Intel Core Duo: AOpen i975Xa-YDG to the Rescue
by Gary Key on May 4, 2006 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
FSB Overclocking Results
| Front Side Bus Overclocking Testbed | |
| Processor: | Intel Core Duo T2400 -1.83GHz |
| CPU Voltage: | 1.400v (1.250V default) |
| Memory Settings: | 4-4-4-15 at 667MHz |
| Memory Voltage: | 2.15v |
| NB Voltage: | 1.575V |
| PCI-E Voltage: | 1.525V |
| Cooling: | AOpen Supplied Cooler |
| Power Supply: | FPS FX700-GLN |
| Maximum CPU OverClock: | 255fsb x 11 (2805MHz) +54% |
| Maximum FSB OverClock: | 255fsb x 11 (2805MHz) +54% |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
This board is a very good overclocker although it does have a couple of quirks. The BIOS allows you to overclock the front side bus by 1MHz increments but you are limited at both the minimum and maximum levels by a set of jumpers. If the JP4 and JP5 jumpers are enabled the board defaults to a 166MHz minimum and a 199MHz maximum. If these jumpers are disabled the board defaults to a 200MHz minimum and a 320MHz maximum.
The Core Duo processor does not allow a change to the CPU multiplier so keep this in mind when deciding what CPU to purchase. We were able to take our retail CPU to a setting of 11x262 before we hit a ceiling with either the board or the CPU utilizing the stock cooling. We are reporting our maximum numbers at 11x255, not because of the board or CPU not being stable at 11x262, but due to our comparative Opteron 175 only reaching this level and remaining stable. This board series has reached the 274FSB level based upon user experiences, so we either reached the limit of our CPU or possibly our board does not overclock quite as well as retail samples.
Considering the maximum official Core Duo CPU is currently running at 2.16 GHz, an overclock to 2.882 GHz (using the relatively inexpensive T2400 CPU) is nothing to complain about! We might even add that our retail CPU stayed in the 36c to 39c range under load at the overclocked settings with the AOpen supplied heatsink/fan. Additional testing with a watercooling unit brought our temperatures down to the 26c range under full load as we reached a 267FSB level (required 1.675V on the Nortbridge, 5-5-5-15 memory timings) before the board would not post.
Memory Stress Testing
Memory stress tests look at the ability of the AOpen i975xa-YDG to operate at the officially supported memory frequencies of 667MHz DDR2 at the best performing memory timings the Corsair CM2X1024-6400PRO revision 1.4 will support.
| AOpen i975Xa- YDG Stable DDR2-667 Timings - 2 DIMMs (2/4 slots populated - 1 Dual-Channel Bank) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 166MHz (667FSB) |
| Timing Mode: | 667MHz - Default |
| CAS Latency: | 3 |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 3 |
| RAS Precharge: | 3 |
| RAS Cycle Time: | 8 |
| Voltage: | 1.9V |
The AOpen board was very stable with two (1GB) DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel mode at the settings of 3-3-3-8 at 1.9V. The board would set tRAS to 12 if the memory selection was left on auto. We did not notice any issues throughout our testing with a tRAS setting of 8 at the stock 11x166 setting. We will now install our Corsair modules into all four available memory slots, which results in more strenuous requirements on the memory subsystem than testing just two DDR2 modules.
| AOpen i975Xa- YDG Stable DDR2-667 Timings - 4 DIMMs (4/4 slots populated - 2 Dual-Channel Banks) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 166MHz (667FSB) |
| Timing Mode: | 667MHz - Default |
| CAS Latency: | 3 |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 3 |
| RAS Precharge: | 3 |
| RAS Cycle Time: | 12 |
| Voltage: | 1.95V |
The AOpen was completely stable with four (1GB) DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel operation at the settings of 3-3-3-12. Note that tRAS had to be changed from 8 to 12 along with a slight memory increase to 1.95V. These are excellent results as the board performed superbly throughout our memory testing regimen that included eight to twenty four hour runs of MemTest86 and Prime95 along with numerous iterations of SuperPI set at 32M. This board along with the Intel 975X core logic is about as solid as it gets.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
Sorry, being a selfish s.o.b. with this drive, actually I am testing two of them for an upcoming article. :)
sabrewulf - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I haven't been following the development of Conroe too closely, but isn't this chip essentially performing like Conroe will? Or am I missing something?Some of the tests were impressive, but the gaming tests were certainly not "20-40%" improvement over AMD like everyone is wishing.
MrKaz - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
And "will" never be.Don’t forget Intel was using:
- Some special ATI driver.
- Crossfire setup (maybe modified),
20%~40% that you will never get, unless you have such kind of configuration.
On non SLI/Crossfire configuration will never be higher than 5%, 10% improvement...
And thanks that a lot to the 4MB cache, and minor processor (P3 redesign) changes.
Don’t forget that the Intel dual core with 4MB shared cache can act as one BIG single core processor with 4MB cache and the second core with 0MB of cache for the extra “stupid” calc...
IntelUser2000 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
LOL. I always doubt that people can be such a dumb fanboy even I see them over and over again in time.
How do you explain Xtremsystems benchmark, and all the architectural advantages?? Did Netburst's poor showing really blind you??
MrKaz - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
Fun boy me?It's you who calls him self by the stupid nick name Inteluser2000.
Some time there are complete morons here and you are one of them.
ME the "fan boy" has to "defend" Intel, a thing that you with your little brain can’t do.
Read my reply to your fan boy friends, there you will find why conroe will be good, and it's not because it's Intel.... dumb moron....
redbone75 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I don't think it was a "special" driver per se, if I recall the driver had some changes made in order to recognize Conroe.
I just love how a lot of people refer to Conroe as a P3 redesign as if it's something so bad. No, it's not a P3 redesign, there are elements of what made the P3 so successful incorporated into the chip, but that's not what makes the chip so awesome. Also, so what if it is ultimately just a "P3 redesign" as you put it? You use what works, and obviously this works. Hey, the K7 core was pretty good, and K8 is so well designed that AMD can ride it for a few more years.
MrKaz - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
"in order to recognize Conroe"Why they need to recognize Conroe?
-Would work?
-Did work but with inferior performance?
-Special optimizations?
-New instruction set (SSE4) support for improved performance?
Questar - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Wow, some fanboys are still in denial.This is an interim MOBILE chip that just put the smack down on an Opteron. What's going to happen when the real thing comes out?
MrKaz - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
When the real thing come out? That’s easy:Core duo plus:
- 2MB cache (+5%~10%)
- 2X FSB (+4%~8%)
- 800Mhz DDR2 (3%~6%)
- x64 support (0%)
- Higher clock speed 2.1Ghz to 3.3Ghz (anyone can say 50% performance increase?)
I’m not a fan boy, it’s you Intel stupid morons that can even read and make some thought why should Conroe be faster than AMD Athlon 64….
Go back and reread the article about:
Intel Core versus AMD's K8 architecture
Don’t expect conroe be very different from core duo... I’m not saying that’s bad…
Questar - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
You forgot a couple of things:Addidtional ALU Unit
Twice the SSE performace
Better code reordering
Larger reservation station
New micro-ops