Intel Viiv vs. AMD LIVE!

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."

Comments

These Solutions Really Aren't Being Marketed Well

[Apple Acolyte]

I don't think these multimedia solutions are being marketed very well by either Intel or AMD. I have heard of Viiv for quite a while, but while I have seen the name in various places, I have only ever seen vague descriptions of its capabilities. As for LIVE!, it must be really new or really obscure - this is the first time I have seen that name. Perhaps the OEMs aren't getting the point across.

AMD already has the marketing in their pocket

[Umbrel]

Or rather, Intel give it to them... at the moment they called their platform Viiv :-/
That must be the worst product name in history along with Nintendo's Wii (great console but what was smoking the guy who named it)

Re:AMD already has the marketing in their pocket

[Kazrael]

Actually, the simple fact that you pointed out the Wii implies that this marketing tactic has worked. What a cheap way to generate interest than having geeks across the world fighting how to pronounce it if they read it, how to spell it if they hear it, and how dumb of a name it is in general. You may think it is dumb, but I guarantee that was a great choice of a name for the console.

Re:pre-load software crap

[Anonymous Coward]

and why wouldn't you think that these OEM's would have an interest in their systems performing better for Joe Consumer?

I just don't understand this - nobody is asking for slower, less reliable systems yet that is exactly what all the crapware that OEM's install on their systems provide! This isn't restricted to HP; Dell and Gateway do the same damned thing. Worse yet, uninstalling any of this crap is never an option when you call about poorly performing, crashing systems, noooo, the first thing they make you do is restore the system to reinstall all that shit! Yet, time and time again, I have increased performance and reliability by uninstalling virtually everything that doesn't come with a default Windows install (except drivers - in most cases whatever the OEM provides works better than what Windows would install).

Re:FTFA

[Znork]

"shrewd buyer of pre-made systems to get a much better deal"

Take a look around for the cheapest-ass components you can find (the ones you wouldnt actually buy), and you'll find you get about the same price as Dell prebuilts. And they often appear to use those same cheap-ass components in their low-end systems (in fact, look at the low end pre-made systems and often you'll find they include components that arent even sold as parts anymore (motherboards without Gbit lan? Are they buying up RMA returns?)).

I dont really call that a good deal. A cheap deal perhaps, but you're not getting best price/performance, nor are you getting quality parts.

Then you start adding up the actual real benefits of building your own systems; standardized formats, easy upgrades, and if you keep architectures down, you can easily move parts around so upgrading your game machine lets your server inherit the CPU, your wifes desktop inherits the GFX card, etc, so every upgrade becomes a cascade improvement that pays several times the value invested. Further, once you have a few machines you no longer have to invest in new cases when you need a new PC. Then go even further, consolidate storage, and use diskless clients PXE booting off iSCSI (well, ok, some of us may be going a bit far, but you get the point...), and you can cut costs of a new desktop down to motherboard, CPU and RAM. At that point, it's not even a contest anymore.

If you buy a new PC every five years tho, I'd have to agree, you're probably better off getting a Dell and throwing it in the trash when you get the next one. But hey, this is Slashdot, and there may actually be a nerd or two here for whom the economics look a bit different.

Why?

[dreamchaser]

Why would someone take two relatively low cost media center PC's then proceed to test them using benchmarks designed to test gaming PC's? There were really only two tests that even came close to addressing the purpose of these boxen; the burning speed test and the DVD quality test.

The methodology behind this review is horrible.

Re:FTFA

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Yeah the cheapest PCs use the cheapest parts, of course. But I'm saying that for the most part you can get as good or better pricing at just about any point along the scale. I don't know what Dell do, maybe they cheap out every place they can, personally the pre-made systems I'm talking about are from the smaller companies.

I don't see how upgrading is any different for pre-built vs. self-built. Obviously you should check out the upgradeability of a system in either case, if you fail to do so it's your own fault, not the PC manufacturer's.

Whether you buy a whole PC and don't make any major upgrades - instead opting for a whole new system 6 years down the line, or continuously upgrade every component over and over, you still end up with the same amount of waste at the end. There's very little in a PC these days that doesn't need to be upgraded eventually. Cases don't, but then again if you want to sell or make use of your old equipment it's going to need a case anyway. The "cascade" happens as it does with component-upgrading, just in starts and stops instead of a more constant flow (plus there's no worrying about hardware compatability issues and architecture/format takes care of itself).

The pre-built being cheaper than self-built only applies when all/virtually all components need upgrading. Obviously if one component fails or for whatever reason becomes outdated before anything else then you just upgrade it. No point paying for a whole new system and making a lot of good hardware redundant unnecessarily. My point is that generally upgrades take place as additions (ie. DIMMs, HDDs), not replacements, so it's just as easy to add to a new system until the fundamental components become dated (ie. CPU/motherboard, GPU) and then buy a whole new system, moving over any relevant additional components at the same time. The the older PC is passed down or sold off. For example my two previous PCs are now Linux and BSD boxes. All PCs running off a single KVM of course - a few redundant keyboards and mice are perhaps the only excess of buying pre-built that I could've otherwise avoided.