AMD's 785G Chipset - Revolutionary or Evolutionary?
by Gary Key on August 4, 2009 5:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Heavy Multitasking: Our typical workday at home.
The vast majority of our benchmarks are single task events that utilize anywhere from 23MB up to 1.4GB of memory space during the course of the benchmark. Obviously, this is not enough to fully stress test our 4GB memory configuration. We devised a benchmark that would simulate a typical home situation and consume as much memory without crashing the machine.
We start by opening two instances of Internet Explorer 8.0 each with six tabs opened to flash intensive websites followed by Adobe Reader 9.1 with a rather large PDF document open, and a nice game of video poker banished to the taskbar. We then open Bibble 5 with our standard test setup, and CyberLink Espresso with the YouTube HD conversion file, Microsoft Excel and Word 2007 with large documents, Hulu TV, and finally Photoshop CS4 with our test image.
We wait two minutes for all activities to cease and then start playing Legend of the Seeker via Hulu HD TV at 1280x720, start the photo conversion in Bibble, and then the HD transcode in Espresso. Our maximum memory usage during the benchmark is 3.37GB with 100% CPU utilization across the two threads.
Thanks to the hardware decoding offload in Espresso, our AMD 785G DDR3 platform finishes our two tasks 40 seconds before the Intel G41 configuration or for our percentage trackers, AMD is over 9% quicker. Looking at the individual scores, the Intel system walks away in the Bibble test but falls short in the Espresso application.
We did experience a few stutters with the Intel G41 system during heavy action sequences in our HD video feed that were not present on the 785G even though our Espresso test sequence was off loaded to the GPU. Throughout all of our testing, it was this one test that impressed us the most with the 785G platform, especially its video playback capabilities.
While the Intel platform was 9% slower, it also consumed almost 8% less energy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
View All Comments
Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - link
Since when have intel integrated graphics been in the same ballpark as the 7xx? Before today, every benchmark I saw AMD beat Intel by about 50-200% (Without overclocking or sideport crap.) Now all the sudden many of these benchmarks are showing an edge of only 20%, and this is comparing the 785G vs the G41. What is going on here? I think you need to do a more detailed review and comparison vs Intel's topline model, GMA 4500MHD(?) and nvidia 9300 as well.TA152H - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
This could have been summed up in a simple paragraph, instead of page after page of nothing. Still, I guess you have to prove the points.It's pretty disappointing, really. The chipset doesn't represent a clear advantage over the 790GX, despite the author's best effort to distort facts and compare a overclocked 785 with a nominally clocked 790GX. It's always annoying when an author already has an idea of what he wants to present, and then finds way to do it. Better to go with an open mind and let readers make up their own mind.
The same applies with the G41. Another lame attempt by the author to distort the article to make a preconceived point. Since you show the 790GX, shouldn't you show the G45? Guess not, it might make the pre-conceived purpose of the article less clear.
AMD makes a crappy processor compared to Intel, not a pretty good one. Everything is relative. It's really a zero sum game. So, we have GREAT (Nehalem), VERY GOOD (Penryn), and PRETTY GOOD (AMD). Where's the bad? What's pretty good compared to? What's it better than. It's the worst of the three lines, even compared to Intel's last gen. In other words, AMD has the bad. Someone has to do it. Not everyone can be 99 percentile. Someone's got to be 1 percentile for the 99 percentile folk to exist. Not that Nehalem is 99, and AMD is 1. Probably more like 80 and 20. AMD processors are still usable, for sure, and I still think make good packages because of their superlative chipsets, but the processor on it's own merit has no reason to exist, except within this context and that of competition. It's worse than Nehalem at everything, by a lot, and is the same size. That's not pretty good, it's pretty bad.
bruce24 - Friday, August 7, 2009 - link
re: "The same applies with the G41. Another lame attempt by the author to distort the article to make a preconceived point. Since you show the 790GX, shouldn't you show the G45? Guess not, it might make the pre-conceived purpose of the article less clear."I was also wondering why he would only show the G41. In the article he says "The direct price competitor", but if I go to newegg.com, I can find multiple G45 boards in the same price range as the 785G.
Spoelie - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
Would just like to chime in on some test subjects that are left untouched*Is UVD decoding still limited to AVC profile L4.1 (the one used in bluray)? The competition (nvidia) fully supports profile L5.1, which ensures that they can accelerate *every* video. With ATi it's either hit or miss, there are videos out there that use it.
*ATi has serious issues with their SATA implementation, mainly AHCI mode.. are they fixed in SB710? I'm thinking not. Refer to your colleagues at techreport..
SB600: http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13832/5">http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13832/5
SB700: "We quite literally see more of the same in the SB700's Serial ATA controller. The port count here is up to six, but they're basically six of the same ports you get on the old SB600" -> http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14261/10">http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14261/10
SB750: "Unfortunately, AMD's longstanding issues with AHCI Serial ATA controller configurations persist in the SB750, all but forcing users to run the south bridge in plain old IDE mode. That's not the end of the world, but IDE mode doesn't support Serial ATA perks like hot swapping and Native Command Queuing." -> benchmarks in following link are IDE mode -> http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15256/8">http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15256/8
cghebert - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
The comments in TR's 785g review can shed some light on your SB AHCI questions:Comment by Prototype:
"I think it's a non-issue. The out-of-box Windows 7 and Vista AHCI drivers work just fine with the southbridge, it's just the vendor drivers from AMD (and bundled by the motherboard vendors) that cause subpar performance.
Which you can avoid by, you know, just not installing them.
It's not like they add any functionality you don't already have by using Microsoft's excellent driver. In my experience Microsoft's generic drivers tend to be more stable and less buggy than vendor drivers anyway, a result of the fact that hardware vendors couldn't write decent software to save their lives, not even Intel.
The hidden issue is the CPU utilization of the USB drivers, really. Note how both SB710 boards use 4 times as much CPU time as the ICH7 USB driver.
As far as ICH7 AHCI is concerned, Intel doesn't have support for AHCI in their ICH7 "Base" driver, but if the motherboard manufacturer exposes AHCI in the BIOS, Windows Vista and 7's generic AHCI driver by Microsoft can be used for the device. (And for Windows XP, the Intel AHCI driver's .inf can be modified to add the PCI product ID and loaded during the installation process.)"
There is more information in the comments if you want to check into it further.
mmaenpaa - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
It seems that this feature is mostly forgotten. Even AMD/ATI is not talking too much about it. I do remember testing it maybe a year ago with X1250 chipset and there were too much problems (yeah, I did try to find a solution, but it propably would have taken more than 10 minutes, so I gave up :-).Now, just last week I tested with Gigabyte 780G mb and HD 4670 PCIE card and it simply worked. I had three monitors connected (XP PRO).
I do believe this is quite a nice feature and if you are using ATI cards it is practically free.
Markku
HollyDOL - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
Hmm, no clue why, but despite what author says, both movie screenshots for Intel/AMD solutions look almost exactly same (difference being they are not the same frame). Is it just due to JPEG picture quality loss or the difference between AMD/Intel playback is practicaly uncomparable?Viewed on Eizo FlexScan panel, so there shouldn't be any quality reductions on my screen...
MrCommunistGen - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
I would have liked to have seen some SB700 (on the 780G) vs SB710 (on the 785G) benches on the USB/HD benchmarks.Kibbles - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
On page 6, the 4th graph is a duplicate of the 3rd.JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
Fixed, thanks.