Build me a ultra low power AMD system

Bleek · 14 Jan 2009 at 10:43

I need a system that is capable of running 2048 res Samsung monitors and general desktop apps (excel, email, web) but also is silent and ultra low power.

I'd like to re-use my current AMD 5000 X2 if possible and reduce power overheads by undervolting and underclocking it, say 0.9volts at 1.5-2GHz.

No CD/DVD or floppy required.

I guess the biggest power draw will come from a graphics card capable of running the monitors at should a high resolution...

Any suggestions?

Amonlym · 15 Jan 2009 at 01:27

the onboard gfx of a 780/790gx based board can output that, im prety sure. and a low end 3400 add-in should be capable also. im assuming your not planning any 3d gaming at said res.

the most important thing to find is a low power, efficient psu. eg 80+ 250w psu will work better here than a 80+ 1000w psu - by a long way.

under clocked & volted enough you can probably get away with just a huge heatsink with no fan on it atall an 1 very low speed case fan.
consider getting a laptop hdd rather than desktop also, saves on noise and heat!

Bleek · 15 Jan 2009 at 08:34

Amonlym said:
consider getting a laptop hdd rather than desktop also, saves on noise and heat!

I've seen this before, do I need a specialy connection for the drive to run SATAII?

The only thing I dislike about laptop drives is their lack of performance.

And no, this rig will NEVER play games.

benwoodcock · 15 Jan 2009 at 08:55

Do you have much experience with 2048 red monitors? Do you have any problems geting games to run at that, assuming you use it with your 4870?

Bleek · 15 Jan 2009 at 09:12

The current spec in my sig will be kept seperate and upgraded with a Phenom 940, the ultra low noise/heat/power machine will be my business PC for my home office.

Socaddict · 15 Jan 2009 at 09:37

why not look into a cheap single or dual core atom set up? Those are about as low power as you can get at the moment.

eiko_magami · 15 Jan 2009 at 10:05

if its low power as a must the atom is the current winner. nvidias neo chipset should be out for desktop atoms early spring. depends how quickly you want something

Bleek · 15 Jan 2009 at 11:21

Bleek · 15 Jan 2009 at 11:23

Can't post, page cannot be displayed.

Bleek · 15 Jan 2009 at 11:24

WTF.

Anyway...

A chap on XS has a dual core Brisbane runnign 7w at 0.78v and 1.6GHz I believe, combined with the 790GX platform it nearly matchs the Atom platform for idle power useage yet has MUCH more processing power.

benwoodcock · 15 Jan 2009 at 20:44

So? I beleive aomehimg very similar can neneone with an e7300?

Amonlym · 16 Jan 2009 at 02:17

Edleake said:
I've seen this before, do I need a specialy connection for the drive to run SATAII?

The only thing I dislike about laptop drives is their lack of performance.

- if you get a sata laptop drive, it will have the same sata conectors (power and data) as a desktop drive so desktop cables work fine - as for sata 1 or 2, i dunon, but should fall back exactly the same as desktop.
- if its jsut an office pc and it had a decent supply of ram it shouldn be to noticeable, heck at my last job we were running xp on 512mb and needed to have 4-5 ie windows, oracle, lotus notes, excell and word all open pretymuch constantly, as well as all the tsr workplace rubbish like same time anti virus etc etc - and after the long load time they worked pretty ok for all of that with little ram.

Bleek · 16 Jan 2009 at 08:26

benwoodcock said:
So? I beleive aomehimg very similar can neneone with an e7300?

Lay off the booze.

I was merely suggesting the Atom isn't the bees knees when it comes to low power as similar results can be achieved with AMD, my preference.

Bleek · 16 Jan 2009 at 08:31

Amonlym said:
- if you get a sata laptop drive, it will have the same sata conectors (power and data) as a desktop drive so desktop cables work fine - as for sata 1 or 2, i dunon, but should fall back exactly the same as desktop.
- if its jsut an office pc and it had a decent supply of ram it shouldn be to noticeable, heck at my last job we were running xp on 512mb and needed to have 4-5 ie windows, oracle, lotus notes, excell and word all open pretymuch constantly, as well as all the tsr workplace rubbish like same time anti virus etc etc - and after the long load time they worked pretty ok for all of that with little ram.

Good stuff.

512MB is plenty on XP, with no AV and minimal apps it will stay quick for years. I personally never run AntiVrius software as I've never had the need to, it's quote bloated too.

I've found a 7,200rpm 16MB 2.5" drive so I've gone for one of those, it's just 0.5w at idle and peaks around 5w... SATAII.