When it comes to computer hardware, enthusiast-level equipment receives the vast majority of the industry coverage. This is only natural, as companies want to promote their best and brightest contenders and soak up the accolades. Readers also want to keep up with the latest and greatest technology, so media outlets play along. This is the way of the world, but every once in a while, it's good to take a few steps back and check out what the average Joe is buying.
Hardware enthusiasts only make up a very small part of the overall computer market, and while the latest processor review might cover a $1,000 quad core model, the average home or business PC sports a more modest CPU. It's the same with other pieces of the computer pie, as GeForce 8800 graphics powerhouses are replaced with integrated video, DDR2-1000 gives way to DDR2-533, and dual-drive RAID arrays are substituted using an entry-level SATA hard drive. It's a completely different world, but one that still contributes the majority of desktop sales.
Every hardware company wants to promote its products in the best possible light - that's a given in any business. It's the same with AMD; Intel has the only quad core desktop processor and even their Core 2 Duo is hammering AMD at the high-end. But AMD provides a ton of value at the mainstream and entry-level segments, so this has led to a slightly different strategy. Instead of offering up an even-faster Athlon 64 X2 or hyping up their own quad core offering, AMD provided the opportunity to examine the entry-level market through a pair of equally-configured HP Pavilion systems.
Naturally, this set off a few warning bells, but after making sure AMD wasn't pitting an Athlon 64 FX against a Pentium D, and that the configuration and price were both equivalent, we agreed to the test period. We chose the benchmarks, we determined the test environments, we reloaded the OS and drivers, but AMD was confident that their entry-level platform would shine no matter the scenario. These two systems are the HP Pavilion a1630n (AMD) and a1640n (Intel), and as you'll see these are remarkably similar not only in terms of external design and aesthetics, but also of hardware and peripherals.
The HP Pavilion a1630n sports a 2.4 GHz Athlon 64 X2 4600+, 2x1GB of DDR2-533 (4-4-4-12), an ASUS branded (built for HP) GeForce 6150 LE motherboard, a Samsung 250GB SP2504C hard drive (8MB, 7200 RPM), and a Samsung TS-H652L DVD-R/RW drive. The HP Pavilion a1640n is powered by the 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo 6300, 2x1GB of DDR2-533 (4-4-4-12), an ASUS branded (built for HP) G965 Express motherboard, a Samsung 250GB SP2504C hard drive (8MB, 7200 RPM), and a LG GSA-H30L DVD-R/RW drive. Unfortunately, the only output was through a VGA cable, with no DVI option available. Both systems shipped with Windows XP Media Center Edition SP2 and primary testing was performed using a 22" Dell E228WFP LCD.
These two system configurations are surprisingly equivalent, and devoid of favoritism. The AMD and Intel processors are perfect entry-level competitors, and the system memory is set at 2GB with the exact same DDR2 speeds and timings. Even the hard drive was the same between systems, while the slightly different Samsung/LG brand of DVD-R/RW drives is inconsequential for our benchmarking and real-world testing. The retail configuration actually favors the Intel Pavilion, as it originally sold for more than the AMD-based HP Pavilion. The use of an entry-level GeForce 6150 LE is also a nice touch, as the more powerful GeForce 6150 would have increased graphics performance. We evaluated the hardware, software, retail price, and positioning, and had no problems comparing the two as the kind of entry-level systems the sub-$1K buyer would be faced with.
We should also note that we ran into a few driver update problems with these two systems that are also very common with builds from vendors like HP and Dell. When trying to update our drivers to the very newest revisions, we received an alarming "The driver being installed is not validated for this computer" message and the driver install would shut down - even in Safe Mode. A quick search online found many other HP and Dell users with the same problem, and a call to HP Support resulted in a "Those drivers are not supported by HP" reply, and a terse request that I pay for toll software support if I wanted more information. So please, no angry emails asking why we didn't test with the latest Intel 14.27 drivers.
Other than the processors, the key difference between the two system configurations lies in the platform chipset. Sure, the Core 2 Duo might be able to outrun a comparable Athlon 64 X2, but it will have virtually no impact on graphics performance or image quality. Both HP Pavilion systems include integrated graphics, with the AMD platform relying on the GeForce 6150 LE, while Intel utilizes the G965 Express. These are surprisingly robust for integrated graphics solutions, and while GeForce 8800 GTX owners won't be jealous, these chipsets do offer an improved architecture compared to last-generation integrated graphics.
The Intel G965 includes Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3000 graphics, which is the current top-end on the Intel GMA chart. The GMA X3000 graphics core features unified programmable pipelines, similar to the GeForce 8 Series, which can be used to process video, vertex, or texture operations. This means that on paper, the X3000 is DirectX 10 compliant, although drivers have yet to be released. The G965 Express includes the X3000 outfitted with eight programmable pipes, and with a core speed of 667 MHz. The chipset can handle up to 384MB of system memory and supports Intel's Clear Video Technology.
On paper, GMA X3000 graphics looks superb, but driver support has so far held the chipset back, resulting in only software support for vertex shader 3.0 and T&L, and many game incompatibilities. The latest 14.27 drivers do not enable hardware support, although Intel has publicly stated drivers for the Intel G965 Express chipset supporting hardware T&L and vertex shader functions are currently in development, with a June 2007 beta target, and a production release for later in 2007.
The GeForce 6150 LE is essentially an nForce4 platform with an integrated NV44 (GeForce 6200) graphics core. While based on the GeForce 6200, the GeForce 6150 LE does not share the same architecture and only includes 2 pixel pipelines/shaders and 1 vertex shader. This lowers performance considerably, but its GeForce 6 series lineage and driver support does enhance game compatibility, and the chipset supports both DirectX 9.0c and SM3.0. The chipset also handles up to 256MB of shared DDR2, and its graphics core is clocked at 425 MHz. An important part of the GeForce 6150 LE is its support for NVIDIA PureVideo decoding and processing technology, HD video playback, and the presence of a hardware TV encoder for video-out functionality.
RSS feed
