Move Over G45: Nvidia's GeForce 9300 Arrives

Features
By Chris Angelini
published

Test System And Benchmark Configuration

Swipe to scroll horizontally
CPU IIntel Core 2 Duo E7200 (45 nm, 2.53 GHz, 3MB L2 Cache)
CPU IIAMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ (65 nm, 2.8 GHz, 1MB L2 Cache)
Intel Chipset : GeForce 9300MSI P7NGM-Digital, Rev. 1.1
Intel Chipset : G45Intel DG45ID, Rev. Pre-Release
AMD Chipset : 790GXASUS M3A78-T, Rev 1.01G
RAM2x 2 GB DDR2-1066 Corsair CM2X2048-9136C5D
HDDSeagate Barracuda 7200.11 1TB SATA 3 Gb/s
Blu-ray DriveLite-On DH-4O1S
Graphics CardASUS EN8500 GT TOP 256MB DDR3
Sapphire Radeon HD 3470 256MB DDR3
Power SupplyPC Power and Cooling, ATX 2.3, 850 Watt
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Operating SystemWindows Vista Ultimate Retail
DirectX 10DirectX 10 (Vista default)
Nvidia Chipset DriversnForce 20.07 (Vista x32)
Nvidia Graphics DriversGeForce 178.13 (Vista x32)
ATI Graphics DriversCatalyst 8.9 (Vista x32)
Intel Chipset DriversINF : 9.1.0.1007

Benchmarks and Settings

Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkDetails
CrysisVersion : 1.2.1Video Modes : 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024Overall Quality : mediumDemo : GPU-Benchmark2 + Tom’s Hardware Tool
Unreal Tournament 3Version : 1.2Video Mode : 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024Sound and DirectX10 ; Window offVideo Quality :Texture Details:5, Level Details : 5, Demo : WAR-OnyxCoast_botTime : 12/60
World in ConflictVersion : 1.0.0.9Video Mode : 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024Video Quality : medium detailsDemo : Game-Benchmark
Supreme CommanderForged AllianceVersion : 1.5.3599Video Mode : 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024Video Quality : game defaultDemo : WallaceTX_006_006Benchmark : Fraps 2.9.4 - Build 7037Start time 00:48:20 (60 seconds) realtime play
Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkDetails
iTunesVersion : 7.7.0.43Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 minDefault format AAC
TMPEG 4.5Version : 4.5.1.254Video : Terminator 2 SE DVD (720x576, 16:9) 5 MinutesAudio : Dolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-Channel, EnglishAdvanced Acoustic Engine MP3 Encoder (160 kbps, 44.1 KHz)
DivX 6.8.3Version : 6.8.3- Main Menu -default- Codec Menu -Encoding mode : Insane QualityEnhanced multithreadingEnabled using SSE4Quarter-pixel search- Video Menu -Quantization : MPEG-2
XviD 1.1.3Version : 1.1.3- Other Options / Encoder Menu -Display encoding status = off
Nero 8 RecodeVersion : 3.1.4.0- Recode an Entire DVD to DVD- convert DVD-9 to DVD5- all default settingsBenchmark- High quality mode (slow recording)- disable video preview
Mainconcept Reference 1.5.1Reference H.264 Plugin Pro 1.5.1Version : 1.5.1MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264)MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2)Audio : MPEG2 (44.1 kHz, 2 Channel, 16 Bit, 224 kbps)Codec : H.264Mode : PAL (25 FPS)Profile : Tom’s Hardware Settings for Qct-Core
HD Playback (Blu-Ray)PowerDVD 8 UltraBlu Ray - Disc (Resident Evil : Extinction)Video Mode : 1920x1080p (full screen)Codec : H.264
Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkDetails
Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus 8Version : 8.0.134Virus base : 270.4.5/1533BenchmarkScan : some compressed ZIP and RAR archives
Winrar 3.80Version 3.70 BETA 8WinZIP Commandline Version 2.3Compression = BestDictionary = 4096 KBBenchmark : THG-Workload
WinZIP 11Version 11.2Compression = BestBenchmark : THG-Workload
Maxon Cinema 4D Release 10Version : 10.008Rendering from a scene(Water drop at a Rose)Resolution : 1280x1024 – 8-Bit (50 frames)
Adobe Photoshop CS 3Version : 10.0x20070321Filtering of a 69 MB TIF-PhotoBenchmark : Tomshardware-Benchmark V1.0.0.4Programmed by Tomshardware using Delphi 2007Filters :CrosshatchGlassSumi-eAccented EdgesAngled StrokesSprayed Strokes
Swipe to scroll horizontally
BenchmarkDetails
3DMark VantageVersion : 1.02Options : EntryGraphics Test 1Graphics Test 2CPU Test 1CPU Test 2
PCMark VantageVersion : 1.00PCMark BenchmarkMemory BenchmarkWindows Media Player 10.00.00.3646
SiSoftware Sandra XII SP2Version 2008.5.14.24CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / MultiMediaMemory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark

Notes :

There is a $40 price delta between our CPUs of choice here. The Core 2 Duo E7200 is more expensive, yes. But Nvidia is claiming that its GeForce 9300-based boards will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $100, while the ASUS M3A78-T hovers around the $150 mark and Intel’s DG45ID is closer to $120. So, if you compare the cost of these midrange machines, all three land very close to each other.

Then there’s the matter of our hybrid-mode testing. We chose the fastest models available to go with each compatible platform—the GeForce 8500 GT to go with Nvidia’s GeForce 9300 and AMD’s Radeon HD 3470 to go with the 790GX. Intel’s G45 doesn’t support any sort of cooperative rendering mode, of course.

Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
79 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Ryun
    Good article but I feel compelled to say that I don't understand your choice for pitting the 790GX (~$140 board) and a 5400+ (~$80) with an the E7200 (~$120) and the G45 (~$100).

    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?
    Reply
  • ricstorms
    I think a better Intel processor for an apt comparison should have been the E5200, which is only about $10 more expensive than the 5400+. Also, no mention was made that the 790GX platform is much more versatile, thanks to its 2 PCIExpress x16 slots (albeit running in x8 mode in Crossfire). Also, I would have liked to see the overclocking results with all three platforms, that is one of the strengths of the 790GX platform. (since AMD processors have fallen from grace, its almost impossible to find good reviews, I didn't see one in a google search for the 5400+ black edition)

    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.
    Reply
  • chaohsiangchen
    I agree with Ryun about the price comparison.

    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.

    Reply
  • Reynod
    I still don't understand how you can say the AMD system draws less power at idle then declare the Intel system to be the winner i nthe power stakes??

    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.
    Reply
  • Liuqyn
    if they had done that, then they would have had to admit that AMD was still the better value for entry level gaming and HTPC use.
    Reply
  • marees
    I agree perfrectly with Ryun that you cant compare e7200 with ath 5400.

    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.
    Reply
  • chaohsiangchen
    ReynodPlus 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.
    Not true. Don't believe anything comes out from Charlie Demerjian until proven.
    Reply
  • Shadow703793
    Well written! Next time do you mind posting a bit on if the board is capable of OCing a bit?
    Reply
  • cangelini
    ryunGood article but I feel compelled to say that I don't understand your choice for pitting the 790GX (~$140 board) and a 5400+ (~$80) with an the E7200 (~$120) and the G45 (~$100).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?
    Ryun,
    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.
    Reply
  • cangelini
    ricstormsI think a better Intel processor for an apt comparison should have been the E5200, which is only about $10 more expensive than the 5400+. Also, no mention was made that the 790GX platform is much more versatile, thanks to its 2 PCIExpress x16 slots (albeit running in x8 mode in Crossfire). Also, I would have liked to see the overclocking results with all three platforms, that is one of the strengths of the 790GX platform. (since AMD processors have fallen from grace, its almost impossible to find good reviews, I didn't see one in a google search for the 5400+ black edition) 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.
    Hi Rick!
    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.
    Reply