Puget Systems Echo: Intel and AMD Showdown at 65 Watts
by Dustin Sklavos on March 21, 2012 2:35 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
- AMD
- Intel
- Mini ITX
- Sandy Bridge
- Llano
- boutique
- Mini-Tower
Conclusion: AMD's Dark Horse
What we're really looking at today are two things: the Puget Systems Echo I as a system in both AMD and Intel configurations, and what AMD and Intel bring to the table in this smallest of form factors.
First of all, from the value standpoint, Puget Systems just isn't winning this fight. The Intel Echo I in the configuration we have for review is marked up nearly $450 from building it yourself, retail. That's basically a ~40% markup on the cost of parts, and when we're talking about a nearly $1,800 desktop, it's just too difficult to turn a blind eye. The AMD model fares little better; the savings is essentially commensurate with the difference in price between the A6-3500 and the i7-2600S. I try to be fairly forgiving of boutiques, and I recognize that they have to make a living, but this markup is pretty high even for a high quality boutique like Puget Systems.
From the review standpoint, this also probably wasn't as fair a fight as it should've been. While we were gunning for the most powerful AMD and Intel systems that could conceivably be built in this form factor, the differences between the platforms weren't accounted for (thus the DDR3-1333 in the AMD build), and a better foil for the A6-3500 might actually have been the Intel Core i5-2405S, the only Intel chip Puget offers for the Echo that has HD 3000 graphics instead of HD 2000. In fact, if you were going to build an Echo and wanted to go Intel, I think that's the chip you want and not the i7-2600S, which just isn't worth the $130 premium in this reviewer's opinion.
With the data we do have on the table, though, I find myself leaning towards the AMD build. I remain an avid proponent of Llano in notebooks while being skeptical of it in the desktop market, but in a small form factor build I do think AMD is correct in asserting that they have the better proposition in terms of building a balanced platform. The question is, as always, what you're planning on doing with the computer.
You already know if you need a system small enough to be mounted to the back of a monitor, and we're not arguing the merits of going with a small form factor system over a standard desktop here. If you do need every last shred of CPU performance, obviously you're going to want to buy Intel; that's not even a question. However, if your usage model is much broader, it bears mentioning that there's technically nothing an i3/i5/i7 processor can do that an A6-3500 can't; the A6 just may be slower getting there. The flipside is that the HD 2000 on most of Intel's desktop chips is inadequate for any kind of gaming, full stop, while the Radeon HD 6530D in the A6-3500 is going to be able to play games. (And while an HD 3000 equipped CPU would help, it's still not going to be enough in our opinion for most games at anything above minimum detail settings.)
If I had to choose which of these two systems I'd find more useful, no question, I'd go with the AMD system. It's true that I edit video on my desktop, but I also play a lot of games on my desktop. The A6-3500 can still edit video, albeit slowly, but the Intel chips aren't going to let me play Left 4 Dead 2 or Quake Wars with my friends.
We're left with two conclusions to our two questions: How is the Puget Systems Echo I, and what are AMD and Intel bringing to the small form factor table? The answer to the first question is that the build is certainly fine, but it's uncompetitive on price, and the gulf is wide enough that I can't recommend spending that much more money with Puget Systems when another boutique will be willing to build the same systems for you in a custom order for less. Likewise, while we understand the rationale for the default warranty length, given the large price markup it feels stingy. Sure, most desktops will last three years no problem regardless, but we'd like to see that backed up by the manufacturer, "just in case". As to the second, it's a matter of perspective and what you're intending to use the system for, but for the general user with a broader usage model, I think Llano is the clear winner.
Of course, this is really an old battle we're looking at here. The real question that we can't answer just yet is what will happen in the next round of CPU/APU updates. Ivy Bridge will certainly shore up some of the graphics deficiencies on the Intel side, and Trinity may improve the CPU side of AMD's offerings while further improving on their graphics capabilities. Both are due out in the not too distant future, so if you haven't yet jumped on the Sandy Bridge or Llano bandwagon, waiting for the pending refreshes might be the best tact right now.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
Spunjji - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link
This is addressed very well in the article, particularly in the conclusions. The editorial is nicely balanced if you took the time to read it.Yes, it stinks that people will look at the graphs in this and nothing else, but that's people for you and it's AMD's responsibility to combat that.
trane - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
Since you have brought up video editing and gaming as the two usage scenarios, I would like to contest that Llano would do the former much slower than SNB. The GPU is not just for gaming, but GPGPU as well. Quite a few editing software today are starting to be heavily OpenCL GPU accelerated - including Sony Vegas and Cyberlink Powerdirector. I would have also mentioned Premiere Pro but it is CUDA only for now, should be OpenCL in the near future. Perhaps you should add a Sony Vegas Pro benchmark to your suite, Sony already have a standard benchmark project available (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuac... and GPUs bring massive gains over CPU-only.Just a suggestion, as Llano's GPGPU capabilities almost always goes unnoticed, and unfairly so. Yes, not many applications are heavily GPU accelerated today, but video editing is certainly one of them.
It's a pity the A8-3800 isn't available, that would have been pretty great, and much faster than A6-3500 for a small price.
trane - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
Here's a link to the benchmark project: www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuaccelerationDustin Sklavos - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
The problem is that GPGPU and dedicated hardware encoding still, to my knowledge, have issues with end quality. If you're just transcoding for the internet or for yourself, they're probably fine, but CPU-only encoding remains the gold standard.That said, Premiere CS5.5 benefits tremendously from CUDA, but not entirely on the encoding side. Mercury Playback Engine still produces reference quality video, but CUDA accelerates decoding and effects layering on the timeline by a substantial degree, in some cases meaning the difference between editing in realtime and not.
GPGPU has promise but that promise is, presently, nascent on the desktop.
trane - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
Do note that I am not referring to encoding! On Vegas Pro the entire video processing pipeline is heavily GPU accelerated. Right from decoding to colour space transforms to scaling to transitions/motion graphics to nearly all video effects - nearly everything is GPU accelerated - even before we hit the encoding stage. Much more extensive than Premiere Pro. Do give the benchmark project a try, you might be surprised how far GPGPU has come.silverblue - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
The i7-2600S sports QuickSync, so if the software supports it, it may not actually be a victory for AMD on this one.hypercube33 - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
This is bull. As posted by sabot they have plenty of higher powered APU's available up to the newer A8-3800.This is like cutting off the arms of your opponent and then saying he didnt even throw a punch. I am not saying AMD is better, but this review is skewed so badly that its not even close to worth publishing.
weiran - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
Yes AMD have a higher power CPU in the A8-3800. But available?I'm in the UK so the availability is probably even worse than the US, but I've been unable to find any stock of the A8-3800. The only place you can get one seems to be in pre-built HP desktops.
silverblue - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Not to mention the significantly higher power consumption of a quad core CPU at 2.9GHz with much more powerful graphics. Sure, the 38xx series would be preferable, if only you could actually grab hold of them.The 3870K is available on CCL for £103, but the A6-3500 is a mere £55 from the same site. The only available models available on that site are the A4-3300, A4-3400, A6-3500, A6-3670K and A8-3870K - there is no sign of the 3800 or 3820.
djfourmoney - Thursday, April 12, 2012 - link
Its not just you, all the major e-tailers don't carry the A8-3800 in North America. The B&M's don't either (Micro Center and Fry's). That's why I got the A6-3500 and called it a day.An A4-3400 is plenty for HTPC use, does 29/59 and 3D without issues. When you start using 3rd party stuff like MadVR, you may have a few problems with interlaced content as found in Rene's testing on AVS forums.
The Triple Core is the best case scenario of price and performance. It will do what my current system does, only faster (current rig is 5000+ BE) and that's plenty for me.
MB, APU, SSD and Memory all for under $200