Benchmark Setup
Readers always want to know how a system performs, so naturally, we ran some benchmarks. Let us preface the benchmark segment by simply saying that this is not the most important aspect of this system. There are very few tasks that really need this much computing power, and those that do will probably need a better graphics card. If you're running Word and other office applications, the biggest bottleneck is going to be user input.
That said, we ran several configurations of the HP system through some benchmarks, and we compared the results with a similar custom built system. We expect the custom system to come out ahead by a slight margin, but its purpose is more to show that the HP doesn't have any serious issues. Here are the system specifications for both HP and the custom system.
As you can see, besides the change in motherboard, we also used CL2 RAM. Almost no one who purchases their own memory is going to buy CL3 RAM. HP could easily have installed CL2 instead of CL3 RAM, but reliability and cost savings are the name of the game, and CL3 memory will rarely cause instabilities. (At least their command rate is still 1T.) This is not intended to be an apples-to-apples comparison, and we used an Athlon 64 3800+ Venice core in our comparison system. As we mentioned before, we think upgrading to an X2 processor would be a good idea - for either configuration. You can get an X2 3800+ system as a Smart Buy for less money, though the HDD and optical drive are unfortunately downgraded in the process.
One area that is clearly lacking is the graphics card department. Even if you choose to pay the extra money to customize the system (Smart Buys don't allow customization of the components), you can only select an X300SE with 64MB or 128MB. Both are only slightly faster than the Xpress 200 IGP, and the cost is more than what we would pay for such anemic hardware. To test how the DX5150 performs as a family (gaming) system, we installed three different graphics cards to show what's really possible.
First, we have a stock GeForce 6600 card from Gigabyte, which can be had for $100 and will easily outperform the IGP or either X300SE. Moving to the $200 range, we have an X800 Pro 256MB (which is relatively similar in performance to the X800 XL and GTO cards, though the GTO will often overclock better). Finally, we used an XFX 7800 GTX 256MB, which most buyers of the HP business systems would never even consider. This was mostly used to highlight the system bottleneck (slower RAM and a tuned for stability BIOS), as well as to verify that the 250W PSU could handle such a card. The benefit is that you get to see how two "moderate" systems perform in a variety of benchmarks - we frequently see requests for such benchmarks from our readers.
The charts are colored according to which graphics card is in use. To be fair, you should only compare similarly colored results. We ran most benchmarks on every configuration, but there are a few cases where the graphics card has absolutely no impact on performance.
Readers always want to know how a system performs, so naturally, we ran some benchmarks. Let us preface the benchmark segment by simply saying that this is not the most important aspect of this system. There are very few tasks that really need this much computing power, and those that do will probably need a better graphics card. If you're running Word and other office applications, the biggest bottleneck is going to be user input.
That said, we ran several configurations of the HP system through some benchmarks, and we compared the results with a similar custom built system. We expect the custom system to come out ahead by a slight margin, but its purpose is more to show that the HP doesn't have any serious issues. Here are the system specifications for both HP and the custom system.
| HP DX5150 Configuration | |
| Motherboard: | HP DX5150 (ATI Xpress 200 chipset) |
| Processor: | AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (ClawHammer) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB Samsung PC3200 (3-3-3-8-1T) |
| Hard Drive: | Samsung 160GB SP1614C SATA |
| Video Cards: | Xpress 200 IGP Gigabyte GeForce 6600 PowerColor X800 Pro PCIe VIVO XFX GeForce 7800 GTX 256MB (450/1250 clocks) |
| Chipset/Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 5.12 IGP CCC ATI Catalyst 5.11 CCC NVIDIA ForceWare 81.95 |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Custom System Configuration | |
| Motherboard: | ASUS A8N-VM CSM (NVIDIA 6150 plus 430 chipset) |
| Processor: | AMD Athlon 64 3800+ (Venice) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB OCZ PC4800 EL Platinum (2-2-2-7-1T DDR400) |
| Hard Drive: | Hitachi 250GB T7K250 SATA-2 |
| Chipset Drivers: | NVIDIA nForce4 AMD 6.70 |
| Video Cards: | GeForce 6150 IGP Gigabyte GeForce 6600 PowerColor X800 Pro PCIe VIVO XFX GeForce 7800 GTX 256MB (450/1250 clocks) |
| Video Drivers: | nForce4 430/410 8.22 ATI Catalyst 5.11 CCC NVIDIA ForceWare 81.95 |
| Power Supply: | Thermaltake Silent PurePower W0031 ATX 410W |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
As you can see, besides the change in motherboard, we also used CL2 RAM. Almost no one who purchases their own memory is going to buy CL3 RAM. HP could easily have installed CL2 instead of CL3 RAM, but reliability and cost savings are the name of the game, and CL3 memory will rarely cause instabilities. (At least their command rate is still 1T.) This is not intended to be an apples-to-apples comparison, and we used an Athlon 64 3800+ Venice core in our comparison system. As we mentioned before, we think upgrading to an X2 processor would be a good idea - for either configuration. You can get an X2 3800+ system as a Smart Buy for less money, though the HDD and optical drive are unfortunately downgraded in the process.
One area that is clearly lacking is the graphics card department. Even if you choose to pay the extra money to customize the system (Smart Buys don't allow customization of the components), you can only select an X300SE with 64MB or 128MB. Both are only slightly faster than the Xpress 200 IGP, and the cost is more than what we would pay for such anemic hardware. To test how the DX5150 performs as a family (gaming) system, we installed three different graphics cards to show what's really possible.
First, we have a stock GeForce 6600 card from Gigabyte, which can be had for $100 and will easily outperform the IGP or either X300SE. Moving to the $200 range, we have an X800 Pro 256MB (which is relatively similar in performance to the X800 XL and GTO cards, though the GTO will often overclock better). Finally, we used an XFX 7800 GTX 256MB, which most buyers of the HP business systems would never even consider. This was mostly used to highlight the system bottleneck (slower RAM and a tuned for stability BIOS), as well as to verify that the 250W PSU could handle such a card. The benefit is that you get to see how two "moderate" systems perform in a variety of benchmarks - we frequently see requests for such benchmarks from our readers.
The charts are colored according to which graphics card is in use. To be fair, you should only compare similarly colored results. We ran most benchmarks on every configuration, but there are a few cases where the graphics card has absolutely no impact on performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
gibhunter - Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - link
That's not an X2 3800+. It's the standard 2.4GHZ 3800+ single core.Regarding these HPs, I have a few of these at work. They are realy great. For $500 and change you get an Athlon 64, 512MB of ram and a WinXP Pro. Try and put a system like that yourself and you'll spend just as much or more and that's not counting the snazzy keyboard and mouse that comes with that system. It really is a good deal.
JarredWalton - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
Just to reiterate, the linked 3800+ is indeed an X2:"We actually have an X2 3800+ Smart Buy, sku # pz635ua#aba....it might be
listed incorrectly as a 3800+, but it's an X2. I'm in the process of
getting that fixed."
That's from an HP representative, one of the marketing managers of the small-business division.
Googer - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
Equally impressive for the $500-ish range is this http://e4me.com/products/products.html?prod=eMachi...">e-machineLoneWolf15 - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
If you're a business, e-Machines isn't equally impressive. Part of what you are paying for is the support. The system reviewed carries a three-year warranty (par for the course on business systems) and probably carries business-level support too. Most HP systems also use a fair number of brand-name parts (i.e., ASUS mainboards in most systems). I don't deny that eMachines has its place, but it comes nowhere near something that HP puts out.P.S. While I like most of HP's system configurations, even home ones, I haven't heard good things about home-level support. And one other thing, Jared...why does the article say this system has a Clawhammer core CPU? I thought Clawhammers went the way of the dinosaur on Socket 939 long ago. Anything this new ought to have a Venice or San Diego core chip in it.
JarredWalton - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
Well, it does have a ClawHammer -- at least the system I have does. You have to remember that AMD only has one fab producing 90 nm parts, and they have an old fab that still produces 130 nm parts. Perhaps AMD gives them a better deal on the older chips? Or perhaps it's just that this model was made a little while ago? If it had used a San Diego core, I expect power draw would have dropped another 20 W at least.mino - Saturday, December 17, 2005 - link
You are wrong on this. AMD publicly stated sometime in the Q2 that they have converted all of their lines onto 90nm production.Also AMD does have only one fab - FAB30 - currently in producing CPU's. While there is FAB25 it produces flash and is part of Spansion division and there is also FAB35(or 36?) in qualification process the only fab producing AMD CPU's in volume is currently FAB30 on 200mm wafers.
JarredWalton - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
Hmm... obviously I'm not paying close enough attention to AMD's fabs. I could have sworn they still had a 130nm fab making CPUs. I would have thought 130nm would be sufficient for a lot of stuff - better to keep what you have running instead of retrofitting old fabs, right? Then again, new fabs are getting more and more expensive.mino - Sunday, January 1, 2006 - link
Well, Austin FAB25 was not suitable nor meant for smaller than 180nm process (for logic products). AMD thus made a cash cow out of it during hard AthlonXP times. Also the capacity of any FAB is measured in wafers/time not chips pre time. In other words AMD could make twice as many K8 CPU's on 90nm than on 130nm. Couple that with huge capacity constraints AMD faced in 2005 and fact they had only one 200mm FAB and it becomes clear why not to produce on 130nm. Around this time FAB35 should come online so the tight supply of the last quarter should not repeat for some time. Also AMD's 90nm SOI process is pretty good so don't expect FAB30 phase-out anytime soon(90nm is last logic process for FAB30). Shame FAB35 wasn't online in 2005, Intel would've had a way hotter year than it had.