Gallery

Alternatives

Posted on 8 Feb 2008 at 12:19

Intel and AMD aren't the only processor companies in the world. When it comes to low power consumption, Taiwanese competitor VIA has been leading the way for years. VIA's philosophy has always been about designing x86 processors to a power-consumption limit rather than trying to eke every last drop of performance out of them regardless of the amount of energy they chew through. Consequently, they tend to be aimed at embedded x86-based devices such as set-top boxes, but there are plenty of boards based around VIA's mini-ITX format to choose from. The interesting thing about VIA processors is that consumers can't buy them separately - they're always supplied integrated on to a motherboard, with only RAM and a hard disk to add in order to make a complete Windows PC.

Using the top-end 1.5GHz C7 processor (the fastest supplied in a VIA-manufacturer board), the same Raptor hard disk as our Phenom vs Core 2 test and 1GB of PC3200 RAM, the absolute performance of a mini-ITX board is a very long way behind the competition - it scored 0.21. But performance per watt is more impressive. With a stock external power supply from www.mini-itx.com, maximum consumption is a trifling 30W, and idle consumption only 20W. And a fair proportion of that was down to the Raptor hard disk; replacing it with a WD Scorpio laptop drive - a more realistic drive for super-quiet media-centre applications - brings the consumption down to just 11W. Performance per pound looks reasonable, too, with a complete mini-ITX setup - motherboard with integrated processor and video, RAM and hard disk - coming in considerably cheaper than a typical Intel or AMD setup.

If you need a system that's going to be on 24 hours a day, a VIA-based setup will be the most environmentally friendly option, and one of the cheapest, too, in terms of both initial and energy cost. However, it's a long way from being a threat when it comes to out-and-out performance.

AMD vs Intel: the verdict

We'd like to say that Intel's dominance is coming under threat with the release of AMD's new generation of chips, but that clearly isn't the case right now. AMD's newest parts look like old technology in the face of the competition. With 32nm production in Intel's SRAM memory chips already well up to speed, and bearing in mind its manufacturing capability - it has 15 fabrication plants worldwide to AMD's two - Intel's astonishing turnaround after the debacle of Pentium 4 shows no signs of slowing.

That's not to say AMD is dead in the water. Back in 2004, the whole industry was pouring scorn on Intel and no-one could see how the performance lead opened up by Athlon 64 could be beaten. Intel's belated but dramatic response was to abandon the power-hungry dinosaur of Pentium 4 and its NetBurst architecture, and go all-out to design something new and better. AMD's problem is more serious - all sectors of its business were loss-making in the second half of 2007, raising the spectre of cuts in R&D when exactly the opposite is needed if the company is to blossom once more.

On the server front, it's looking even worse. Our industry sources - even those traditionally very loyal to AMD - are furious over the broken promises regarding Barcelona. Vendors that have remained loyal to AMD and geared up to supply Barcelona servers have been left with no processors to put in them. When quad-core Opteron does finally make it to market in volume, it may be to a market that's finally bitten the bullet and moved over to Intel.