Benchmark Results: Productivity
The G45 platform does well enough in our Photoshop CS3 test to best Nvidia’s GeForce 9300 by a small margin and AMD’s 790GX chipset by a much larger gap.
It’s worth noting, however, that Photoshop CS4 is available for pre-order and, when it’s available, will accelerate a number of the application’s features, including image rotation, zooming, and panning, according to Nvidia.
Both Intel-based platforms serve up similar numbers in our anti-virus scan, while the AMD solution trails a bit. Of course, we’d expect the GeForce 9300 and G45 to give us at least somewhat similar results in productivity apps like this one—the only difference between the two chipsets being their memory controllers.
The GeForce 9300 and G45 are virtually tied in this processor-intensive rendering exercise. AMD’s Athlon 64 takes a third-place finish, but the gap isn’t a large one.
Intel and Nvidia run neck-in-neck in WinZIP, with the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ trailing by a substantial margin.
WinRAR seems to be better-optimized for AMD’s Athlon 64, as the three processors place in a much tighter grouping than in WinZIP.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to pair up similarly priced components, such as the 780g and 5400+ vs a E2180 and G45? Maybe someone could explain the reasoning?
I think that the 780g platform is more analogous to the 9300. I would have liked to seen either a 8650 or a 6000+ competing on that than a 5400 on the 790GX, many of its features are not being used here. That being said I still think the Nvidia/Intel platform would fair better. It seems to me that this article is at some points aimed at gamers and at other home theater enthusiasts. I think the article would have been better suited focusing on either one, not both.
Cheapest G45 board is around $109 from Intel (discarding ECS) on newegg. G31 is outdated.
$100 730i board would be pitted against G45 board directly.
780G boards are slightly cheaper and still more capable then NVIDIA MCP7x and any Intel IGP solution. JetWay is offering JetWay HA07 790GX/SB750 board for $90 on newegg at the moment.
Can you please explain that one?
I would hardly put a 5400+ in a HTPC either ... I'd throw in a low power dual core ... bet that would make mincemeat out of the Intel systems and still give quality playback and much smoother graphics up on the screen.
Plus we all know the NVidia Graphics chips in this iteration are defective ... why buy a defective mobo to begin with?
It might not last very long.
Doesn't make good purchasing sense.
Even Apple are publicly stating that all current GPU's have defective substrates causing bonding issue, reducing the lifeltime of the GPU largely based on thermals I guess.
The E7200 is a good performer ... very good in fact.
I would like to add that a phenom (8450?/9550?) processor should have been used because of the higher hyper transport speed advantages and also to check if the power consumtion is different.
Hopefully TomsHarware will update the figures including scores for phenom processor and also nvidia 8200/8300 chipsets for amd processors, just for completeness sake.
Not true. Don't believe anything comes out from Charlie Demerjian until proven.
The Intel- and AMD-based platforms both add up to $220. Assuming all other components are the same (memory, HDD, PSU, etc), you end up with two machines that cost the same amount of money.
You're right on the money about the 790GX's support for CrossFire. I'll look for a place in the piece to add mention of that. The 790GX chipset isn't going to add anything to overclocking in this particular comparison, though, since it's not a Phenom in the socket, but an Athlon 64 X2.
I believe this platform is best suited to an HTPC crowd, but I couldn't ignore Nvidia's insistence that gaming is good here as well. And to that end, I'd still recommend an add-in board under $100 like AMD's Radeon HD 4670.