Since the beginning of last year, integrated graphics processors (IGPs) have become a lot more exciting. Consumers now have solid options from all of the major players, including AMD’s 780G/790GX, Intel’s G45, and Nvidia’s 8200/9300/9400. All of these components have their respective strengths and weaknesses, but compared to past offerings, these chipsets are light-years ahead.
Now, AMD is bringing a new product to the table, and the fresh 785G chipset is an evolution of the 780G; certainly not revolutionary. It was created to address some of the features that the 780G lacked, such as eight-channel LPCM audio over HDMI, picture-in-picture video acceleration, ATI Stream technology support, DirectX 10.1, and Windows 7 compatibility. In addition, AMD promises lower power usage with the 785G. None of these features represent a "killer app" for the company, especially since the competition already offers most of these capabilities in their existing products. But taken as a whole, the 785G is a very positive step in the right direction. That is, of course, assuming it can deliver the goods, which our testing will flesh out.
The State of IGP
While Intel's G45 for Socket 775 is over most of its teething problems and can playback a Blu-ray disc in a competent fashion, it isn't very impressive in the graphics department. Nvidia's 8200 for Socket AM2+ isn't much better when it comes to 3D horsepower, but Nvidia has addressed that weakness with its GeForce 9300/9400 chipsets for Socket 775. As far as AMD’s portfolio goes, the 780G is a fantastic low-budget chipset, and the 790GX is a solid midrange offering. With these products leading the IGP segment when it comes to price/performance superiority, why change the 780G now?

Perhaps AMD's best reason to introduce the 785G chipset isn't the chipset itself, but its new Phenom II-based processors that can be used with it, including the Athlon II. While the original Phenom was somewhat anemic compared to Intel's Core 2 offerings (and was stigmatized early on for its TLB issue), the Phenom II sports a more refined architecture that has returned AMD to price/performance leadership with some of its parts.
With this in mind, there probably isn't a better time to re-introduce the improved 785G as an alternative to Nvidia's 9300/9400, and to highlight the 785G's strengths over Intel's G45.
- Introduction
- 785G Northbridge And SB710 Southbridge Vital Statistics
- Features For The Home-Theater Crowd
- Radeon HD 4200 Enhancements
- Other 785G Goodies
- Hardware Choices, Setup, And Overclocking
- Test System And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Synthetics
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: 3D Rendering And Productivity
- Game Benchmarks: First-Person Shooters
- Game Benchmarks: Flight Sim And RTS
- HD Video Playback Benchmarks
- GPGPU Benchmark
- Power Usage Benchmark
- Conclusion
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
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 you've missed out the words "not" and "cloud" from your quote
(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))
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!!