Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Viiv vs. AMD LIVE!

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the boxing-match dept.

Searching4Sasquatch writes "Hot Hardware has tested two nearly identical HP systems in an effort to determine the best solution between Intel's Viiv and AMD's LIVE! campaigns. Priced around $999, these general purpose systems are tested straight out of the box with no tweaking or refinement to illustrate how "Joe Consumer" would fare in using one of these platforms."

6 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Printer-friendly version by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Works for me.

    Perhaps it is because of refcontrol.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  2. Summary by bogie · · Score: 3, Informative

    The AMD system was cheaper, performed better overall and had a more complex set of qualifications in order to receive the "AMD Live" certification. Yawn, this really was not a very interesting comparison. Anyway CableCards, DRM, and cheap cable company DVR's that have room to grow are going to be the death of HTPC's so I wouldn't go spending a bucket load of cash on one right now.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Summary by Umbrel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agree, besides they call AMD the winner because the specs are tighter just to go ahead a said than you can get a better Intel system if you don't restrict to the minimun Viiv ask...
      So basically their are saying Intel can do better if you paid more... that is not an impresive review.
      AMD had better performance/price ratio though.

      --
      Ave Maria
  3. Re:AMD already has the marketing in their pocket by SlashdotCrackPot · · Score: 2, Informative

    (great console but what was smoking the guy who named it) Maybe the intern under the desk?

  4. Re:Gaming vs Real Work by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Except they're both Dual Core systems. It's the AMD Athlon 64 X2.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Re:Gaming vs Real Work by hattig · · Score: 2, Informative

    The fact is the Intel platform exhibited rendering errors, and didn't even run some games. This is despite being on their recent G965 chipset. It also had poor image quality (although the nVidia chipset didn't do that much better, AMD do have the ATI chipsets which get very good scores in HQV) and Intel really should be chastised for selling a media brand with such abysmal performance. It was also $100 cheaper - you can get a fairly decent graphics card for that money, or a CPU upgrade to make up for the slightly faster C2D.

    Both systems were using dual core chips.

    It is a shame that they didn't use a noise meter at any time, or discuss power consumption, or mention the fact that their requirements for LIVE! had "Vista" whilst the HP system ran XP MCE.

    I don't think anyone would want that computer near their home cinema system either.