Puget Systems Echo: Intel and AMD Showdown at 65 Watts

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.