AMD's 785G Chipset - Revolutionary or Evolutionary?
by Gary Key on August 4, 2009 5:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
WinRAR 3.9b5 x64
This benchmark compresses our AT workload consisting of a main folder that contains 954MB of data spread across 28 files in 15 subfolders. The result is a file approximately 829MB in size.
WinRAR loves processor speed and bandwidth improvements. Our two DDR3 systems finish in first. The 785G DDR3 platform holds a 3% advantage over its DDR2 sibling and 5% advantage over the G41 combination.
iTunes 8 x64
We import the album Tommy by The Who to our disk in WAV format. The directory consists of 25 songs totaling 751MB. We then convert this music collection to an AAC format using the iTune Plus option.
Umm, normally this application only responds to CPU speed but our AMD platform holds a 7% advantage in that area so these results are interesting to say the least. Could it be that since Apple’s current products run on Intel processors that this application is highly optimized for the Core 2 series. Regardless of the reason, the G41 setup holds a 9% advantage over our 785G platform.
Blender 2.49 x64
We complete a full render operation on our Flying Squirrel image utilizing this very popular open source program.
Our 785G platform is 4% faster than the G41 setup. Blender typically responds well to CPU speed with the 7% core speed advantage favoring the AMD system.
Cinema 4D R11 x64
Cinema 4D R11 is one of our favorite programs to create high-end 3D images and animations. We track the time it takes to render a swimming pool layout.
We could not get Maxon’s premier application to work with the current Intel Win7 driver set so there is no score to report here.
LightWave 3D 9.6 x64
Another popular 3D rendering program is Lightwave 3D 9.6. In this test, we time the rendering of a single frame from an office building animation. The time to render the full scene is approximately four and a half hours.
The G41 platform slides in with a 2% advantage over its 785G counterpart.
Overall, the 785G platform can be utilized for a variety of applications, including 3D rendering where the graphics core is not of primary importance during rendering. In this case, we would suggest a Phenom II based processor along with DDR3 memory for best results.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
View All Comments
MrCommunistGen - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
I was really curious about that section so I'm glad that I can actually view it. Thanks!fic2 - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
I find the choice of a 10k RPM VelociRaptor odd for either HTPC or integrated graphic system. I have my doubts that it would be the HD choice of either user profile.b15h09 - Friday, August 7, 2009 - link
VelociRaptor because it eliminates a potential bottleneck. This isn't a real world system test.Taft12 - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
Yes, I would expect a WD Greenpower drive or one of those new slow-spinning Seagates.Fox5 - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
I remember roadmaps putting the 880G launching this month, but we're just getting the 785G. The 880G seems to be the chipset worth waiting for. Virtualized 3d hardware? Yes please.fzkl - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
A lot of us know that when it comes to an HTPC, Intel is the worst option of the lot. To make things fair, why isn't this a 3-way roundup with the Nvidia GeForce 9300?rtallmansu - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
Even more odd to me is why you would compare an Intel G41 with a ICH7 and not a G45 chipset with the newer ICH10. G41 buyers are not interested in any of these performance metrics, were as someone might want to know how the G45 compares for HTPC duties in HD playback.Shaffan - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
Such a pity you did not test the RAID performances : RAID5 in particular. I heard the integrated RAID5 of Intel chipset is much better than the one of AMD, but I can't find a decent comparative test about this !flipmode - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
SB710 = no RAID 5mybook4 - Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - link
Gary, you put in a lot of effort into this article, thank you! However, I found one part misleading.Most of the application benchmarks are dependent on only cpu, not gpu. It confused me that these benchmarks were in an article that compared 780G vs G41. I understand if you were trying to compare the platforms as a whole, but wouldn't that also constitute a component price match (price an amd 780g system with an equal priced G41 system then compare).
PS. I am a little sick of people saying that anything under 60fps is unplayable. Most people that frequent this site play Crysis at under 40fps.