System Review – PC-Club Silencer
by Jarred Walton on March 28, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
General Performance and Encoding
We'll start with the WinStones 2004 results. The real world application of these scores is dubious, as most business/office applications tend to spend most of their time waiting on the user. However, we include them as a general indication of system performance. For more detailed benchmarks, we recommend that you look at our full coverage of Pentium M on the Desktop.
The Content Creation side of things is even closer in terms of the Silencer performance. Not even the IGP configuration really differs that much in performance. Here, however, we see the handicap of the Pentium M architecture. The Athlon 64 is noticeably faster, topping the highest configuration of the Silencer by just over 20%.
For our encoding test, we use AutoGK to encode a chapter from the “Sum of All Fears” DVD to 75% quality without audio, using both the DivX and Xvid codecs. These are one-pass encoding runs, which don’t get the best conversion quality, but they do provide a look at the video encoding performance of a system. As a more realistic re-encoding benchmark, we'll also include the time required to encode the sample video that we used in our Socket 478 and 745 SFF roundup to a target size of 5 MB, this time including stereo audio and with a fixed video width of 640 pixels. There are 900 frames in the video clip, so you could try to calculate an overall FPS rate for the conversion. We prefer to look at the total time rather than just a single pass, however, as AutoGK 1.60 ends up doing three complete passes plus some miscellaneous work to arrive at the final result.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
View All Comments
WooDaddy - Monday, March 28, 2005 - link
Geez, Jarod... You sound like you absolutely hated the system. I think there was a little bias there... Most people who buy a full-blown system aren't as picky. I do agree with the LCD alarm issue. I had the same athenatech case and it would drive me nutz especially with the fact that sometimes my CPU fan would shutdown and the temperature alarm would go off.Also, I agree with #10 about the build cost. $100 is nothing to guarantee you have a working system. Also, the tax issue is moot as you'll have to pay shipping charges separately since those component prices listed aren't all at the same vendor.
I think you're doing a diservice to those who want a cool looking yet powerful system that isn't your typical Dell, Emachines system. They would be pretty satified with this.
Admit it. The system is good and the price is great considering it's prebuilt and tested. ADMIT IT, DAMMIT!!!
LoneWolf15 - Monday, March 28, 2005 - link
Off topic, but I love my Fuji FinePix S5000 and disagree with the reviewers' assessment. Also, for web images you can set to ISO 800 (limited to 1MP resolution) if you need it, however at 200 and 400 film speeds I've had no issues with the quality of my pictures.michael2k - Monday, March 28, 2005 - link
The conclusion was a tad baffling, regarding paying taxes.PC Club may charge you $175 in taxes, but if you bought the items yourself you can avoid paying $166 in taxes?
Anyway, $100 for assembling and testing is actually quite low; considering it is less than taxes, it's roughly 5% of the total cost.
On the other hand, you CAN get quieter and cheaper systems, if you are willing to trade off things here or there; perhaps a slower processor, in exchange for a better video card, or a smaller hard drive in exchange for a quieter one, etc.
EPAstor - Monday, March 28, 2005 - link
I thought I should point out an inaccuracy - although quiet systems are generally not the focus of this site, 35dB for a fast system is far from unheard of, though it does take significant effort. Another review site, www.silentpcreview.com, focuses primarily on silence. Following some of the techniques there, it is certainly possible to achieve 35dB levels or lower, even while using a higher-end CPU such as an Athlon 64 and improving the cooling on the GPU.JarredWalton - Monday, March 28, 2005 - link
AtaStrumf - did you like my "camera mini review"? I even purchased a few halogen lamps to see if increased light would help with the graininess. It didn't help at all. :(I'm working on getting a new camera, but first I need to take care of taxes. (I'm one of the "lucky" ones that will be paying the gov't rather than getting a return.)
AtaStrumf - Monday, March 28, 2005 - link
Jarred you REALLY need a new digital camera because the ones in this and your previous articles are of extremely appalling quality. I can't believe that it is even possible for a camera like that to produce such low quality images.May I suggest you go for a Canon A510. I have one and I think it offers great quality and unbeatable features for a surprisingly low price. A520 is NOT worth the extra $$$!
Avalon - Monday, March 28, 2005 - link
In Soviet Russia, AGP 8x owns you!JarredWalton - Monday, March 28, 2005 - link
#4 - Right you are! And anyone that tries to convince you that AGP 8X is substantially faster than AGP 4X should take a look at these benchmarks. AGP 8X offers more theoretical bandwidth, but it's almost never used.RadeonGuy - Monday, March 28, 2005 - link
on the second page where it lists the specsshouldnt the AGP be 4x not 8x since its the 855g
shipset
flatblastard - Monday, March 28, 2005 - link
damn second posters... :)