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
SexyK - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
There are many, many differences between the Yonah and Conroe designs that should lead to a significantly higher IPC for Conroe. Macro-ops fusion, memory disambiguation, 4-issue core, etc, etc... Here's a good overview of some of the changes as compared to the X2s and older Intel chips: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...SexyK - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I think these tests are the nail in the coffin for those out there still saying the Conroe benchmarks were 'fixed' by Intel. Clock for clock, Yonah is already beating X2 on a regular basis, sometimes by large margins. Based on those results, plus all the m-arch improvements made in Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom, I'd say there's little doubt that we're in store for a 20-40% performance lead from Intel in the near future, depending on the final outcome of the AM2 lauch...LEKO - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I'm really impressed by the Core Duo performance... But this CPU lacks 64bit support. I know that if you upgrade on a yearly basis, it'S not an issue. But when you want something that will be capable for years, I think that the 64bit capable Athlon X2 and Dual-Core Opteron becomes better alternatives.I think that AMD will get a kick in the butt when Intel will launch their Next-Gen 64bit Desktop CPU! I hope AMD have very good hidden cards.
Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
This issue will be addressed with Conroe/Merom. However, given the almost dearth amount of 64-bit applications on the desktop in the WinTel world at this time we still feel like it is a safe purchase for the next couple of years, or wait for Intel's new products this summer. Of course, AMD's products are still top notch with the X2 series offering a truly long term solution (at least in CPU years) if you are buying today.
IntelUser2000 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I don't know. You are comparing DDR2-667 at 3-3-3-8 timings with 975X compared to DDR2-533 on 4-4-4-12 on this Core Duo review using 945GM: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
Not only being at DDR2-667 being synchronous with FSB give advantage, the lower latency will make enough difference in both. There are other possibility like updated BIOS and mature motherboards.
This is the best comparison benchmark I have seen for Core Duo vs. other CPUs(whether Opteron, X2 or Pentium D's), but 975X beating 945GM because its a newer chipset makes no sense.
There is also a possibility that 945GM chipset used in laptops is performance wise lowered compared to the 945GT(which is 945G just Core Duo support), to save power, and if Asus N4L-VM is using 945GM, it MIGHT be the reason it performs lower.
Viditor - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Agreed...though I should say that while Merom is inspired by Yonah, they really are quite different. Will this mobo also work for Merom?
Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Agreed, was not trying to address the core architecture differences, just stating 64-bit support is on the way for Yonah's successors. :) We hear rumors the board can work with Merom, no official statements from AOpen or Intel yet. We will update the article once we have a statement or if Crestline will be the official requirement for Merom. At one time Merom was going to drop into the 945GM but who knows about i975X support as the directions seem to change every Tuesday. We are still waiting on our i965 samples to ship in order to showcase "eornoc". ;-)
Viditor - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Thanks Gary! I will be very interested in the update once you get confirmation. I'm still a bit murky on the platforms for Merom...Cheers!
stmok - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
From what I hear (Engineers in AOpen R&D as well as enthusiasts who have gotten samples), they have tested this mobo with Merom. You need a BIOS update. Otherwise, it will NOT boot to the operating system!I'm still wondering if it supports Virtualization Technology. This is what I'm really interested in. :)
Questar - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
You plan on running apps that require greater than 4GB of ram in the next couple years?Didn't think so.