Intel Core Duo: AOpen i975Xa-YDG to the Rescue
by Gary Key on May 4, 2006 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Test Setup
The AOpen i975Xa-YDG fully supports all Intel Core Duo or Core Solo processors. Dual core really makes a difference in certain multi-tasking scenarios, as was demonstrated in the dual core performance preview. If you are interested in how the various chipsets perform in a real world multitasking setup please take another look at that review or visit our Yonah performance preview for benchmarks specific to the Intel Core Duo.| Performance Test Configuration - AOpen i975Xa-YDG | |
| Processor: | Intel Core Duo - T2400 - 1.83GHz |
| RAM: | 2 x 1GB Corsair CM2X1024-6400PRO DDR2-667 at (CL3-3-3-8) |
| Hard Drive(s): | 2 x Maxtor MaXLine III 7L300S0 300GB 7200 RPM SATA (16MB Buffer) 1 x Maxtor MaXLine III 7L300R0 300GB 7200 RPM IDE (16MB Buffer) |
| Optical Drive: | BenQ DW1655 |
| System Platform Drivers: | Intel Chipset Software - 7.2.2.1006 |
| Video Cards: | 1 x ATI X1900 CrossFire Edition - All Tests Additional ATI X1900XT used for CrossFire Tests |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 6.4 |
| Cooling: | AOpen Stock Cooler |
| Power Supply: | FPS FX700-GLN |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Performance Test Configuration - Asus A8R32-MVP | |
| Processor: | AMD Opteron 165 AMD Opteron 175 |
| RAM: | 2 x 1GB OCZ EB DDR PC-4000 Platnium Edition DDR-400 at (CL3-3-3-8-1T) |
| Hard Drive(s): | 2 x Maxtor MaXLine III 7L300S0 300GB 7200 RPM SATA (16MB Buffer) 1 x Maxtor MaXLine III 7L300R0 300GB 7200 RPM IDE (16MB Buffer) |
| Optical Drive: | BenQ DW1655 |
| System Platform Drivers: | ULi Unified Driver - 2.20 |
| Video Cards: | 1 x ATI X1900 CrossFire Edition - All Tests Additional ATI X1900XT used for CrossFire Tests |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 6.4 |
| Cooling: | Tuniq 120 |
| Power Supply: | FPS FX700-GLN |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
We anxiously awaited the arrival of the AOpen board into our labs as we wanted to see how well an Intel Core Duo would perform on a board designed with the computer enthusiast in mind instead of the HTPC user. Our quandary began as the only other Socket-479 board we had capable of running the Core Duo is the Asus N4L-VM DH that is based on the Intel 945GM chipset. The Asus board is targeted to the HTPC user and has extremely limited BIOS options for overclocking. We knew at stock speeds a comparison would be acceptable but anyone spending around $290 for the AOpen board is not going to operate it at stock speeds.
There was no real incentive to compare the AOpen board and our processor to other Intel offerings as the entire lineup will be changing shortly, not to mention it would have been an embarrassment for the NetBurst based processors - especially during the thermal and power testing. We did not have the entire Core Duo product line in house yet so this option was off the table in doing cost comparative analysis against other Intel or AMD products. However, we will be providing a full platform comparison in an upcoming HTPC article centered on the Core Duo, Pentium D 805/920, and AMD X2 processors.
Our last option and one that we typically do not do in our motherboard reviews was to test the board against a similar board offering, only utilizing a different CPU manufacturer. Since our Core Duo operates at 1.83GHz along with 2MB of L2 cache we determined the best match up from both a CPU rating and cost would be the AMD Opteron 165. Our AOpen board is CrossFire certified so we needed a CrossFire board and seeing our Asus A8R32-MVP was still on the test bench we chose it.
We also switched to a 2GB memory configuration as most enthusiasts are currently purchasing this amount of memory. We did not have an AM2 board available with the proper processor at the time of testing so we will be utilizing DDR2 and DDR in our test results. We chose memory from Corsair and OCZ that would have comparable timings at the stock FSB and HTT settings respectively. All other components in our test configurations are exactly the same with the boards being setup in their default configurations.
Another quandary developed: should we run our Opteron 165 at its maximum HTT/CPU speed or try to match our Core Duo's 11x262 setting. We had already determined the best match up from a CPU and cost viewpoint was the Opteron 165 which could be allowed to run at its maximum attainable speed. But then again, we asked ourselves if we should explore the boundaries of each processor at the overclocked settings or match the overclocked settings in order to maintain equality across the platforms.
In the end, since this review was not meant as direct CPU comparison, we decided to match the 11x262 setting in order to maintain platform equality. This decision required an Opteron 175 for the correct CPU multiplier. It turns out our Opteron 175 was not capable of passing our benchmark tests at 11x262 so we reduced our HTT settings to a stable 11x255 that our overclock results are based on. We also increased the HTT setting on the Opteron 165 to 204 that results in a CPU speed of 1836MHz matching our Core Duo. We believe any increased memory bandwidth from this setting would have a minimal effect on the performance benchmarks. While this test is not a perfect 1:1 matchup it should provide an overview of the AOpen board's capability until we receive additional Core Duo capable boards for analysis.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
The card was delievered over the weekend, Derek only had a couple of days and nights to test it. He will be expanding upon this article in the near future as more games are launched with support, not to mention all of our test platforms will undergo a radical change here shortly. ;-)
goinginstyle - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Best quote of the day. Ignore that guy as he is just a tool or had his first visit on a computer today.
ShapeGSX - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
This is a server chip vs a laptop chip. If anything, the AMD server chip had the upper hand in this review, and the little Intel laptop chip bested it in almost every category.Though, technically the review was a review of the motherboard, not the CPUs, I think it speaks volumes as a comparison of the K8 vs the Yonah architecture given the identical clocking used.
Frumious1 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
"If anything, the AMD server chip had the upper hand in this review."Again with the reading comprehension! Look at the chart for Christ's sake. Notice that a bunch say "lower is better"? At 2.8 GHz, the Core Duo sweeps the tests - only in disk controller performance could you potentially level a complaint. At 1.83 GHz, it's a bit closer, but to say the Opty has the upper hand?
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
Moderate to substantial wins by Core Duo across the benches.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
More ties or wins for Core Duo.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
Opty wins in Nero Digital Audio... which I have never even used or seen as a benchmark. One win for Opty 165! Woohoo! AMD Rules!
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
More substantial losses in file compression.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
It loses every gaming test by a reasonable margin, with or without CrossFire.
ONE win for AMD at 1.8 GHz, and that's in Nero Digital Audio. A few ties, but otherwise AMD loses. Boy, I can't imagine why AnandTech would do an article like this. I mean, Intel managing to win almost every benchmark is old news! I remember Pentium II/III spanking K6/K6-2/K6-3 ages ago. Looks like nothing has changed... except for the whole K8 vs. NetBurst era where Intel got the shit kicked out of it!
Intel looks primed to take back the performance lead. I've been running lots of AMD K8 systems for the past 3 years, but it looks like I will now have a serious reason to consider Intel again. (Before K8, I ran mostly K7 setups. Before that I was always running Intel because they were better. Notice the pattern? Buy the BEST chip, regardless of who makes it!)
Calin - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
What is sad for AMD is the fact that the Intel chip is advantaged by frequency increase. At 1.8GHz, they are more or less at a tie (with few not-so-great exceptions), and the increase in frequency to 2.8GHz favors Intel much more than AMD.So, overclockers would choose the chip that will give them a bigger increase in performance for the same increase in MHz (Intel). The situation changed from the Athlon64 versus Prescott days.
Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
His context was in the positive, meaning the AMD had the upper hand going into the review but was outperformed in several areas.
:)
ShapeGSX - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Indeed it was meant to be positive. Thanks!Laptop cpus beating server cpus, dogs and cats living together!
Frumious1 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I'm not sure what you read, but I saw a review in which a ~$590 Core Duo + AOpen board was able to basically match a ~$550 Opteron 170 + ASUS board in performance. What exactly don't you like - the fact that Core Duo overclocks more than 50% on the board? Or the fact that Athlon X2/Opteron doesn't win every benchmark?Thanks for being such a retard. FYI, Intel doesn't want this type of review, because AT is basically promoting buying their $240 CPU and overclocking rather than buying their $600 CPU. Let me rephrase your post:
ANANDTECH
In this review, we'd like to show your how an "Athlon FX-62" compares to a 2.8Ghz Core Duo.
..."As you can see, the Core Duo actually beats the FX-62 equivalent on just about every fucking benchmark. AMD's former monster has been humbled, and it looks like the stupid ass AMD fanboys like snorre need to stop snoring and brush up on their god damned reading comprehension! If that's not enough, Core Duo will add another 25-40% performance clock for clock over Core Duo (see Johan's article). Needless to say, even the best AMD is prepared to offer looks to be in serious trouble."
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Comparing this to a THG article is an insult to both parties. THG would have used more hyperbole and run fewer benchmarks, while AT wouldn't accept large cash payment to do an article. Go back to whatever black ole you crawled out of. PLEASE!
BTW thanks for proving that no matter how good an article is some stupid shit will wander in and bitch about the results. "OMG my eyes! I can't look at a graph and stand to see AMD lose!" The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory has been proved yet again. (Google that if you don't get the reference.)
JarredWalton - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I think I see the problem, frumious. You used some odd text in your post and it killed the colors.JarredWalton - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Note to others: don't use the abbreviation for HardOCP. LOL