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
JarredWalton - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
I understand, though I would never want to actually reach the point where I was running a PSU at maximum output power. I personally like to think of the input power as a buffer: if your input Watts exceed the rating of a PSU, you're treading on dangerous ground (IMO).Cygni - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
Im loving the variety of reviews coming out of anandtech recently. When there isnt much new stuff coming out (like right now), its great to have something from a totally different angle to read and chew on, like this review. The addition of the add on graphics board and 6150 comparison system was a great touch, and really helped me think about my needs for my next box.All in all, some may not enjoy this article because it isnt a 500 card 7800GTX reference design roundup (which nobody reading can afford anyway), but i certainly think it was a good touch... if for nothing else than "Hey, lets look how an upper-mid level system from a builder performs versus a homebuilt" or "Lets look at true integrated graphics performance."
Sunrise089 - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
...but this article has given me more info about graphics performance than many recent video card write-ups here. You actually tested at a variety of setttings and on hardware that didn't incllde an FX-57. I know the cards may be CPU limited, but so what. I now know that I can build someone an office computer and tell them that if they add a $100 6600 they can play some pretty nice games at 60+ FPS at decent quality, something the FX-57 with all settings on 'high' articles wouldn't tell me. Please keep this trend up, and feel free to work in the other direction as well - higher levels of AA and AF and Image Quality tests.Sunrise089 - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
Jarred - You and Anand continue to be my favorite writers here at AT. I really like the intro to this article, especially the background you provide. By letting us know your out-of-AT existance it makes it easier to understand why you are reviewing this particular part and how it is not an example of AT "selling out". I think this is a great example of how the internet era allows a much closer relationship between the content providers (you editors and writers) and the users (us) that can help us identify with your perspective on hardware. I strongly support this type of intro for the other writers here - let us know who you are and what you do, so we can view your opinions in the framework of your actual life.JarredWalton - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
Thanks, Sunrise! :)I do my best to keep the readers happy. The extra benchmarks on this are really somewhat extraneous to the actual review, but I hope a lot of people found the numbers useful.
kilkennycat - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
Jarred, I suggest correcting the last paragraph ASAP.Why AMD decided in their (er) wisdom to use the same base number for the 2 different parts beats me.
JarredWalton - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
I have a direct from an HP representative that the linked SKU is in fact an X2 3800+. Here is a direct quote from the e-mail I received:"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."
Obviously, that needs to be corrected, but for now I'll trust the management of the small-business division. :-)
Furen - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link
AMD did not want to release an X2 3800+, if you remember. People bitched and moaned about the X2s being expensive so the 3800+ was released.Paratus - Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - link
We've got HPs at work and I'm generally happy with it for a work computer. The LCDs are fine the chip was a P43.2 which was a nice step up from a 2.2 P4. Only main issues was the lack of dual channel ram (512mb only)phaxmohdem - Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - link
Yeah, unfortunatly for some reason, corporate buyers seem to think that RAM is the least of their worries when purchasing. Faster CPU's and stuff are nice, but if you don't give it the memory to play with whats the point? A PIII 1GHz machine with 1GB of ram is still hella fast for any standard white-shirt business task.I simply don't understand it, its a relatively inexpensive upgrade but businesses just don't go for it. Whatever, I'm sure they have a good reason.