core 2) 6300 65w CPU in my HTPC with an older ITX case that is similar in dimensions to the Sugo case, using a PicoPSU and external 105w power brick, I also have the largest CPU fan/heatsink I could find that would fit in my case, and it is the only fan in the case. Runs nearly silent almost all of the time, is on 24/7 and handles streaming video from Netflix(PlayOn)/Hulu/Youtube/Etc..., or off of my network server with absolutely no problem, as well as local DVD. (Running XBMC on top of Ubuntu 9.04) I can't comment on Blu-ray playback, since it isn't supported under Linux, but I expect it would work just fine in Windows. I was skeptical of the Zotac brand, but the board is built very well, and the documentation is actually pretty good. I have had this system for about 6 months.
Erm, right, go through each comment and down their ratings by one.
I figured some troll would do that eventually, but this is just ugly.
I think the author missed the point in this review. mITX is mostly for HTPC - where are the benchmarks on video playback, ability to keep up with HD content? Flash benchmarks would be good too and some kind of look at usability with Netflix and Hulu. ie, things that are important to someone building an HTPC??
All the testing really shows is that an e8600 is faster than an amd x2 550 albeit at twice the price. But what I really want to know is what the difference is when doing HTPC functions? I don't see that here except possibly by inference, so this article becomes fairly useless.
I can say I am disappointed by this review. 3 Variants of Intel motherboard against 1 AMD, and none with an AMD chipset at that.
What about J&W MINIX 780G-SP128MB (AM2+) Running an AMD Radeon™ HD 3200 or J&W A785GMT-Extreme (AM3) Running an AMD Radeon™ HD 4200.
I sense so bias opinion here.
I would have been interested in seeing video and audio playback results in this review since it was mostly about home theater pc's in a small form factor.
I would have been interested in seeing video and audio playback results in this review since it was mostly about home theater pc's in a small form factor.
I don't understand the usage of the E8600 @ 2x the price of the 550. Was this a mITX comparison or a CPU comparison?
this is an article that i do not really see what is trying to achieve. you compare a intel dual core @3.3ghz with and amd x2 550. x2 550 is actually not the most efficient value cpu that amd has to offer. you can actually find a lot less power hungry dual cores and triple or quad cores from amd. it depends on the purpose of the machine. also i don't see anybody using a velociraptor in a system like these. you did not specify what you want to achieve... htpc? home server? light destop system? powerful desktop system? the purpose of this article somehow eludes my comprehension.
I think the authors made their processor choices in order to highlight the fact that intel is the best solution if you want absolute performance and amd would be for those who might be more budget oriented. Maybe they chose dual cores from both for some sort of apples to apples comparison. This is a case and motherboard review after all.
This article is not a buyers guide, but rather a hardware review. They chose high end components like the velociraptor you mentioned in order to see if any bottlenecks occur in the system. Its the same idea when they use an overclocked i7 to 4.1ghz in graphics card reviews.
I also don't understand using parts from such different segments in the price range. One could throw in a Phenom II 955 BE AND a Radeon HD 4670 dedicated card for the price of the E8600. 98% of the people putting together a system like this are more than somewhat interested in what they can get for the money. In general these kinds of reviews disappoint me. It's like comparing a Porsche and a generic sedan because they both have 6 cylinder engines...