Choosing between a AM2 3800 X2 and E6300 for HTPC build

[olemm]

Long-time lurker, but posting newbie, so sorry if this question has been asked a zillion times. I tried searching but thet didn't quite solve it.


I am current building a computer for my living room, and allthough I am not intending to build an abosolute quiet system (I live in the city center of Oslo, so absolute silence is kind of pointless).

The machine is not intended as a gaming machine, but I need some computing power as the machine is to be running Photoshop CS2 and statistics applications. I also need the good looking, sleek(ish) casing due to WAF and a small flat.

I have put together two alternative set-ups based on the Antec Fusion case:

ASRock ConRoe945G-DVI
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300
TwinMOS DDR2-DDR533 1024MB (possibly two of these)
Samsung SpinPoint P120 250 GB S-ATA


AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ AM2
Asus M2NPV-MX
Samsung SpinPoint P120 250 GB S-ATA
Kingston DDR2-DDR667 1024MB (possibly two of these)

I am planning to run the system initially with stock fans, and then eventually decide which fans need replacing after listening to it. I wonder which of these setups who will be most quiet, and whether the increased performance of the E6300 is followed with much higher heat, and concequently more noise?

Any comments on these setups will be much appreciated.

[autoboy]

Both are fastl and low power enough for a HTPC. I would tend to prefer the athlon system based on the onboard graphics. The GMA 950 in the intel board is not nearly as good as the 6150 for watching tv or DVDs. The 6150 has many purevideo functions that really improve the picture. The intel does not have these.

If you are using a video card than this is moot. Also, it depends a little on your tv and how you are going to connect it. If it is a HDTV connected with DVI than the 6150 is much better, if it is a CRT tv connected with svideo than it does not really matter much. If you have a CRT, make sure you find the one that offers tv out.

[Sizzle]

The e6300 should not be any hotter running but it will mop the floor with the 3800+ performance wise.

[autoboy]

Dude, it is a HTPC. Mop the floor? Maybe 10-20% but who cares that much in a HTPC. The intel chip is also more expensive. For a HTPC, the video is more important than the processor.

The only way I would go intel here is if you planned on using a discrete video card which would make the system even more expensive.

[vitaminc]

You need 6300 and discrete graphics card.

X2 3800+ is SLOW for HTPC. I repeat SLOW!!!

6300 will crash 3800+ X2 in encoding/decoding and ripping DVD.

A 7600GT or 1600XT is definitely needed if you plan to drop in a HD DVD or BR in the near future. You CANNOT have a smooth HD decoding/playback without hardware acceleration from your graphics card.

[QuietOC]

The e6300 should not be any hotter running but it will mop the floor with the 3800+ performance wise.

With undervolting the X2 3800+ can run much cooler than the E6300 (which really cannot be further undervolted even at 1.6GHz.)

X2 3800+ is SLOW for HTPC. I repeat SLOW!!!

6300 will crash 3800+ X2 in encoding/decoding and ripping DVD.

Neither are adequate for 1080p H.264 decoding. The E6300 is substantially faster than the X2 3800+ in encoding. If you really want encoding power though you should really look to getting four or more cores--maybe a new Mac Pro?

If you expect a little less from your HTPC either chip should be decent. Video encoding performance per Watt is pretty even between the two. Even a cheap 65nm Netburst should be decent. It really comes down to how much you want to spend.

[vitaminc]

It just doesn't make any sense to me to use performance per watt as a metrix when you are talking about encoding/decoding. If I want to rip a DVD or transcode some DVIX files to AVI formats, I want them to be done fast. I don't care how much power that will take, but I want them to be done now.

Performance per watt will be even greater when you are using Celerons or old K7s, but that just doesnt make any sense.

I will go E6300 for sure, or T7300 if you have enough cash to do mobile on desktop. Pointless to get X2 3800+ now, especially when the 65nm version will be out in couple months at a even lower power envelope.

[QuietOC]

If I want to rip a DVD or transcode some DVIX files to AVI formats, I want them to be done fast.
...
I will go E6300 for sure.

I really can't follow your logic. Why the E6300 then? Couldn't you get something faster?

If price and heat are no object get as many cores as possibly (multiple sockets). Budget and heat indifferent get a P-D 805 or for a little more get a much cooler/faster 65nm P-D 915.

The E6300 isn't always faster than the X2 3800+ at video encoding even.

[Sizzle]

The E6300 isn't always faster than the X2 3800+ at video encoding even.

That is the EE 3800 not the 65 watt one he's comparing.

Comparison wise the e6300 is closer the 4x00+ tier of X2's in performance.

As for undervolting, that is a concept I never really follow. I understand the concept, but pissing away money to not use a product completely does not make sense.

[jackylman]

As for undervolting, that is a concept I never really follow. I understand the concept, but pissing away money to not use a product completely does not make sense.

The idea is to dynamically undervolt so the processor does not use as much power when it's doing nothing. Some people won't even take the simple step of enabling C'n'Q because they claim it hurts performance. Pissing away money on the electric/AC bill does not make sense to me

[jaganath]

As for undervolting, that is a concept I never really follow. I understand the concept, but pissing away money to not use a product completely does not make sense.

Sounds like actually you don't understand the concept. See Jackylman's post above.

[vitaminc]

The E6300 isn't always faster than the X2 3800+ at video encoding even.

That is the EE 3800 not the 65 watt one he's comparing.

Comparison wise the e6300 is closer the 4x00+ tier of X2's in performance.

As for undervolting, that is a concept I never really follow. I understand the concept, but pissing away money to not use a product completely does not make sense.

the idea is to run the processor at the lowest voltage possible without hurting its performance.

or to a higher degree, underclock/undervolt when your system is idle to save power.

but any extreme undervolting is just retarded because you can get the same thing.

[jackylman]

My vote is for the X2-3800 with the GeForce 6150. It's better value and you can OC with CrystalCPUID to make up the difference in performance with the Core 2 Duo.[/b]

[QuietOC]

That is the EE 3800 not the 65 watt one he's comparing.

Comparison wise the e6300 is closer the 4x00+ tier of X2's in performance.

All X2 3800+'s process identically.

Well there is some very minor difference between the AM2 and S939 versions, but the only thing different about the EE and SF EE versions of the AM2 X2 3800+ is the specified voltages. It doesn't even appear that the low-voltage chips are even better binned die. For all intents it appears you could make a perfect fake EE from merely ripping off or grounding some voltage ID pins on a non-EE AM2 CPU (or just undervolting with appropiate software.)

Luckily for us, changing a CPU's voltage does not change its processing ability--unless, perhaps, the CPU has some built-in clock-throttling technology. Maybe someday we will get asynchronous CPUs that will just time each process themselves to be as quick as possible.

As for undervolting, that is a concept I never really follow. I understand the concept, but pissing away money to not use a product completely does not make sense.

Did you mean to say underclocking?

For example: I was able to run a mobile Athlon XP 2500+ at 2.7GHz @ 2.3V. This required the best heatsink available and a 4800rpm 92x38mm fan. 200W is probably a reasonable estimate for the power used/heat produced by that chip. For some reason I decided to run that chip at 2.5Ghz @ 2.0V using a much quieter fan.

Now I am happily using a 2.4 GHz A64 3400+ at stock speed slightly undervolted at full-load, and with CrystalCPUID I have it idle down 1GHz @ 1.07V. The big advantage is I can't hear anything other than the occasional drive seek.

[Sizzle]

That is the EE 3800 not the 65 watt one he's comparing.

Comparison wise the e6300 is closer the 4x00+ tier of X2's in performance.

All X2 3800+'s process identically.

Well there is some very minor difference between the AM2 and S939 versions, but the only thing different about the EE and SF EE versions of the AM2 X2 3800+ is the specified voltages. It doesn't even appear that the low-voltage chips are even better binned die. For all intents it appears you could make a perfect fake EE from merely ripping off or grounding some voltage ID pins on a non-EE AM2 CPU (or just undervolting with appropiate software.)

Luckily for us, changing a CPU's voltage does not change its processing ability--unless, perhaps, the CPU has some built-in clock-throttling technology. Maybe someday we will get asynchronous CPUs that will just time each process themselves to be as quick as possible.

As for undervolting, that is a concept I never really follow. I understand the concept, but pissing away money to not use a product completely does not make sense.

Did you mean to say underclocking?

For example: I was able to run a mobile Athlon XP 2500+ at 2.7GHz @ 2.3V. This required the best heatsink available and a 4800rpm 92x38mm fan. 200W is probably a reasonable estimate for the power used/heat produced by that chip. For some reason I decided to run that chip at 2.5Ghz @ 2.0V using a much quieter fan.

Now I am happily using a 2.4 GHz A64 3400+ at stock speed slightly undervolted at full-load, and with CrystalCPUID I have it idle down 1GHz @ 1.07V. The big advantage is I can't hear anything other than the occasional drive seek.

Yes, I meant underclocking, sorry. Though, I would still be curious to see how much electrical savings you'd actually get undervolting a throttling capable cpu like a X2 EE or a C 2 Duo.

[autoboy]

The advantage is significant while your system operates at full load. Using crystalcpuid, you can also have the cpu throttle down when idle as well.

For example. I do a lot of Folding. It is a distributed computing application that uses my spare cpu cycles to help cure cancer and the like. My cpu runs at full load all the time. I am able to run my sempron 2600+ at the stock 1.6Ghz and 1.1V at full load. This is down from 1.4V stock. Since the power requirements of the processor decrease/increase with the square of the voltage, my cpu at full clock speed uses 25W, down from the stock 40W. This saves me money and allows my fans to hardly spin. Athlon 64s allow easy undervolting and so this is a big advantage.

[QuietOC]

Yes, I meant underclocking, sorry. Though, I would still be curious to see how much electrical savings you'd actually get undervolting a throttling capable cpu like a X2 EE or a C 2 Duo.

It seems like the AM2 C'n'Q chips can be undervolted down to ~0.850V instead of 1.1V, and not only at the lowest C'n'Q speed (1000MHz). A ~1.5Ghz @ ~0.9V K8 is plenty fast for most things, and uses less power than the current Conroes at their lowest setting (1.6GHz).

AMD is really only not competitive (as far as full-load performance/watt/price) in the high end (Core 2 Duo E6600 and higher). If you are looking at stock performance/Watt the Core 2 Duo E6700 is the most power efficient Conroe. Once you factor in idle power efficiencies--the Conroes don't look too efficient.

Keep in mind that this is with the AM2 chips running on a very power inefficient chipset:



Notice also that the lower grade 65nm Pentium 4 Ds aren't all that bad off either.

[Phido]

The 6150 has all the video playback acceleration features of a 7600.

It may or may not but able to play 1080p with a 3800+x2 but you will be no worse off than a person with a 7600gs..

The 6150 is a bit more powerful in video and 3D than the intel. CPU wise there isn't a huge leap in either power or performance.

[QuietOC]

The 6150 has all the video playback acceleration features of a 7600.

No, not quite.

nVidia has a chart showing the different video features of their GPU/IGP chips.

Specifically the 6150 lacks "Spatial-Temporal De-Interlacing," "Inverse Telecine," and "Bad Edit Correction" for HD content. And only the 7600GT in the 7600 series supports those for HD content.

Which features are supported seems to be somewhat determined by the GPU clockspeed.

[QuietOC]

This is the conclusion of a recent LostCircuits article comparing video and audio encoding performance of the latest AMD and Intel desktop chips.

On the lower end, we can consider the encoding performance of the X2 4000+ (2.0 GHz, 2 x 1 MB L2) to be equivalent to the X2 3800+, since additional L2 cache on the AMD platform had no significant effect. Perhaps AMD came to this same conclusion when they decided to phase out the non-FX chips with the larger cache....

In summary, Intel currently has the best choices for the high performance market. Midrange comes down to personal preference, as Intel and AMD are on equal footing in this area. At the lower end the E6300 performs impressively at $208, but the X2 3800+ for only $150 is awfully hard to pass up.

Which chip you buy is more about how much you are willing to spend.

Performance per watt will be even greater when you are using Celerons or old K7s, but that just doesnt make any sense.

This is competely false. The low-end 90nm K8s are much more power efficient than any older chip. They are even more efficient the VIA C7s and Pentium Ms. Even Intel's 65nm chips barely match the K8s in performance/Watt.

Yes, I meant underclocking, sorry. Though, I would still be curious to see how much electrical savings you'd actually get undervolting a throttling capable cpu like a X2 EE or a C 2 Duo.

Well, it is possible to cut CPU idle power consumption in half of the amount it is already reduced using AMD's normal C'n'Q setting (1GHz @ 1.1V)--down to less than 5W per core.

[StrongSilentType]

There's a review on those processors here:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=2795

It looks like the AMD one is cheaper than the Intel one. The power consumption of AMD is less, but the performance of Intel is quite a bit higher.

I think one other thing to consider is that the Intel motherboards don't have the infamous Northbridge fan.

Oh yeah, I can play 1080p video fine on my AMD64 3000+ with post processing turn off :p

[olemm]

Thanks for all input, people!

Right now, the price difference between a AM2 3800 X2 system and a E6300 is virtually nothing in Norway, about 20-30 USD, so right now, I am seriously considering the E6300 based system. Do I understand it correct if I think that the two systems should be fairly equal when it comes to heat dissapation (and thus noise)?

[QuietOC]

Do I understand it correct if I think that the two systems should be fairly equal when it comes to heat dissapation (and thus noise)?

There isn't a big difference. The AM2 system can be made to run much cooler, but is also often slower. I'd certainly go with the Intel chip if the prices were equal. The missing thing for me with the Intel system is the chipset. The Conroe system would be a lot nicer with say an ATI chipset with a built-in X700 for video.

Good luck!

[vitaminc]

Thanks for all input, people!

Right now, the price difference between a AM2 3800 X2 system and a E6300 is virtually nothing in Norway, about 20-30 USD, so right now, I am seriously considering the E6300 based system. Do I understand it correct if I think that the two systems should be fairly equal when it comes to heat dissapation (and thus noise)?

both systems have similar power consumption levels.

noise of the system depending on the choice of gfx/psu/cpu hsf.

I would go e6300, or wait 2-3 months for 3800 X2 65nm version.