Intel Core Duo: AOpen i975Xa-YDG to the Rescue
by Gary Key on May 4, 2006 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Synthetic Graphics Performance
The 3DMark series of benchmarks developed and provided by Futuremark are among the most widely used tools for benchmark reporting and comparisons. Although the benchmarks are very useful for providing apple to apple comparisons across a broad array of GPU and CPU configurations they are not a substitute for actual application and gaming benchmarks. In this sense we consider the 3DMark benchmarks to be purely synthetic in nature but still valuable for providing consistent measurements of performance.
In our first tests, the combination of the Intel Core Duo and AOpen i975Xa-YDG makes for an impressive showing against the AMD Opteron 165/175 and Asus A8R32-MVP setup at both stock and overclocked settings. The Intel platform had no issues running the full 3DMark series when overclocked but our AMD platform struggled at first until we dialed in the right mix of voltages and memory settings.
General System Performance
The PCMark05 benchmark developed and provided by Futuremark was designed for determining overall system performance for the typical home computing user. This tool provides both system and component level benchmarking results utilizing subsets of real world applications or programs. This benchmark is useful for providing comparative results across a broad array of Graphics subsystems, CPU, Hard Disk, and Memory configurations along with multithreading results. In this sense we consider the PCMark benchmark to be both synthetic and real world in nature while providing consistency in our benchmark results.
The margins are closer in the PCMark05 results but the Intel platform continues to show an advantage over the AMD platform at stock and overclocked settings. It is obvious from our test results that we can expect even greater results from the Conroe and Merom processor series.
Rendering Performance
We have added the Cinebench 9.5 and POV-RAY 3.6 benchmarks as they heavily stress the CPU subsystem while performing graphics modeling and rendering. We utilize the standard benchmark demos in each program along with the default settings. Cinebench 9.5 features two different benchmarks with one test utilizing a single core and the second test showcasing the power of multiple cores in rendering the benchmark image. We had planned on generating 3dsmax 7 benchmarks but our AMD platform would not complete the underwater benchmark. We are still investigating this issue.
The Intel Core Duo desktop platform showed its strength in the extremely demanding POV-RAY benchmark, bettering the AMD platform by 18%. In our limited testing with the Asus N4L-VM featuring the 945GM mobile chipset our stock Intel Core Duo numbers were slightly better than the AMD platform in the Cinebench 9.5 benchmark and only about 6% greater in the POV-RAY benchmark indicating AOpen's choice of the i975x chipset certainly makes a difference in the performance ability of the Core Duo.
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