Intel 925X Roundup: Creative Engineering 101
by Wesley Fink on August 12, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Standard Performance Test Configuration
If you are interested in more information comparing the LGA 775 Prescott, Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX, P4, and P4EE, please see our in-depth comparisons in the recent reviews:Intel's 925X & LGA-775: Are Prescott 3.6 and PCI Express Graphics any Faster?
Intel 925X/915: Chipset Performance & DDR2
Socket 939 Chipsets: Motherboard Performance & PCI/AGP Locks
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ and FX-53: The First 939 CPUs
The Athlon 64 FX-53: AMD's Next Enthusiast Part
Intel's Pentium 4 E: Prescott Arrives with Luggage
Athlon64 3400+: Part 2
AMD's Athlon 64 3400+: Death of the FX-51
Athlon64 3000+: 64-bit at Half the Price
| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | Intel 560 (3.6GHz) Socket 775 AMD FX53 (2.4GHz) Socket 939 |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB Crucial/Micron DDR2 533 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev.2 (Samsung 2-2-2-5) |
| Hard Drive(s): | 2 x 250GB Maxtor MaXLine III (16MB Cache) in SATA RAID Seagate 120GB 7200RPM SATA (8Mb buffer) |
| Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: | Intel Chipset Driver 6.0.0.1014 Intel Application Accelerator 4.0.0.6211 NVIDIA nForce version 4.24 |
| Video Card(s): | nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra PCIe nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra AGP 8X |
| Video Drivers: | nVidia 61.77 Graphics Drivers |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Power Supply: | HiPro 470W (Intel) OCZ Power Stream 520W Enermax 465W |
| Motherboards: | Abit AA8 (925X) Asus P5AD2 Premium (925X) DFI LANParty 925X-T2 (925X) Foxconn 925X-A01 (925X) Gigabyte 8ANXP-D (925X) Intel 925XCV (Intel 925X) Socket 775 Intel 915GUX (Intel 915G) Socket 775 MSI K8N Neo2 (nForce3-250 Ultra) Socket 939 |
925X/915 tests used either Crucial PC2-4300U or Micron PC2-4300U memory modules. These are basically the same memory. DDR2 was run at 3-3-3-10 timings, at default voltage, which are faster timings than the SPD 4-4-4-12. Tests of the FX53 used OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev.2, which is based on Samsung memory chips, at 2-2-2-5 memory timings at JEDEC standard 2.6V.
The nVidia 6800 Ultra was used for all 925X/915 benchmarking, and the AGP 8X 6800 Ultra was used for FX53 tests. This allows for better comparison of all results, since the 9800 PRO is not available in a PCIe configuration. All performance tests were run with AGP Aperture set to 128MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32 unless otherwise noted.
Workstation Benchmarks Not Included
Workstation benchmark results with SPECviewperf 7.1.1 have been extremely variable on the 925X/915 chipsets. Results are so inconsistent, with up to 50% variation from one board to another using the same configuration, that Workstation benchmarks will be excluded from 925X/915 reviews until we can discover and fix the inconsistency or we can establish a new suite of Workstation benchmarks.Additions to Performance Tests
AutoGK (Auto Gordian Knot) has been selected as the new standard for Encoding benchmarking. This benchmark is partially based on the DVD2AVI engine and we use DivX 5.1.1 as the encoding codec. Test results are complied with a 2-pass encoding using "Sum of All Fear", Chapter 9 as the video source.Game Benchmarks
We have added four new Gaming tests to our standard suite of gaming benchmarks. Far Cry is a popular Direct X 9.0b game, which is run with a custom benchmark called airstrip. We have also added UT2004 with a custom benchmark called UTBench, although we are continuing to run UT2003 standard benchmarks to allow comparison to past tests. Return to Castle Wolfenstein - Enemy Within is a recent OpenGL game based on the Quake engine. We are finding that it is an excellent benchmark for measuring system performance, and it will likely replace Quake3 as our standard OpenGL benchmark down the road. We have also included the Final Fantasy XI benchmark, which is DX9.Other standard game benchmarks include Halo, Microsoft's Direct X 9.0b game; Splinter Cell, a DX9 game; X2 Benchmark, a DX 8.1 game, which includes Transform and Lighting effects; the DX9 Aquamark 3, and Unreal Tournament 2003. The DX 8.1 Comanche 4 benchmark is also used with the 4X anti-aliasing setting a 1280x1024 resolution to differentiate system performance better using the nVidia 6800 Ultra.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
View All Comments
johnsonx - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
What is it with you people griping about CPU choices? This is a review of current top-end 925X boards, not a CPU review! The FX-53 scores are there only for a point of reference. Added to that, Wesley's point is VERY valid: the 560 and FX-53 ARE the top CPU's from each camp.If you really want to know how a 3800+ would perform, refer to past Socket-939 reviews, or just mentally subtract about 3% or so.
STOP WHINING!
Wesley Fink - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
#17 - Since we were trying to determine the maximum overclocking ability of the boards tested, we used a 3.6 ES LGA 775 Prescott at a 14 multiplier (2.8Ghz). The 14x280 is close to 3.9GHz speed. We also checked with a retail 540 (3.2GHz) and reached 250FSB (4.0GHz) at 1.45V.These results lead us to believe that many 775 Prescotts will top out at 3.9 to 4.0GHz on boards that will support those overclock levels. That means that there are likely some 2.8 Prescotts out there that can reach 280FSB.
As always, overclocking is variable, and you need a really great power supply and decent cooling to support the power requirements at these kinds of overclocks.
Carfax - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Wesley, is it possible to do a review of Prescott which focuses on the upcoming 1ghz FSB? I've heard that Prescott scales better than N.W with a higher FSB and greater clockspeed..To do the review correctly, you'd need an engineering sample with an unlocked multiplier, so you can see the benefit of the increased FSB, without raising the clockspeed.
I think Prescott would do pretty well on 1066FSB and with fast DDR2 memory..
danidentity - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
Wes,When you say you hit 280 FSB with the Asus P5AD2, was that with a retail chip, multiplier locked? Or were you using an ES chip. If you were using a retail, that is an absolutely insane overclock.
danidentity - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
>> Better than comparing a 3500+ to a 3.6F anyway :PHow would a 3500+ compare with a Intel 3.6? Could it hang? :)
RyanVM - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
I have no problem with the 3.6E and FX53 being shown together since both platforms will end up costing about the same (factoring in CPU, mobo, and memory costs). Prices fluctuate, yes, but both companies (OK, mainly AMD) tend to adjust prices to stay in line with performance levels (if Intel drops the 3.6E price, I'd put money on AMD dropping prices at the high end within a day or two).Better than comparing a 3500+ to a 3.6F anyway :P
Creig - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
#12/#13 Given the way pricing can fluctuate, it would be futile to compare Intel $$$ to AMD $$$. A couple of days after the article was published, pricing could change to make the monetary comparison useless and therefore misleading.I think they're doing it the correct way. It's up to the end user to find his/her best balance between performance and price.
mjz5 - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
man, i should of read #12 first before posting it.. why not have an edit button?anyhow, u all know what i'm saying!!!
mjz5 - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
the way i see it is that CPUs should be compared by price. If an AMD FX-53 cost as much as a Celeron 2.4 GHz, why not compare the two? If someone is going to looking at these products because they cost X dollars, they aren't interested in seeing that an Intel CPU that cost (X*2) may or not surpass it the competitor at only X dollars.Wesley Fink - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link
#9 & #10 - Corrected