Intel 925X Roundup: Creative Engineering 101
by Wesley Fink on August 12, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
DirectX 9 Gaming Performance
After the close scores in Winstones, we really did not expect much variation in game benchmarks. As we have said before, expectations can lead to wrong conclusions. As you look across the DirectX 9 gaming benchmarks, the Asus P5AD2 and Gigabyte 8ANXP-D are always number 1 and number 2. They switch positions in a few benches, but across the board, it is generally Asus, Gigabyte, then everyone else. This is particularly intriguing, since both the Asus and Gigabyte boards are the two premium boards in the roundup.
The other three boards seem to shift positions, but none of others really stand out like the Asus and Gigabyte in these benchmarks of the most recent DX9 games. None of the 925X boards can really keep up with the Athlon 64 FX53, but we already knew that from results of the Socket 939 Roundup.
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