Originally posted by: Zap
WOOT!!!!
See, Gary, here's yet another 'audience member'
I was referring to.
Originally posted by: Zap
Translation: If using the same parts and same BIOS settings, no difference in performance between mATX and ATX. That should be expected because the "difference" is "make it smaller." Nothing in the mATX "standard" states "make it smaller and 5% slower."
Thanks for the English -> English 'translation', Zap. :roll:
If you read through the above comments, it doesn't sound like there is 'no difference' between mATX / ATX performance (whether intentional on the vendor's part or not), especially with Windows Vista (though even
without Vista). As the >0 % figures suggest in Gary's response, there
is some difference. That said, I completely agree. In real-world situations, this amounts to there being no noticeable performance difference.
BTW, I presume you were joking / being sarcastic. Of course, I fully well realize that no standards committee in their right mind would propose 'dropping' performance just because of a 2.4" shorter board in one dimension! However I don't consider that argument justification enough to 'prove' that mATX running with an IGP chipset is faster / slower than it's non-IGP counterpart - at least a slightly different chipset and system architecture.
As such, my questions above are perfectly valid architecturally and
worth verifying via benchmarks - sharing even the hefty dual-channel DDR2 memory bandwidth between a latency sensitive, cache starved GPU and a dual-core, high IPC CPU (need I say latency sensitive again?) can be argued as being an architectural recipe for disaster (ok, exaggeration - performance drop at the very least) compared to discrete graphics card solution.
Lack of 'actual' benchmark backed data suggesting / proving this had been unavailable to-date. Fed up with lack of actual benchmark data pointers from such posts as these in the forums, it led me to escalate this through the comments section of the recently posted 690G review and make it visible to the editors (linked above).
In short, I feel better hearing Gary's feedback based on (I presume) actual / quantifiable benchmarks vs. valid yet simply logical deductions... was simply looking for
concrete (read: benchmark) data.
Now I can rest relatively happy.
