Once upon a time, when PC games used to be 2-dimensional, every kind of graphics processing was done on the CPU. This was also true for early 3D games. Neither Wolfenstein 3D nor Doom with its numerous clones listed a graphics accelerator among their system requirements. Well, they couldn’t since there were no graphics accelerators at that time and game developers did not rely on them. Moreover, talking about gaming applications of their products, Intel and AMD focused on enhancing the capabilities of their CPUs in the way of MMX and 3DNow! instruction sets. Intel promoted MMX as a means to boost the quality, level of detail and speed of gaming graphics whereas the name of AMD’s technology speaks for itself.

This situation went on for quite a while. Even rather late projects by id Software and Epic Games such as Quake and Unreal used the CPU as the main tool for processing graphics, notwithstanding the significantly expanded game worlds. Things changed in 1996 when the obscure and young firm 3dfx Interactive unveiled the world’s first 3D graphics accelerator for the PC affordable for ordinary gamers. The product looks ridiculous by today’s standards as it could only map and filter textures, but the quality of the filtering was unprecedented at that time. None of then-existing CPUs, whatever multimedia instruction sets they supported, could deliver such performance even at a lower image quality. A game would look completely different running in the Glide mode as opposed to software mode. 

That was the first revolution in the world of gaming 3D graphics. CPUs were losing their ground year by year, their influence on performance constantly diminishing. There were other turning points, the next one being the Nvidia GeForce 256, the world’s first graphics processor with a TCL unit (Transformation, Clipping, Lighting) that could transform 3D coordinates into 2D ones, clip polygons and light the scene, offloading the CPU. As is often the case, the new product did not take off immediately. Nvidia’s opponents still relied on the growing computing capacities of CPUs for those tasks, yet hardware TCL had become widespread by the end of 2001 anyway. The same year there was a third revolution that expanded the capabilities of GPUs even more by making them programmable. The Nvidia NV20 (GeForce 3) came out as the first chip to support DirectX 8.0. And the last notable innovation occurred in 2002 when ATI Technologies announced the R300, the first GPU to support DirectX 9.0.

From that moment onwards, GPUs were developing in an evolutionary way. New versions of DirectX and OpenGL were being implemented. The computing part, originally divided into vertex and pixel processors, became unified. New types of shaders were supported and there were lots of other innovations. GPUs quickly surpassed ordinary CPUs in sheer computing power, giving birth to the idea to use them not only to process graphics but also to accelerate complex computations unrelated or loosely related to 3D applications. Both leading developers, AMD and Nvidia, are working actively in this direction, but that’s not the point of this review. Looking at the computing capabilities of today’s GPUs estimated at teraflops (more than the huge supercomputers of earlier times could offer!), one might find modern CPUs to have rather humble parameters.

This provokes a natural question if 3D games need powerful CPUs at all. The answer is not as simple as it seems. First, if some GPUs resources are allotted to compute the game AI or physical model, there are fewer resources left for graphics processing. And we know just too well that today’s games have very complex visuals that may take all the 1600 stream processors of an RV870 chip to be rendered at a decent frame rate. Second, it is not so easy to rewrite the game code to make maximum use of GPU resources. It looks like a number of computational tasks, including gaming ones, are still performed better on the CPU, therefore premium-class gaming computers from famous manufacturers like Alienware are equipped with extremely fast and expensive CPUs. Particularly, the quad-core Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition cost $999 when announced and the newest six-core Core i7-980X is going to cost that much today. That’s quite a lot, but a top-end graphics card is expensive as well. For example, a Radeon HD 5850 costs about $300 whereas topmost solutions that deliver maximum performance are as expensive as $600-800 (a dual-processor Radeon HD 5970) or even $1000 and more (a couple of Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 cards working in SLI mode).

Do you know what is peculiar about EVGA mainboards based on Intel H5x series chipsets? There may be different answers but I personally find it strange that there is no H57-based product among them. There is a section called “Intel H57/H55 Series Family” at the EVGA website but it only includes two mainboards based on the H55 Express. That’s odd, isn’t it? In fact, EVGA announced three mainboards, one of which was based on H57, when Intel unveiled its new chipset series. There is still some information you can find about the product with the unassuming name of EVGA H57. It is a full-size mainboard with two PCI Express x16 slots and with a couple of extra controllers, one of which adds PATA and two SATA ports and another, two IEEE1394 (FireWire) ports. That mainboard is almost a copy of the product I am going to talk about in this review, the EVGA H55, except for the differences coming from the use of different chipsets. For example, EVGA H57 has two USB ports more and also has two PCI Express x1 slots.

So, this review is about the EVGA H55, but the company also offers another H55-based mainboard called EVGA H55V. It is a microATX product with a simpler layout. There are no additional onboard controllers; the components of its voltage regulator circuitry are not covered with any heatsinks. The ATX12V power connector is 4-pin and there are numerous electrolytic capacitors next to the solid-state ones. This mainboard has some advantages over the other two models, though. Particularly, there is an eSATA port at its back panel.

By the way, you can spot a place reserved for an onboard pin-connector for two more USB ports on the EVGA H55V. It means that EVGA may release a mainboard (called something like EVGA H57V) with the same PCB design and with the H57 chipset.

I don’t know exactly why EVGA has decided to give up H57-based products, particularly the EVGA H57. But let us take a look at the similarly designed EVGA H55 and check out its features. Perhaps we will find the answer.

AMD used to make it very obvious that it had no interest in the market of miniature and low-power computers with limited performance, i.e. netbooks and nettops. Of course, this has not prevented some makers from offering such computers built with AMD components. For example, a compact desktop machine called Zino HD from Dell. However, this trend hasn’t yet become mainstream, and most nettops out there are still based on Intel and Nvidia hardware. Moreover, there are almost no AMD parts in the market that would allow any user to build a mini-ITX nettop on their own.

It isn’t AMD cannot produce CPUs with low heat dissipation that could be used as a basis for computers like that? On the contrary, AMD offers Socket AM3 processors for desktop PCs with a thermal design power of 45, 25 and even 20 watts. In our opinion, CPUs like that could become popular among people who would like to assemble a nettop with their own hands as they offer good performance, especially in comparison with Intel Atom, and are just as good as Intel’s modern LGA775 Celeron series in terms of heat dissipation. It looks like AMD’s power-efficient CPUs for desktop PCs are a good offer that fits perfectly into the free market segment between Intel Atom and Intel Celeron series.

It is a different story with the mainboards. AMD’s belief that their CPUs are no good for compact multimedia PCs has led to the fact that there are nearly no modern Socket AM3 mainboards in the mini-ITX form-factor in the today’s market. It is a shame considering that AMD’s new integrated chipsets such as the AMD 785G and 880G would be optimal for nettops as they feature a rather fast graphics core capable of hardware HD video acceleration, support all modern interfaces, and have modest heat dissipation. So, the only obstacle that a developer of compact Socket AM3 mainboards has to face is the rather large physical size of the CPU socket which should also have a rather large cooler retention mechanism around it. Besides, each chipset from AMD consists of two chips, making designing small PCBs even more complicated.

Fortunately, some developers do not find those difficulties insurmountable. Sapphire’s recent release of a mini-ITX mainboard for the new generation of energy-efficient Socket AM3 processors has become a good stimulus for writing this review. We are going to talk about energy-efficient AMD processors in terms of their suitability for compact and economical computers for home and office.

Recently I’ve come across a forum discussion where people were arguing about a PC configuration. It didn’t matter what particular PC it was about and for what purposes it was assembled, I just remember the argument in favor of the mainboard choice. The author of the forum post bought an Intel mainboard because Intel was a famous brand. This sounded like a lame argument to me. If a company makes excellent TV-sets, it does not mean that its digital cameras are going to be just as excellent.

Although there can be numerous points of view as to what processors are better, I guess nobody will question the fact that Intel produces good processors. It is simpler with chipsets since all makers of alternative chipsets for Intel’s modern desktop CPUs have abandoned that business, leaving Intel the monopolist in this field. And it must be noted that Intel chipsets were generally very competitive even when there still were competitors. Since Intel produces good CPUs and good chipsets, it seems logical to assume that their mainboard should be good, too. It can be some kind of an example to follow for the rest of the mainboard makers. However, Intel mainboards are actually often inferior to their opponents in functionality, setup options and usability. So, while choosing an Intel CPU and an Intel chipset is a natural decision, things are not so clear with Intel mainboards. The brand alone does not work here.

That’s why it wouldn’t be wise to blindly buy any Intel mainboard you see. You should first check out its capabilities and compare it with other products. And we, at X-bit labs, are ready to help you with test data for you to make your comparison and well-judged shopping choice. As you have already guessed, this review is about an Intel mainboard. It is called DH55TC. This microATX mainboard is based on the Intel H55 Express chipset and is designed for LGA1156 processors.