Radeon Xpress 1250 C2D motherboards?

Steve_Y · Post by **Steve_Y** » Sun May 13, 2007 4:34 pm

I've been planning to build an AM2 based system, mainly because of the low power consumption and decent integrated graphics of the 690G motherboards.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Radeon Xpress 1250 chipset for Intel Core 2 Duo essentially the same? Should I expect boards using that chipset to have similar power consumption to those AMD boards? The use of passive heatsinks on the Abit F-I90HD Fatal1ty seems like a good sign...

Apart from that Abit board, are there any other Intel motherboards out using the Radeon Xpress 1250 chipset?

Not that long ago AMD seemed like a clear choice, but cheap Intel CPUs like the E2140/60*, and potentially lower power motherboards are making it more difficult.

*I'm surprised that these haven't been discussed here, I wonder how well they undervolt...

bean1975 · Post by **bean1975** » Mon May 14, 2007 8:47 am

The Core based Pentiums (E2140/60) are only expected in early June.

Steve_Y · Post by **Steve_Y** » Mon May 14, 2007 9:26 am

Really? I've seen a few UK online stores listing them as in stock, so I assumed they were out.

For example:

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/127248
http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/127249

http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Componen ... ctId=27106

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showprodu ... subcat=793

http://www.tekheads.co.uk/s/product?product=607614

Surely that can't be normal for a part that isn't actually available?

People who buy one thinking they're going to be building their new PC in a day or two are going to be a bit disappointed...

johno · Post by **johno** » Tue May 15, 2007 7:03 pm

Seeing the thread title, I thought to myself... "wouldn't that be the worst of both worlds"... the high power consumption of desktop C2D boards, coupled with ATI graphics. I'd be looking more for an AMD board with Intel graphics - hoping for the low power consumption and still getting the Intel graphics - which are well supported for open source drivers.

However, as mentioned, it all depends on what is actually causing the power draw. Does anyone have any comparisons? Any examples of sub 50W total system draw for desktop C2D boards? It would be good to see Intel address this power draw issue, especially at idle.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Tue May 15, 2007 7:48 pm

the high power consumption of desktop C2D boards, coupled with ATI graphics.

What are you talking about, Intel graphics are terrible:

http://www.thetechlounge.com/article/38 ... 0+Chipset/
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article/39 ... Vs+nVidia/

This is a combination of ATI's chipset efficiency and low power consumption with Intel's great processor.

johno · Post by **johno** » Wed May 16, 2007 12:04 am

The thing in favour of the Intel graphics:

http://news.com.com/Intel+aims+for+open ... 03941.html

It means for a more stable system when running Linux - which is what I do. For me the Intel graphics is quite capable enough to do the job, but has the advantage that the company is prepared to release specs for its hardware to enable open driver development. Of course, to MS Windows users this isn't an issue.

As for the power consumption, do you know any sources which would show whether it is the graphics on the Intel boards that is causing the high power consumption, or whether it is a result of something else, like the memory controller off-chip etc? It would be interesting to get a feel for the breakdown, but it's just so hard getting standardised energy use figures on different motherboards. Have you seen any power usage figures on the F-I90HD?

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Wed May 16, 2007 5:04 am

OK, that makes more sense. But compatibility isn't all that in the face of performance, unless you're a command line junkie.

Still, I think ATI also announced that they've stuck open-source drivers for all chipsets and current video (and working back from there) onto the roadmap to start, oh, this yearish.

I think this is a result of ATI and Dell collaborating on Ubuntu, or at least ATI trying to warm up to Dell by working on an advantage they can put over NVIDIA.

Assuming they do a damn thing.

johno · Post by **johno** » Wed May 16, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, ATI is making some hopeful noises about drivers. I've had stability problems with the ATI binary drivers in the past with older boards and getting occasional display lock-ups is a real pain. My new 690G has been fine though, after I directed a fan at the chipset heatsink. I had a good run previously with my ATI 9200SE using open source drivers too... so overall ATI has worked out okay - but it would be nicer to have the open source driver option.

kamaleon · Post by **kamaleon** » Thu May 17, 2007 1:37 pm

Hi folks

This is an issue that's troubling me since last week when a friend asked me to build her a new rig.
I was wondering what the least power hog would be, or at least, a nice compromise between power consumption/performance.
I don't think i can get hold of an EE amd processor, so i was thinkin of:
an X2 3600+ with an 690G board or a 6150 one
vs
a 4300 on a X1250 or an intel chipset (X3000, gma950, etc).

Do you think intel's chipsets are definetly less watt-hungry than amd's/nvidia's? between the latter ones, is there a big difference? Has anyone tested this out or could anyone point me out a couple of links with some measures having been taken?

i don't wish to hijack this thread, and it seems this is related to what's being discussed here, but feel free to ask me to leave if it's too OT

Anyway cheers for any help

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Thu May 17, 2007 2:08 pm

Depends on the chipset, but i965, 690, and MCP61 all run about the same. 690 is the better of the two AM2 chipsets given the features, and realistically, the best of the three. All three are going to idle under 100 and load around 100-145 watts (depending on processor and configuration).

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/04/ ... power_draw

AMD peaks the highest, C2D consumes the most at idle and in watt-hours.

johno · Post by **johno** » Thu May 17, 2007 4:18 pm

From what I can tell the 690G boards are the most efficient of the mainstream desktop boards at the moment. I've mainly been researching the idle draw, because that's what the PCs I'm using spend most of their time doing. (eg office type applications and web browsing are essentially idle).

I've set up a 690G system (Asus M2A-VM, 4800+ 65nm, 2GB 667 RAM, WD3200AAKS HDD, DVD RW, SU-380 power supply). This system is pretty equivalent to the one in the C't tests in the first link below. It draws 49W at idle. From what I can tell, the 6150 boards seem to use about 10W more. The desktop core 2 duo boards seem to start at around 20W extra. If the system is constantly loaded (high traffic server, constant 3D gaming, constant HD video playback) then it becomes more even, and eventually Intel coming up on top at full load.

Don't worry about the EE version processors of AMD. Since the 65nm (Brisbane / DD code) processors came out, the EE are obsolete, and the 65nm cores are just as efficient. However, in the next round AMD will be bringing out more efficient processors again.

Also, if efficiency is important, watch out for the power supply. The cheap ones can be terrible, and one I just tested runs around 60% efficiency at normal load (35W power supply output). That means it wastes an additional 25W just to supply the 35W to the motherboard - and all that heat loading has to be cooled with a louder fan. The 49W total figure I stated is for an Antec SU-380 (in an Antec NSK-3400 case) It runs at about 70% efficiency at 40W output (http://www.silentpcreview.com/article592-page2.html). That's still not so great, but about the best I could find easily.

Of course the laptop chipset boards, just a laptop (or mac mini), is the quickest way to get a much lower power draw.

Some links on power usage:

viewtopic.php?t=35707
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/AMD ... g/?page=15
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=37 ... ert&pid=12

kamaleon · Post by **kamaleon** » Fri May 18, 2007 3:35 am

Max Slowik wrote:Depends on the chipset, but (...) all three are going to idle under 100 and load around 100-145 watts (depending on processor and configuration).

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/04/ ... power_draw

AMD peaks the highest, C2D consumes the most at idle and in watt-hours.

I had read that article - and what's really interesting is that they actually used 2 Âµatx mobos. But i believe their somehow limited choice of CPUs for the test makes it somewhat a bit irrelevant...
But, when you say load around 145w i would have thought that to be way too much! That's pretty much the same as my rig which is:
E6600, asus P5b deluxe, raptor 74GB 16MB cache + T7K500 320GB drive, 2 GB teamgroup ram, passive 6600GT, quite a few 12cm fans at medium / low speeds and 2 skystar 2 cards (one drives a satellite dish motor, the other one a diseqc switch).

johno wrote:From what I can tell the 690G boards are the most efficient of the mainstream desktop boards at the moment. I've mainly been researching the idle draw, because that's what the PCs I'm using spend most of their time doing. (eg office type applications and web browsing are essentially idle).
I've set up a 690G system (...) It draws 49W at idle. From what I can tell, the 6150 boards seem to use about 10W more. The desktop core 2 duo boards seem to start at around 20W extra.

But shouldn't the intel X1250 mobos be pretty much the same as amd's 690G?
Personnally i'm very very keen on the 6150 ones as nvidia's purevideo's DXVA is pretty good for AVCHD... at least until they come out with a geforce 8400 or the like in an IGP (if that ever comes out i might sell my asus P5B deluxe)

Don't worry about the EE version processors of AMD. Since the 65nm (Brisbane / DD code) processors came out, the EE are obsolete, and the 65nm cores are just as efficient.

That's great to know mate! But, i'm still a bit split here... between a Brisbane X2 3600+ and an E4300, which one would be more efficient knowing that the E4300 will probably be a lot more powerful thus probably loading less and idling more?

Also, if efficiency is important, watch out for the power supply. The cheap ones can be terrible, and one I just tested runs around 60% efficiency at normal load (35W power supply output). That means it wastes an additional 25W just to supply the 35W to the motherboard - and all that heat loading has to be cooled with a louder fan. The 49W total figure I stated is for an Antec SU-380 (in an Antec NSK-3400 case) It runs at about 70% efficiency at 40W output

That's indeed a crucial point. Personnally my rig's a Smart Power 450W that came with my Antec Sonata II and it seems to behave really well even when compared to the seasonic ones (either branded or sold under antec's series)
Another thing i though was... could one use a picopsu here? Like just for the cpu, and if needed, get the optical drive/hard disk on a separate external brick with molex plugs...

Of course the laptop chipset boards, just a laptop (or mac mini), is the quickest way to get a much lower power draw.

Yes, without a doubt... but my friend doesn't have the money to invest in such an excellent solution

johno · Post by **johno** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:25 pm

I managed to find some power results on the Abit board:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview ... id=2013135

It looks like 60W idle with efficient power supplies and a standard set of components. I place the 4800+ as fairly equivalent in power, so the Athlon still wins at idle. Under load that gap is eventually going to be made up. So it's just going to depend on the average system load over time .