Testing Configuration

As this is our first socket 939 SFF review, we don't have results for any similar SFF systems with which to compare . In an ideal world, we would benchmark every single system configuration and simply compare results, but that is unfortunately not practical. Our SFF system uses a slightly slower CPU than what we run at some of our other labs, along with a slower graphics card. All SFFs tested during the coming year or so should continue to use these same components. So, going forward we will include additional systems to each platform.

In order to provide a baseline performance reference, we have included a couple of 939 system results from our recent Pentium 4 6xx article. We're not concerned about differences of a few percent; we just want to make sure that the results are reasonably close to that of desktop systems. Here are the test system configurations.

 Performance Test Configuration
Processor(s): AMD Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4GHz 512KB cache) Socket 939
RAM: 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2
Hard Drive(s): Seagate 80GB 7200 RPM SATA (8MB Buffer)
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: nVidia nForce 6.39
Video Card(s): PowerColor X800 Pro PCIe VIVO
Video Drivers: ATI Catalyst 5.2 without CCC
Operating System(s): Windows XP Professional SP2
SFF Systems: Shuttle XPC SN25P

As you can see, we are using an X800 Pro PCIe card from PowerColor. This card is equipped similarly to our X800 Pro AGP card, so when we add other 939 systems – be they AGP or PCIe – the results will be comparable. If you are interested in a new graphics card for the SN25P, you con now actually find higher performing X800XL PCIe cards from PowerColor and others at a lower price than the X800 Pro (although that will hopefully drop in the coming months)! However, we have intentionally kept our platforms as close to the same as possible, and the X800XL is not (yet) an AGP part.

BIOS and Software Setup General Performance and Encoding
Comments Locked

30 Comments

View All Comments

  • Iargonaut - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    One question - not concerning image quality (there are several other reviews on the net with worse pictures!) - how about the stability and the speed of the ethernet port? I read on sfftech.com that there have been some issues with this.
    And finally when and what is the next nforce 4 SFF to be expected?

    Thanks and as always: great review!
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, July 30, 2005 - link

    Soon... very soon! Including some updated SN25P benchmarks (Network as well as overclocking).
  • JarredWalton - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    I understand that GIF/PNG would have been smaller. Again, I have deleted the originals, and the Shuttle provided image was already in JPG format. If I were to convert them to GIF/PNG now, the JPEG artifacts make it pointless. The system is disassembled, so I can't just recreate the images at the drop of a hat.

    As far as bandwidth and page loads are concerned, bandwidth is practically free for servers. It's not a major concern. I mean, I contributed to a reduction in bandwidth by creating thumbnails that are 1/9 the size of the larger images, mostly because I don't think a lot of people are really that concerned about looking at *every* image in high detail.

    Personally, I'm more upset about the lousy quality of some of my pictures (not a very good camera) than I am with the size of the CPUZ images. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to get clean images. I'll be trying some brighter lights for the next set of pictures, so we'll see if that helps.

    FWIW, even if the entire content of one of our pages was 60KB - which would stream in about 1 second over any broadband connection - it would take anywhere from 2 to 4 seconds to render the pages due to their complexity. Pentium 3 and low end Athlon systems are substantially slower at page rendering. Also, what about the non-AnandTech ad servers? Sometimes those are a bigger bottleneck than anything else. Anyway, I'm not involved AT ALL in the site design, so the only thing I have sway over is what sits in the middle of the pages. :)
  • cosmotic - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    You could cut the filesize of the header on each page down by half if you just stuck it in fireworks, clicked gif, then exact palette. You could go a little further by using an 8bit PNG, and also lose pattent issues. If you touched it up a little bit, you could make it 1/4 the originial size.
  • cosmotic - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    As Ed points out, it saves on bandwidth. If you cut the page sizes in half by optimizing images and such, you would save a ton on bandwidth. Plus, even on broadband, page loads are not instant. If you could get it under 40K, then it would load in 1 second (still not instant). but at 170K, it would take 3 more seconds for people with average broadband connections. When people get fiber in their homes, are you going to start using TIFFs? Not only are you waisting your bandwidth, and the bandwidth of your visiters, your also contributing to clogging up large pipes cross-country. It's not a huge deal, but if every one took your aditude, the internet would be slllooooowwww. Why is it so hard to compress the images? Just stick them in Fireworks or whatever and spend 20 seconds makeing them smaller. If you spend 5 min making all the cross-site images half as small, you would save a bundle on bandwidth.
  • GoatHerderEd - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Cosmotic and Jared; As the operator of the site, AT should care because it is using bandwidth. But if they have enough to spare, WTF cares? The users really should not care. Even if they were on dialup, it would still be fast enough. Plus who uses dial up any more? If you read this site, and you use dial up, you’re probably using something to increase page loads that will mutilate the picture anyways. You guys need to give it a rest. Be thankful they aren’t bitmaps! Infact, Jared, you should make them all bitmaps just for fun. See what people say then. We come to AT for the reviews and comments, not for an art gallery.

    On a separate topic, great article. Keep up the good work; keep those AMD based system reviews coming. I love my XPC. One thing I am mad at is the HDD. I used a Raptor thinking it would be faster. It may be, but not by much. There is one big issue with it though, its louder than F*CK. It sounds like a really old AT style pc because of the HDD. AHH! I think I may get it replaced soon because its so loud. Defeats the purpose of all the quiet fans.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, March 10, 2005 - link

    Zepper - repairs of which parts? Shuttle gives a 1 year warranty on their SFFs, and they'll even repair items outside of that warranty for a fee. That's not the greatest warranty ever (many motherboards come with a 3 year warranty), but it's not bad either. The only parts that are really likely to fail are the fans, which you can replace relatively easily. The PSU is the only really proprietary part that might need to be replaced, and even then you can purchase a new SilentX from Shuttle for $60 to $80 (guessing on the 350W, as I can't find a price for it yet).

    In the end, it *is* an expensive unit, but it's a well-designed unit. An ATX case and nF4 motherboard would cost about half as much. Shrinking sizes usually increases costs, and the quality of the parts used in this case looks to be better than what would go into a cheap to moderate ATX case. I wouldn't expect much in the way of repairs/failures if you clean it out with compressed air every 3 months. I know quite a few people that have been running XPCs for two years without trouble.
  • Zepper - Thursday, March 10, 2005 - link

    Cost of long-term ownership too high with all those proprietary parts...

    .bh.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, March 10, 2005 - link

    21 - I can't believe anyone cares! I mean, who even notices that an image is 50K instead of 15K anymore? Dial-up users... but do we really get many of those? I don't know. I'm not in charge of the site layout, however, which as I've mentioned is about 170K all on its own. You might as well start complaining about all the advertisements (which is what runs sites such as this, if you weren't aware). One page out of 12 was 120K larger than it needed to be... and the world moves on. :)

    Anyway, once I update the article with new overclocking tests (in the next week or so), I'll be sure to replace the JPG images with GIF versions.
  • cosmotic - Thursday, March 10, 2005 - link

    I cant believe your defending using poor formats and those huge page sizes. You should be trying to make the page sizes as small as possible.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now