Manage updates with the Download App
Editors' note: This review is part of our 2010 retail laptop and desktop back-to-school roundup, covering specific fixed configurations of popular systems that can be found in retail stores.
We haven't seen many desktop PCs in the $900-to-$1,000 price range lately. Perhaps it's because that price band represents a sort of in-between segment--more expensive than the $800-or-so group that boast impressive performance and feature gains over budget PCs, but not far away from the $1,000-plus segment and the strong bang-for-the-buck therein. Like Asus' other retail tower desktops, the $949 Asus Essentio CG1330-05 boasts an attractive new case. Inside, though, despite a six-core AMD CPU, this system can't set itself apart from a less expensive Dell PC, nor from the desktops that cost just $150 more. We like its new case design, but considering its competition, we can't recommend this PC over similar PCs in its price range.
If we don't love this PC, we at least hope Asus decides to stick with the new high-end Essentio case design. The gunmetal and glossy-black case isn't a big departure from other desktop cases PCs out there, but it's a major improvement over the sharp-angled monolith Asus sold previously. The gadget tray on the top, and the smartly angled front panel port and card slot hub, are nice touches as well.
| Asus Essentio CG1330-05 | Dell Studio XPS SX8100-1408NBC | |
| Price | $949 | $899 |
| CPU | 2.6GHz AMD Phenom II X6 1035T | 3.2GHz Intel Core i5 650 |
| Motherboard chipset | AMD 780G | Intel H57 |
| Memory | 8GB 1,333MHz DDR3 SDRAM | 8GB 1,333MHz DDR3 SDRAM |
| Graphics | 1GB ATI Radeon HD 5750 | 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT220 |
| Hard drives | 1TB, 7,200 rpm | 1TB, 7,200 rpm |
| Optical drive | dual-layer DVD burner | dual-layer DVD burner |
| Networking | Gigabit Ethernet | Gigabit Ethernet, 802.11n wireless |
| Operating system | Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit) | Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit) |
The Dell Studio XPS SX8100-1408NBC represents the Asus' primary retail competition, thanks to its price proximity. There's only a $50 difference between these two PCs, compared with a $150 gap between the Asus and the higher-end Gateway FX6480-03E. The Asus' chief distinction from the Dell is its six-core 2.6GHz AMD Phenom II X6 1035T processor. It has a slower core clock speed than the Dell's 3.2GHz Intel Core i5 650, which for the most part can't be improved by the six cores. More on performance below.
A quick glance down the rest of the Asus' feature list shows that the only other core differentiator is its graphics card. Its more-current Radeon HD 5750 is a far more capable gaming card than the Dell's GeForce GT220. For some, that performance boost might be enough. But remember that faster performance is just $150 away in the Gateway.
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
 |
Rendering Multiple CPUs | |
Rendering Single CPU |
The Asus simply finishes too close to the bottom across our performance tests for us to recommend it. We were surprised by the Cinebench multithreaded test in particular, given its six-core CPU. That test has been the differentiator for recent lower-end AMD quad-core systems, in which they've been able to outpace competing dual-core Intel Core i5 and Core i3-based desktops. It seems at this price range that the quad-core 2.8GHz Core i7 CPUs can compensate for having two fewer cores than the Asus, and the raw power of those models propels them ahead on every test.
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
|
1,600 x 1,200 (4x aa) | |
1,280 x 1,024 (4x aa) |
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
|
1,920x1,200 (DirectX 10, 4x aa, very high) | |
1,440 x 900 (DirectX 10, 4x aa, very high) |
Our Far Cry 2 test provides a fair indication of a PC's general gaming performance. We're happy to see the Asus break the 60 frames per second barrier on our lower resolution test, but the true gauge of a PC's gaming prowess these days comes at larger resolutions, and on our 1,920x1,200-pixel resolution test, this system doesn't quite live up to our hopes.
