Benchmark Results: Synthetics
Let's begin with the usual suspects, Futuremark's 3DMark and PCMark suites. We should note that they didn't work on the 785G at first, but AMD sent us an updated .dll file that allowed us to run the benches. This is an issue we've seen in the past when the app isn't able to detect the new hardware.
Everything looks about right here, except that the GeForce 9400 is probably a lot higher than it should be compared to the other chipsets, despite the fact that we turned PhysX optimizations off to keep things on an even keel. Unfortunately, 3DMark can create an unrealistic expectation sometimes as we will see in the game benchmarks.
The PCMark results look to be where we would expect them.
Let's run through SiSoft Sandra's gamut of synthetic benchmarks on all of these platforms, starting with the CPU arithmetic bench:
Not much variance here, but what is incredibly surprising is that these are the results of two different CPUs: the Phenom II X2 550, and the Core 2 Duo E7200. First glance would suggest these competitors are very evenly matched.
We're seeing the CPU's split up a little bit here, with the Phenom II X2 performing notably better when it comes to iSSE4.1
Here's where some real differences come into play. The Phenom II X2 and its integrated memory controller deliver significantly more memory bandwidth. Note that the GeForce 8200 board is running a little slower, as it's the only AMD system using DDR2 memory. Both of the Intel systems, also using DDR2, lose ground.
Latest Motherboards News
Latest Motherboards reviews
- 12/01 – Seven $260-$320 X79 Express Motherboards, Reviewed
- 07/12 – Ultimate X79? Five £230+ LGA 2011 Motherboards, Reviewed
- 07/11 – Five £130 To £195 990FX-Based Socket AM3+...
- 13/10 – Man Vs. Machine: Four Automatic Overclocking Techs, Compared
- 19/09 – Round-Up: Four Z68 Motherboards From £190 To £260
just want to give you guys a heads up, meybe you wanna look into it:
AMD 785G Update - Multi-Channel LPCM is not Available
or at least thats what AMD says accordign to anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=629
Great article..thanks for including the GPGPU benchmarks
Be nice to see those vs. the fastest i7 and it's respective power draw.
Fair do's to AMD. They've bounced back, and given the market some products that can compete with both Intel (CPU's) and nVidia (GPU's). Seems like it's only nVidia that has kept Intel's head above water in the GPU market..the G45 couldn't even play Blue-Ray properly, let alone produce decent frame rates even in slightly older games.
If I was in AMD's shoes right now I'd push the advantage of GPGPU processing, in addition to low-cost Athlon II/Phenom II processors. Only thing that doesn't appeal to me is the naming conventions, which confuse the user into thinking higher numbers mean more performance..that really turned me off nVidia. The 785G is alright because it suggests a slightly modified design rather than a brand new one (nice to see them squeezing everything out of it and developing even better drivers), but the integrated HD4200 being slower than HD3300? Hmm, c'mon guys..that might cheese off a few people.
Finally, the article does lead me to ask: is nVidia doing the 9400 for AM3? If not, is it down to some competition law or something? The 8200 game results look very weak..they're even on par with the Intel G45 on occasion. An nVidia 9 series IGP for the AMD platform would obviously be better.
p.s.
I think Mother Earth is far better served by the US population, which is predicted to mushroom in a relatively short space of time..I'll settle for the lesser evil I think, and get that shiny new CPU.
I think Mother Earth is far better served by the US population, which is predicted to mushroom in a relatively short space of time..I'll settle for the lesser evil I think, and get that shiny new CPU.
I think you've missed out the words "not" and "cloud" from your quote
Anandtech is reporting that retail 785G motherboards typically won't actually support multi-channel LPCM. Any truth to this?
AMD chips still can't run standard windows Apps properly without cashing, so as far as I am concerned, Intel is a solid winner.
(every AMD I have been on has had an issue with some very basic program, ranging from Nero Burning Rom to something as simple as Microsoft Word (03/07))
Hey, this review is giving me ideas....
and now i'm slightly confused...
I was going to assemble an intel 5200+ Biostar g41 for a simple home use PC, but now I am seriously considering 785G. I am not really into gaming. All I want is a graphic good enough to play bluray with good onboard sound card.
Anyway, keep up the good work. This is the kind of review which a novice like me am looking at and depending upon when trying to buy a new PC. Thanks!!