jwblue
@cox.net
| Intel E5200 (2.50GHz, 2MB L2 Cache) processor
My mother likes the Sony all in ones. It is only offered with the E5200 (2.50GHz, 2MB L2 Cache).
She only uses it for word processing, streaming HD from the internet, and surfing the net.
The system comes with Mobile Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator X4500HD with Intel® Clear Video Technology Total.
If it matters, it comes with 4GB of RAM.
My only concern is streaming HD video from the internet.
Will this system work? |
|
InSpades
join:2007-08-30
San Marcos, CA | Meant to add.
No gaming.
I am not concerned with the graphics card (reviews for what I need seem good.), more concerned with processor. |
|
idlewillkill
Go Blue
Premium
join:2005-09-28
North York, ON
| reply to jwblue
That processor is more than fine for her needs.
For reference, the E5200 is faster in almost every case than the Pentium 4 extreme edition 955, which was clocked at 3.46 Ghz had two cores and hyperthreading
»www.anandtech.com/bench/default.···66&p2=93 |
|
InSpades
join:2007-08-30
San Marcos, CA
| I just read a review of another machine that has this same processor (E5200) that has a nVidia GeForce 9200 Integrated Graphics card (instead of the Intel 4500HD) and it said that streaming video was sometimes choppy. I am wondering why this is the case. I can't imagine any system with a decent processor and card could not stream celarly.
Is the 4500HD a better card for streaming? |
|
InSpades
join:2007-08-30
San Marcos, CA
| I am the original poster with a different username (using my account.)
Based on my previous post, should I be safe and upgrade the system to Pentium E7400 (2.80GHz, 3MB L2 Cache) with NVIDIA® GeForce® 9300M GS GPU with Total Available Graphics Memory of 2030MG. |
|
Ctrl Alt Del
Premium
join:2002-02-18 | reply to jwblue
I recently purchased a Dell with an Intel E5300 (2.6GHz) and an Intel GMA X4500HD. It's capable of playing BluRay, and HD Flash. Will check later for choppyness.
--
less talk, more music |
|
InSpades
join:2007-08-30
San Marcos, CA
| Thank you.
I was thinking this morning that I need to find someone who owns a machine with those specifications. Lo and behold I wake up this morning and that someone comes to me.
Blu-ray would be great. That is the real litmus test.
Can you also try watching a television show on the fox website? And ABC as well? Someone in the review I read had problems with those. On our current system, these showswhat we have the most trouble with. Below is a link.
»www.fox.com/fod/play.php?sh=hellskitchen
My girlfriend has trouble with this show. There is a high definition option on the player on the right hand side of the viewer.
»fep.abc.go.com/fep/player?src=ab···w=110931 |
|
Ctrl Alt Del
Premium
join:2002-02-18
| reply to jwblue
My first post was right as I was walking out the door, but I wanted to post something so I could get back to it.
I recently bought a Dell Vostro 220s for my aunt. It has an Intel E5300, 3GB DDR2 RAM, Intel X4500HD, Vista Home Premium SP2, AVG 8.5 Free. A fairly clean system with few additional applications. I did not get a BluRay drive in it, but Dell offers BluRay drives for this system. The X4500HD offers full 1080p playback according to Intel (hence the HD at the end): »www.intel.com/products/desktop/c···view.htm
I'll post back once I can sit in front of it and play some HD stuff. Flash HD is usually more difficult than BluRay HD as Flash doesn't offload much to the graphics card. Flash will eat CPU cycles.
--
less talk, more music |
|
InSpades
join:2007-08-30
San Marcos, CA | We are thinking along the same lines with the Flash video. That would be a good test.
Thanks again. |
|
Ctrl Alt Del
Premium
join:2002-02-18
3 edits | reply to jwblue
The Fox and ABC websites wanted to install some proprietary plugin which I have no interest in doing on my aunt's PC. However, playing YouTube HD video was no problem. I was able to watch this Top Gear HD without any stuttering at roughly 50% CPU on both cores the whole time: »www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVlbvxd0···ature=hd
(Click the link to open a YouTube page with HD selected, the embedded video doesn't do HD)
For comparison: on my MacBook Pro with an Intel T7500 Core 2 Duo (2.2GHz, 4MB L2), 2GB DDR2 RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT, running Mac OS 10.5, I got the same results. I get less CPU use in Windows running on my Mac.
The Intel E5200 should be fine. If it chokes, it's not the HD content it's choking on, it's the shitty Flash container it's inside of.
--
less talk, more music |
|
InSpades
join:2007-08-30
San Marcos, CA | Great. Thank you. |
|
howie
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-08
Little Falls, NJ
2 edits | reply to jwblue
A bit off-topic... I originally was going to get an E5200, but noticed it's missing SSE 4.1 instruction set. Does the omission of this feature affect the playback of HD content in any way? I ended up getting an E8400 (SSE 4.1, 6MB L2 Cache) instead, and I'm totally happy with it. Re-encoding video (to a DVD-ready format) is 5X or more faster than my old P4 3.0E. |
|
Ctrl Alt Del
Premium
join:2002-02-18
1 edit | SSE 4.1 isn't needed for HD playback at all. The Intel Atom with SSSE 3 and an NVIDIA ION chipset can playback 1080p BluRay fine. Likewise, my aunts Intel E5300 with SSSE 3 and the Intel X4500HD can also play 1080p.
The SSE 4.1 instruction set is not used widely yet. These instructions seem more useful in encoding, not decoding.
--
less talk, more music |
|
