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
Hrel - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
Seriously people, before you leave angry comments read the ENTIRE article. He addresses your complaints IN the article. As weiran says, it comes down to supply. AMD doesn't have anything better available to buy. My guess is AMD knows the only systems getting AMD chips right now are the cheapest possible systems, so they probably only manufacture a few thousand of their higher end chips; knowing anyone willing to spend that much money on a CPU will probably go with Intel. Why waste the resources on chips that will never sell? At least not for a profit. So they only keep the cheaper CPU's in stock. They have no delusions about the situation they're in; if only their fan-boys were as clear sighted.SteelCity1981 - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
We know Intel has the best CPU's as far as performance on the market goes, but Wwat this did show is AMD's IGP is far better than Intels IGP. So it's really a trade off between CPU performance or Graphics performance if you only had those two options in buying a system like this. Things should get a lot better on the CPU side with AMD's APU's with Trinity using AMD's Piledriver Cores instead an old revised version of the Athlon II cores that come with Llano. And not to mention the HD 7000 series on the GPU side that will come along with it.Hrel - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
Problem is you don't game on an IGP; you buy a dedicated graphics card. Also this is HALF the GPU performance of Intel. He says in the article 6 cores compared to the normal 12. So while the AMD gpu is still a little faster, not by much. And not nearly enough to matter. You aren't gonna game on an IGP, so saying AMD wins because their IGP is better for gaming is moronic. Intels chip is better at literally EVERYTHING, even video rendering.SteelCity1981 - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
What's moronic is the fact that yopu said AMD's IGP is a little better? Are you blind. Intels IGP is way better then intels IGP is the benchmarks clearly showed that.So people that do light gaming can't game on AMD's APU?
silverblue - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
This isn't meant to be a performance machine, it is meant to be a setup for 65W or less. The article points out that whilst the i7 is easily the faster of the two for CPU work (and why shouldn't it be with an extra core advantage, hyperthreading, better turbo, and 8MB L3 cache), in terms of general usage you probably wouldn't notice it that much over the A6-3500. What's more, the AMD machine uses less power and performs far better at gaming. I also feel the need to point out that the HD 2000 requires a clock speed of three times that of the HD6530D yet falls far behind. The HD3000 will help but not enormously so - put simply, only CPU bound games will do better on the Intel side (and we're talking the minority of games). Let's also not forget that Llano performs noticably better with 1600MHz RAM over the 1333 in this build.I should also mention that, due to the size of the enclosure and the limited power feed, you CAN'T really add a dedicated card to this setup. So, you have to ask yourself - do you want to use the machine for media or productivity? The AMD machine will handle both whilst costing less, whilst the Intel setup will seriously limp through games but excel at anything that doesn't require a GPU (plus it has QuickSync, of course).
Having said that, neither system is the most price friendly.
piroroadkill - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
A bit cruel to pick out a cheap Llano vs a Sandy Bridge most people would be happy with in their main desktop.A8-3820 is the fastest Llano inside 65W, and would be vastly quicker than the chip tested.
I admit it's probably a pain to get hold of (I was trying to find one a while back), but it's not a fair fight without it..
Hrel - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
You know who said this EXACT same thing? Dustin... IN THE ARTICLE!!!!! Gahhhh!!!! Seriously people, READ THE WHOLE DAMN THING BEFORE LEAVING A COMMENT COMPLAINING!!!Hrel - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
Ok, so you absolutely cannot game on the Intel system. You can play some games on very low settings and even lower resolutions on the AMD system. Absolutely EVERYTHING else is faster on the Intel system. So, you don't WANT to game on either system. WHY would you choose the AMD system? If you want to game I'm sure a system like this is not your only system. A decent 15" gaming laptop, P151HM for instance. Any desktop that you've built or bought that has a 75 dollar graphics card in it or better. Point being if you want to game you won't do it on either of these. So unless price is all you care about, Intel it is.Ever since Intel put that video rendering engine on their CPU's, I forget what it's called right now, the one and only reason to ever consider anything AMD sells is if you play video games. The kinds of video games that require a GPU. Even then a given person might choose Nvidia over AMD. I don't want to see them go under, with the recent legal battles they've won that won't be for a while. But things don't look good. I would love nothing more than to build an AMD system, but I haven't been able to justify it since my Athlon XP. (skipped the Athlon 64 (and X2) era of CPU's). Running E8400 and GTX460 in my desktop, Sandy Bridge 2630 and GTX560M in my laptop. Each one suits all my needs in excess. I cannot see myself buying anything AMD, replacing desktop in 6-18 months. Laptops got a few years left on it. Maybe by 2015/2016 AMD will be a viable option??? Probably not:(
HW_mee - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
I think the question is, why would you pay 1750$ for that Intel system?Hrel - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link
lol, well, I wouldn't, not even close. But I might build a similar setup myself. I've always liked the idea of a thin client as a HTPC.