Adcadet
Storage Freak
Anyone built a HTPC lately? Considered a Llano chip? A friend is thinking about building a HTPC, and from what I can tell, Llano may be a good option.
Llano for HTPC?
- Thread starter Adcadet
- Start date
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Onboard graphics are good enough for HTPCs no matter which way you go, as long as you have a modern platform. If your buddy is going to be ripping discs, he's going to be better off with an Intel chip, and other than that, all the current graphics packages, be they on-chip, onboard or discrete, will decode current video compression in hardware.
Four core Llano only really competes with dual core Pentium CPUs, and even then it's a case where they kind of trade off benchmark scores.
The only place where I really recommend AMD right now is the case where someone is trying to fit an SSD into a modest ($500- $650) budget for a home system. AMD has cheap motherboards with good onboard graphics, and it's easy to get to middling levels of CPU performance on that side, but in general I can do "cheap Intel" just as well as "cheap AMD" and I think the cheap Intels are the better deal.
Four core Llano only really competes with dual core Pentium CPUs, and even then it's a case where they kind of trade off benchmark scores.
The only place where I really recommend AMD right now is the case where someone is trying to fit an SSD into a modest ($500- $650) budget for a home system. AMD has cheap motherboards with good onboard graphics, and it's easy to get to middling levels of CPU performance on that side, but in general I can do "cheap Intel" just as well as "cheap AMD" and I think the cheap Intels are the better deal.
BingBangBop
Storage is cool
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 667
AMD's Mangy-Cours seems to be a good deal if one needs lots of cores (but not a lot of Horse power per core) or lots of RAM at a reasonable price. It certainly is much cheaper than trying to do these things on a multi-socket Intel platform.Mercutio" said:
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
I was (maybe still am) seriously considering either Llano or the next generation APU for my next system. The reason is I anticipate eventually needing more graphics capability than either most onboard, or Intel's integrated graphics, provide but I don't want to buy a discrete graphics card. I also figure it's much more likely a GPU integrated with the CPU won't have driver or other compatibility issues which often occur with either integrated or discrete graphics solutions.
The only question at this point is whether to wait for the next generation APU, or go with Llano. My current system still largely serves me well enough after the repairs that I can postpone upgrading for up to 6 months. I did purchase the RAM already on the possibility that the price will rise by the time I'm ready to buy the other parts.
The only question at this point is whether to wait for the next generation APU, or go with Llano. My current system still largely serves me well enough after the repairs that I can postpone upgrading for up to 6 months. I did purchase the RAM already on the possibility that the price will rise by the time I'm ready to buy the other parts.
ddrueding
Fixture
If you are considering upgrading video later on, I might recommend simply starting with a low-end discrete GPU and evaluating upgrades later. You'll save nearly enough on the video card to cover it, end up with some better performance in the meantime, and have a more clear upgrade path for the future.
I haven't encountered any driver or compatibility issues in mainstream video cards for quite a while.
I haven't encountered any driver or compatibility issues in mainstream video cards for quite a while.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
That's not logical. The proximity of the physical GPU to the CPU doesn't affect the quality of the software driver. AMD and Intel were already providing their own GPU hardware in their own chipsets, yet if anything, the discrete GPUs on cards saw better software support.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
I also prefer the AMD solutions for budget file servers. They tend to come with up to six 6Gb/s SATA ports (use an IDE or USB DVD) and a really easy to use configuration tool; 4 drive RAID 5 is a breeze. In contrast, Intel drive support is a mess, with typically two 6Gb/s ports and two to three 3Gb/s ports.
I'm about to build a VMWare box for hosting 2 VM's. I was going to use an Intel G620 Pentium, instead of an Athlon. Then I heard that the i3 xxxxT processors were very power efficient. Cool! Then I found out that low end Intel chips don't support the Intel virtualisation extensions, and that the i3's don't do IO virtualisation. To get both, you have to go with an i5. So I went and bought an AMD board, decied to use the X4 635 (which I was going to sell) and undervolt/underclock it. Saved myself $200+. AMD doesn't segregate it's products as much as Intel.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
Sound good. Which board and how much did you manage to underclock/undervolt it?
Some preliminary numbers with a yum-cha power supply, X4 635, 4GB DDR3 1600 (G Skill) and WD 400JB.
Defaults to 1.3 V and at Windows XP desktop idle, ~90W at the wall
2.4 GHz capped (down from 2.9 GHz), 1.05V, and Radeon 4250 down clocked to 300 MHz (from 560 MHz) and 1.1V (down from 1.45 V), I now get 62 W at the wall. I'm hoping that changing the yum-cha power supply over for an EarthWatts 380 green will give me a few watts less. Downclocking the RAM to 1333 MHz might get me a little more. 2.5" HDD a couple more. Full load power is only 92 W (running the F@H SMP client)
Defaults to 1.3 V and at Windows XP desktop idle, ~90W at the wall
2.4 GHz capped (down from 2.9 GHz), 1.05V, and Radeon 4250 down clocked to 300 MHz (from 560 MHz) and 1.1V (down from 1.45 V), I now get 62 W at the wall. I'm hoping that changing the yum-cha power supply over for an EarthWatts 380 green will give me a few watts less. Downclocking the RAM to 1333 MHz might get me a little more. 2.5" HDD a couple more. Full load power is only 92 W (running the F@H SMP client)