Intel D945GCLF m-ITX: Atom For The Desktop
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:17 am
Discussions about Silent Computing
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=49955
Whether this board is suitable really depends on the application. Obvious, a modern media center it's not, and the IGP pulls too much power when it's working. For lots of casual PC users, it would be perfectly good. As someone in a lineup for the Asus EEE BOX + free 22" Asus monitor at NCIX said to me, "The people who would benefit most from this Atom-based PC aren't in the lineup, which is full of geeks who already have lots of computers." His point is that the average casual PC user doesn't need the power of even a budget desktop PC; almost any Atom-based PC would be enough. I think the same can be said of this board. And remember, other than its predecessor, this $70 board is about the cheapest mitx board you can buy. (And no, I didn't stay in the lineup, as I was too late to be among the first 10 that morn.)Nick Geraedts wrote:Hmm... this makes me wary of using this board in my soon-to-be new system. It makes me want to wait until the Atom 330 based systems are released...
Somehow I doubt the DIY market is Intel's main focus with these boards. They're more for special app system integrators who used similarly equipped embedded CPU mITX boards from VIA for years -- but paid at least double.jessekopelman wrote:It always seems like Intel either purposely or subconsciously doesn't want these integrated boards to be as good as they could be. Why didn't they use the US15W chipset that they are putting in UMPC? That would idle < 10W. I suppose they want to use the 945G since they have to keep making it for Mac-minis anyway, but isn't Apple ready to switch those over to G45, yet? Also, why do they think the price point is $70? If they charged $100 they could probably give a much better product and it would still be far less expensive than other vendors' alternatives.
I think you're right. Still, all the more reason to make a more energy efficient product. All those 10W savings add up over the hundreds of thousands if not millions of units sold and they'd still be half the price of Via. Not only that but lower draw means less heat and easier integration for those embedded folks. Again, something tells me that once the Mac-mini finally moves off it, no more 945G. Whether something better or just different, we'll see.MikeC wrote: Somehow I doubt the DIY market is Intel's main focus with these boards. They're more for special app system integrators who used similarly equipped embedded CPU mITX boards from VIA for years -- but paid at least double.
Picturing this made me lol.By comparison, the D945GCLF's video playback seems like it is hand-cranked by a narcoleptic monkey.
D945GCLF has a 100Mbps network connection.Zed Lopez wrote:On pages 1 and 2, the review says it has 10/100 Mbps ethernet. Intel says it's 10/100/1000.
Has anyone tested power with integrated graphics disabled? Maybe you could forget the integrated graphics and run WHS?Ackelind wrote:This is one good idea done completely wrong. The Atom needs to be paired with a specially developed northbridge in order to have any advantage. AMD BE-processor + 780G offers probably ten times the performance with roughly equal power consumption.
It doesn't help to match a tiny 45nm cpu with a 180nm(?) chipset-oven.