Intel Atom D2700 v. AMD Hudson M!

E

EndersShadow

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,228
I am looking at building a low cost portable computer system for use as a media playback device (no blu-ray rips, dvd playback, etc, just music).

I will be mainly using this computer to copy CD's to a FLAC library and then using other external hardware to playback the music uncompressed. I will be loading Windows 7, MediaMonkey and dbpoweramp on this system and thats about it. I dont plan on anything very graphic oriented and will disable Aero and as many other options to keep the power usage and system overhead low

As such my graphic needs are very little so I am looking at a mini-itx board. The two chipsets that call out to me are the Hudson M1 and the Atom D2700. Both are dual core with integrated graphics and have the ports I need.

The question is which is better?

While I like the Hudson board (here) its got a heatsink fan and I am trying to minimize fans as much as possible since they create noise. I cant go with a bigger heatsink as the cases I am putting this in are VERY restrictive. The current case (found here) I am looking at houses a 80mm fan and thats going to be the ONLY source of air (or I hope to keep it this way). The PSU will be a pico psu as I plan on having at max 2 HDD's, and an optical drive so lots of power isnt needed.

So the Atom board (here) is passively cooled, but I dont know how much I am giving up (if any) by using it as it uses a different graphics chip.

Thoughts/suggestions would be much appreciated.

If you have suggestions for other boards, I am looking to keep the cost under 100 for the entire board. I dont need HDMI (but it would be nice), but would like a DVI or VGA port. I also dont want to super limit myself as far as CPU power. I know my needs are small, but I dont think anything under 1.5 GHz (as there is a passive M1 but its 1.0Ghz) would be a good idea (but am open to thoughts on that). I plan to use a 7" touchscreen LCD to drive the entire system later on, but need to re-use a current monitor to cut down on initial costs.

Thanks in advance!
 
Technically you are comparing an E350 with a D2700, and the links are screwed up on my end.

Both boards should be able to run "passive", as long as there is a fan nearby.

For FLAC encoding, the D2700 is your best bet, it is slow as hell, but it is the better choice of the two.

EDIT:
It seems a little excessive to build a computer just for encoding FLAC files, and it is a bit weird to choose such a slow computer if you have enough CD's to encode to justify building a computer for the task.

EDIT EDIT:

Now I get it, the files will be stored on another computer but encoded and played back from this one :)

Go with the D2700, but don't expect anything from the IGP.
 
Last edited:
runs2far said:
Technically you are comparing an E350 with a D2700, and the links are screwed up on my end.
Click to expand...

Here are direct links:

AMD board: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157228
Intel board: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157307

runs2far said:
EDIT:
It seems a little excessive to build a computer just for encoding FLAC files, and it is a bit weird to choose such a slow computer if you have enough CD's to encode to justify building a computer for the task.

EDIT EDIT:

Now I get it, the files will be stored on another computer but encoded and played back from this one :)

Go with the D2700, but don't expect anything from the IGP.
Click to expand...


Well I am open to either of the following options:

Option 1: This computer stores the FLAC files locally and runs the programs to play it ONLY. The files are converted on a more powerful computer and transfered to this one via a USB flashdrive as they are created.

Option 2. This computer stores the FLAC files locally and runs the programs to play it and this computer rips the CD's to FLAC in the library as well.

Option 1 makes the unit dependent on another computer to do all the heavy lifting (and I have a computer totally capable of doing just that, but it will not be in the same location as this (home v. work). It cuts down on the cost as well since I dont need to buy a slot loading drive and saves on noise when this drive is in operation

Option 2 makes this unit totally self sufficient but adds more noise when the cd drive is in use (which would be for ripping only).

Does that help explain things a bit better?

To give you an idea of what external hardware is going to be used this computer will be hooked up to a USB monitor, and a USB Digitial to Analog device which is how the music will be transported from it elsewhere.

As such I dont need a soundcard in this PC or really much other than the ability to display my library and move around within it. I dont want to use XMBC as it adds another level of complexity with installing the USB Monitor and would prefer to use MediaMonkey.

I do need it to be somewhat responsive when navigating menu's, etc but it will be only focusing on one task at a time (either burning or file playback) so I dont want something thats going to be slow as hell, but I dont feel I need something super powerful (like a i3 or i5, etc)

runs2far said:
For FLAC encoding, the D2700 is your best bet, it is slow as hell, but it is the better choice of the two.
Click to expand...

If thats the case, then it simplifies my choices as it makes this a playback ONLY machine which means Option 1.

Assuming its playback only would you change your recommendation given my comments above?
 
Last edited:
Hi

Sorry for a slightly late reply, had a lot of work I had to focus on.

Where you store the files is up to you. I would not store them on a different computer unless there is a reason for it, multiple computer/user access, HDD space, raid, noise etc.

I could not find accurate numbers, but a review claimed a D2700 encodes (converts) 60 minutes of FLAC in 5 to 6 hours. Guess you could take a CD per work day :)

Basic windows usage with a D2700 should be responsive, especially if you get an SSD for faster Windows boot and program startup,
but as I do not use any of those two programs, I cannot promise you anything.

The E350 will not be better in basic windows usage, the advantages of the E350 is a better IGP and OOR execution, neither of these help it in beating the D2700 in the task that you mention.
 
runs2far said:
Sorry for a slightly late reply, had a lot of work I had to focus on.
Click to expand...

No worries mate, no purchase made yet ;)

runs2far said:
Where you store the files is up to you. I would not store them on a different computer unless there is a reason for it, multiple computer/user access, HDD space, raid, noise etc.

I could not find accurate numbers, but a review claimed a D2700 encodes (converts) 60 minutes of FLAC in 5 to 6 hours. Guess you could take a CD per work day :)

Basic windows usage with a D2700 should be responsive, especially if you get an SSD for faster Windows boot and program startup, but as I do not use any of those two programs, I cannot promise you anything.

The E350 will not be better in basic windows usage, the advantages of the E350 is a better IGP and OOR execution, neither of these help it in beating the D2700 in the task that you mention.
Click to expand...

Yeah after doing a bunch of looking I decided a better bet was probably the Sandy Bridge platform. It costs not too much more but should have the computing power to do everything I want.

The hardest part of the *updated* build below was finding a heatsink fan since the case I have chosen has ~40mm of clearance when you install a 3.5mm HDD. The heatsink below is the ONLY one I could find. I might be able to run the entire system passive but not sure until its totally built. Either way the stock case cooler will be getting replaced with a better one at a later date.

Motherboard (65): Foxconn H67S

CPU (50): Intel Celeron G530 Sandy Bridge 2.4GHz LGA 1155 65W Dual-Core Desktop

Memory (21): G.SKILL Value Series 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333

CPU Cooler (40): Scythe SCKZT-1000 80mm Kozuti

Case (90): HTPC-ITX6

Hard Drive (0): Resused 320 gig 7200 RPM something lol

Total cost: 266

I still need to source a Pico PSU as the case requires one, but given my low power needs I dont think going with a Pico PSU will be an issue as long as I get a decent one (like 100 watts or better).

Any thoughts on how big a PSU I need for at max 1 3.5 and 25. HDD, Slot loading Optical drive and the motherboard? Also I am not locked into the 2.4 CPU, I just thought I should get one with a lower Ghz as that should translate to less heat production and let it be cooled better with the heatsink I got.
 
Yup, I saw that review and those spe's and given the relatively low price of the 530 I dont mind using it at all :).

If however you think I should step up a bit to the 2.6 Ghz ones as long as it wont get toasted in that case I am cool with it.

Looking forward to your thoughts later (I am at work too ;))
 
OK, of from work and this reply ended up being a bit of a mess.

I think you are starting to hit build help level and you may want to start a thread under general hardware subsection.

Going with a Celeron looks like a good choice, as a celeron on a small PSU will be close to an Atom, in terms of power use, when it is idle and the celeron will be able to dish out a lot more performance when it is necessary.

Do not expect a 65 watt CPU, as most of the lower clocked Sandy bridge model consume far less than the 65 watt max TDP suggest. If the CPU generates to much heat, you can try reducing the multiplier and/or the CPU voltage, given the motherboard supports it.

The case is currently on sale and you can get a passive pico style PSU with it for 60$ extra, I have no idea what a 120 watt Picopsu + AC/DC adapter will cost you on sites like newegg, but this way the PSU should fit the case.
120 watts is plenty for what you are doing, anything at 100 watts or more should work fine.

As mentioned Intel includes some rather slim coolers with the boxed version of their processors.
The stock cooler may fit in your case, but it will be a very tight fit. You could go with a T model, if possible, as they include a 30 mm cooler, but some people claim these are a bit noisy.

Alternative coolers, you can probably find reviews of them at SPCR:
Thermaltake SlimX3 (36 mm)
GELID Slim Silence i-Plus (28 mm)
silverstone NT07-1156 (37 mm)

I doubt that you can go full passive in that case, there is not a lot of venting and those small coolers will need some airflow across them to dissipate the heat generated.
You could try ripping the fan of the stock Intel cooler, you will get it no matter what you do, and see if the case fan provides enough airflow to cool all the components.

EDIT:
Oddly enough people claim that the stock cooler for 65 watt Sandy bridge is 60 mm, but the MI-008 case shown in the following forum has a max clearance height of 40 mm, and the guy was able to squeeze it in.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1302559/assassins-simple-beginner-htpc-buying-guide
I guess the possibility of using the stock cooler is something I will keep mentioning without giving a guarantee that it will work.
Not exactly constructive advice.
 
Last edited:
runs2far said:
I think you are starting to hit build help level and you may want to start a thread under general hardware subsection.
Click to expand...

Already done ;)

runs2far said:
Going with a Celeron looks like a good choice, as a celeron on a small PSU will be close to an Atom, in terms of power use, when it is idle and the celeron will be able to dish out a lot more performance when it is necessary.

Do not expect a 65 watt CPU, as most of the lower clocked Sandy bridge model consume far less than the 65 watt max TDP suggest. If the CPU generates to much heat, you can try reducing the multiplier and/or the CPU voltage, given the motherboard supports it.
Click to expand...

Yeah most of the motherboards for the 1155 chipset seem to be pretty locked as far as over and underclocking go

runs2far said:
The case is currently on sale and you can get a passive pico style PSU with it for 60$ extra, I have no idea what a 120 watt Picopsu + AC/DC adapter will cost you on sites like newegg, but this way the PSU should fit the case.
120 watts is plenty for what you are doing, anything at 100 watts or more should work fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats what I thought as well, but want to check to make sure there aren't cheaper/better options at the same pricepoint or less..

runs2far said:
As mentioned Intel includes some rather slim coolers with the boxed version of their processors.
The stock cooler may fit in your case, but it will be a very tight fit. You could go with a T model, if possible, as they include a 30 mm cooler, but some people claim these are a bit noisy.

I doubt that you can go full passive in that case, there is not a lot of venting and those small coolers will need some airflow across them to dissipate the heat generated.
You could try ripping the fan of the stock Intel cooler, you will get it no matter what you do, and see if the case fan provides enough airflow to cool all the components.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought about going full passive but thought it would probably be a bad idea. I plan to build as if I am NOT and slowly remove fans to see how things are affected.

runs2far said:
Alternative coolers, you can probably find reviews of them at SPCR:
Thermaltake SlimX3 (36 mm)
GELID Slim Silence i-Plus (28 mm)
silverstone NT07-1156 (37 mm)
Click to expand...

I looked at the GELID but I read some reviews that kinda turned me off about it. I was initially stoked and thought it was "the one" heatsink to solve my problems :(

Both the Thermaltake and Silverstone models aren't compatible with socket 1155 boards but are with 1156's

runs2far said:
Not exactly constructive advice.
Click to expand...

I disagree, sometimes it helps to just talk something out with someone if nothing else to learn if your viewpoint is shared by others :)
 
Last edited:
EndersShadow said:
Yeah most of the motherboards for the 1155 chipset seem to be pretty locked as far as over and underclocking go
Click to expand...

I'm still on 775 and have not had a chance to "play" with 1155, as I do not "play" with systems that I build for other people, but I though underclocking and undervolting was up to the manufacturer, while overclocking is locked when not using the right CPU + mobo combo.

EndersShadow said:
Both the Thermaltake and Silverstone models aren't compatible with socket 1155 boards but are with 1156's
Click to expand...

Socket 1156 heatsinks fits on socket 1155 as well.
 
runs2far said:
I'm still on 775 and have not had a chance to "play" with 1155, as I do not "play" with systems that I build for other people, but I though underclocking and undervolting was up to the manufacturer, while overclocking is locked when not using the right CPU + mobo combo.
Click to expand...

In reading the reviews it seems most manufatures dont allow overclocking on these boards and I dont know if its because the chipset doesnt like it (i.e. not stable) or some other reason

runs2far said:
Socket 1156 heatsinks fits on socket 1155 as well.
Click to expand...

Good to know, in that case the Silverstone offering looks quite attractive!
 
runs2far said:
I could not find accurate numbers, but a review claimed a D2700 encodes (converts) 60 minutes of FLAC in 5 to 6 hours.
Click to expand...

Link? I find that very difficult to believe. I've encoded a lot of CDs in FLAC on not terribly powerful computers and would expect something more along the lines of 5 to 10 _minutes_ to encode 60 minutes of music on an Atom processor. Just avoid using the maximum compression setting of -8, which adds hugely to the processing and gains only a fraction of a percentage point in space savings. In fact, there's very little to be gained above the default setting of -5.

Edit:

Here's some input on Atom FLAC encoding speed from another forum. The author of dbpoweramp claims he sees 37x on an Atom 230, which is a couple generation old, single core 1.6 GHz chip. That would be under two minutes to encode 60 minutes of music.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=96498

So if you were ripping a CD at, say, 25x, the encoding would be faster than the time it takes to rip. Run a single encoder thread in the background and you won't even notice the encoding time.
 
Last edited:
Is the primary use of the system going to be as a permanent music player in your audio rack, or as a portable (mentioned in your first post) music player? That would influence my choice of case considerably. For a portable, I'd go with a very small, well-ventilated case like the M350. It's really small, though, with only room for two 2.5" drives.

Is this actually going to be the only computer in your house, so that if you were to rip CDs on another system, it would have to be done on a PC at work?

I think your initial instincts of using either an Atom or AMD Zacate CPU were pretty sound. I've heard of overheating issues with passive cooling of the AMDs, and for your needs, the better graphics of the AMD wouldn't be important. You'd be better off with the Atom.
 
JJ Johnson said:
Is the primary use of the system going to be as a permanent music player in your audio rack, or as a portable (mentioned in your first post) music player? That would influence my choice of case considerably. For a portable, I'd go with a very small, well-ventilated case like the M350. It's really small, though, with only room for two 2.5" drives.

Is this actually going to be the only computer in your house, so that if you were to rip CDs on another system, it would have to be done on a PC at work?

I think your initial instincts of using either an Atom or AMD Zacate CPU were pretty sound. I've heard of overheating issues with passive cooling of the AMDs, and for your needs, the better graphics of the AMD wouldn't be important. You'd be better off with the Atom.
Click to expand...

I've switched it to using the Intel Sandy Bridge platform due to its low cost and performance. The full mobo + cpu is around 100 which isnt a huge jump from my initial boards and it offers a BUNCH more performance as well.

This is a music playback machine for now. I like having the option to make it more of a HTPC later on with regards to blu-ray or DVD playback but thats in the future. It will eventually become a totally self sufficient machine capable of and being used to rip FLAC or AIFF direct to it from CD's so I dont plan on having to keep transferring files via USB very often

This will NOT be my only PC. I have a laptop at home and a monster machine (listed in my sig) that will handle any heavy lifting I need, but I would like this system to be able to be totally stand alone so if I take it to a buddy's house with some CD's I can easily add them to my collection while I am there :).

This machine will be hooked up to a USB DAC with a headphone amp so that with 2 pieces of gear I will get the highest possible audio quality without worrying about space.

For now I will be re-using a 3.5mm drive I have and eventually probably toward Black Friday or Christmas be adding in a 1+ TB HDD to replace the 3.5 drive. Until then to keep cost down will re-use what I have.

I plan to use the ITX-6 case linked to above as its got the look I am going for and looks less like a computer and more like a high end piece of audio.

I will be using the stock cooler to start with and then upgrading to the low profile silverstone model. I dont expect the 2.4 Celeron to put out tons of heat or be working really hard so it should run somewhat slow.

In addition I will be lining the outer shell of the case with a a layer of AcoustiMat noise dampening material I have left over from another build and also switching the 80mm fan to a Noctua one with a lower sound profile and a decent amount of CFM's.

Thank you for that link though. I found a cheaper Pico PSU assuming its all there (I dont see if it comes with the part that plugs into the wall). This is the one I am looking at: http://www.mini-box.com/picoPSU-150-XT
 
You have quite an unusual build, making it hard for most of us to predict how well it will work.

I would say go for it, it looks like you have researched it a lot and you are ready to go.

You will probably run into some problems, but you build and you learn.
 
runs2far said:
You have quite an unusual build, making it hard for most of us to predict how well it will work.
Click to expand...

In some sense yes, in others not really. Its a different take on a HTPC. Rather than streaming video, I am streaming audio. Rather than using HDMI, I am using USB. Rather than using a computer monitor and a remote to navigate playback I am using my iPhone + iTunes.

I believe this is a very cheap alternative to items like this for hi-fi enthusiasts. Its similar to an Apple TV but provides much more flexibility in terms of switching out hard drives, using different programs for playback, etc.

It will also allow me after all is said and done to go direct from the USB DAC directly to a stereo amplifier if wanted for a very pure clean signal playback.

runs2far said:
I would say go for it, it looks like you have researched it a lot and you are ready to go.

You will probably run into some problems, but you build and you learn..
Click to expand...

I am 90% of the way there. I have a little bit more research to do and I should be set to pull the trigger.

I am sure I will run into problems, but I need to keep them small and cheap to fix if there are any as my budget does not allow for error.
 
EndersShadow said:
SB?
Click to expand...

He probably meant Squeezebox. To some extent, I agree, as I have five Squeezeboxes in my home (and have owned others). But if you want an HTPC to play both music and movies, a Squeezebox isn't going to do it. Even if you only want to use it for music, a Squeezebox isn't quite the MacGyver tool you're looking for. For portable playback, the Squeezebox Touch can be used with an attached USB drive (or with an SD card), but in my experience the Touch is too underpowered to work well in this setup, and it really requires running an external server.

For portable playback, it's hard to beat using a laptop. If using FLAC encoded files and you have a large library then you'll most likely need an external 2.5" USB drive. And using a USB DAC (or not) would work just as well as with any computer.

For portable CD ripping a laptop would also be superior to the computer you propose. Much better portability, and you'd have both a larger screen and a keyboard to work with.

A laptop also works well with a USB DAC in your home stereo, and is the choice of nearly all audiophiles using USB DACs in that manner. The built-in screen, keybord and pointing devices, plus the small footprint and quiet operation make it an easy choice.

Now, if you really do want to build an HTPC, and want to build it for under $160, you'd probably be better off seeking advice in an AV forum.
 
JJ Johnson said:
He probably meant Squeezebox. To some extent, I agree, as I have five Squeezeboxes in my home (and have owned others). But if you want an HTPC to play both music and movies, a Squeezebox isn't going to do it. Even if you only want to use it for music, a Squeezebox isn't quite the MacGyver tool you're looking for. For portable playback, the Squeezebox Touch can be used with an attached USB drive (or with an SD card), but in my experience the Touch is too underpowered to work well in this setup, and it really requires running an external server.

For portable playback, it's hard to beat using a laptop. If using FLAC encoded files and you have a large library then you'll most likely need an external 2.5" USB drive. And using a USB DAC (or not) would work just as well as with any computer.

For portable CD ripping a laptop would also be superior to the computer you propose. Much better portability, and you'd have both a larger screen and a keyboard to work with.
Click to expand...

While a laptop is the safter "option" it still doesnt do what I need. I need something that looks like a hi-fi piece of audio equipment and can be used without a screen. I found an app that will allow me to setup hotkeys on my phone to launch programs (like iTunes). Once launched I can then use the iTunes Remote app to control playback by setting up a ad hoc network for just this purpose. I have a laptop already but dont want to use it. I want this to be a totally different type of thing. Basically a portable music server in a very small form factor.

I plan on dropping in a 2 TB 2.5 HDD at a later date and upgrading my 3.5 HDD to something similar. For right now I am cobbling this together as budget as possible and waiting to upgrade until Black Friday sales for HDD's. I was and still might drop in a 9" touchscreen totally depending upon how my iPhone works as the screen. I would prefer to use it totally as its one less piece of equipment on my desk at work.

For ripping to start with I will be using my much more powerful quad core computer (specs in sig) and transferring files via USB. The cost of one of the suggested slot loading drives it a bit more than my budget can afford. I will possibly add one later on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top