ATI, NVIDIA Launch New Chipsets for Socket AM2 134
theraindog writes "The web is swirling with reviews of AMD's new Socket AM2 processors, but they're not the only new chips launching today. ATI and NVIDIA have both introduced new core logic to accompany Socket AM2, and The Tech Report has a comprehensive comparison of the new chipsets. ATI's CrossFire Xpress 3200 and NVIDIA's new nForce 590 SLI are run through an exhaustive suite of application, peripheral, and power consumption tests with surprising results. The nForce 590 SLI definitely has the edge when it comes to the sheer number of integrated peripherals and extra features, but the CrossFire Xpress 3200's performance is competitive, and its leaner approach pays big power consumption dividends. It looks like ATI may finally have a credible alternative to NVIDIA's domination of the Athlon 64 chipset market."
Re:A little worried about networking (Score:5, Informative)
This is also how Intel connect their networking controllers AFAIK. Do all Intel motherboards 'limit flexibility' therefore?
ATI merely doesn't have an ethernet controller embedded into their southbridge, and I don't blame them if they can let the board makers choose a suitable stand-alone controller that will be better in the end than whatever ATI put in.
nVidia went the opposite way, and put two GigE controllers with lots of fancy stuff into their southbridge. Great for the 1% of people who need two Ethernet controllers, but I expect it is a side-effect of nVidia's server chipset line which probably shares the southbridge.
nVidia Forceware 90 Series (Score:3, Informative)
Re:*Raises his hand* (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Whoa - the chipset alone makes 20W difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Just a little meta-comment first... If you log in to post, you can have Slashdot tell you when someone replies. But since you asked, I'll presume you plan to check back in the near future.
For measurement, I use a simple kill-a-watt meter. WONDERFUL little toy, and pretty cheap. Unless you have access to dozens of samples, though, you'll need to do your research up-front and the measurement just confirms your success. The below suggestions you should take as BROAD generalizations, you really need to look up each component of your system and pick ones that work together and give you what you need, all while minimizing power.
For your first critical decision (even if you put CPU as the #1 constraint), graphics. Do you just want desktop productivity with only the most basic 3d acceleration? Go for on-board Unichrome or (a bit older) Radeon Xpress (which tend to include the whole chipset, not just video). If you want some "real" 3d power for gaming, but don't rank that as the sole reason you own a PC, try to get one of the newer mobile GPUs. Personally, I went with a GeForce 6600, which draws low enough power to work in a passively-cooled config, but has enough horsepower to play previous-gen games at full res and highest quality (and most current games at the default quality). You might also consider driver support for it first - Many GPUs now offer a wide range of performance, dynamically selectable, so you can run in low performance (and thus low power) mode most of the time, then kick it up to play a game.
For the motherboard, if you don't need a ton of peripherals, uATX boards tend to consider power draw as a design constraint whereas most MBs seem to assume you'll just get a bigger power supply if necessary. And now we see that chipset makes a big difference as well - I'll apparently need to research this topic far more for my next build.
Which brings me to power supply... Most people don't think anything of it, and get the cheapest, biggest one they can find. I currently run all SeaSonic S-12s (well, one older SeaSonic, the model of which I forget but the same basic design as the S-12s). Nice quiet 12cm fan, and 85% efficient. They cost a little more, but keep your total power budget in mind - When I say I don't have a single system drawing over 100W at-the-wall, I mean it. I have one 380W in my file-server (spinning up four drives will most likely represent the biggest load your system sees), and the rest have 220W (the lowest SeaSonic makes), with not even a hint of instability. And don't neglect what a difference a few percent more efficient makes - On a high-end rig that draws 400W internally, going from 70 to 85% efficient will save a whopping 60W at-the-wall.
Currently, the biggest difference you can make comes from the CPU. Go with a P4, and you might as well abandon power consumption as a design constraint. On the opposite end of that spectrum, if you don't need a lot of horsepower, the Via Epia boards (of which you can now get a dual-CPU model, the DP-310) absolutely rock and have everything on-board - I run a passively cooled single-CPU Dual-NIC Epia as my internet gateway, with a CF drive, and the whole thing draws 26W (IIRC); yet, when necessary, I can use it as a low-end desktop machine fully capable of doing just about any common task short of gaming or video editing. For my "real" machines, I currently have Athlon64s (one RS400 chipset and one NForce4, the latter of which I now regret after reading the FP link). Though spec'd at a TDP of 65W, in practice they draw 30-35W under load, and 7-11W idle. A Pentium-M would give more bang-per-watt, but they cost a hell of a lot more. And as I mentioned, the next-gen Core Duos look very promising.
For memory, running one gig stick instead of two 512MB sticks (otherwise ide
Re:Whoa - the chipset alone makes 20W difference? (Score:5, Informative)