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
Myrandex - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Believe it or not, people can run 64bit apps for other reaons from 4GB memory...such as increased performance? I knwo not many apps right now show increased perofrmance with 64bit mode, but some do and I believe this will go up when more developers start programing for it with more intensity and all that.Jason
peternelson - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
For me this is the showstopper, and the reason I much prefer Turion at present.Core Solo/ Core Duo are 32 bit only. That makes them quite rarely disadvantaged - even the new Celerons can do 64 bit EM64T.
This board would be of much more interest if the review said "THIS BOARD IS MEROM-READY". As it doesn't, I assume it isn't. The review here might have highlighted this important issue which will be crucial deciding factor for some potential purchasers, especially considering the price.
I see Conroe and Merom systems quickly filling the market need this board is targetted at.
Gary Key - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
Only disadvantaged for those utilizing 64-bit applications and operation systems, but for 95% of the marketplace they are fine. Not that I do not think it is an issue, but one that is way overblown in today's marketplace.
Probably in a couple of years it will be completely different but for now, 32-bit applications are still king of the hill (market share wise). This upsets me as I have to believe the entire migration path should have been completed by next year but the foot dragging between Microsoft and Intel negated AMD's advantage in this area for far too long. With that said, Merom takes care of the Yonah 64-bit issue in the mobile sector for Intel in a couple of months. It will be very interesting to see how it compares to Turion 64 X2, it will be good for all of us to have choices in the mobile sector.
We cannot quote on whether this board is Merom approved or not until qualification testing is complete. Will a Merom T7400 work in this board with the bios 1.3b, yes it will, and the initial results show a great deal of improvement over Yonah in certain benchmarks. Will Merom be fully supported by Intel and AOpen on this board, we do not know yet. AOpen is waiting a production spin of Merom before trying to the qualify it on this board and even then Intel might force everyone to Crestline for official support. We are still trying to figure out if Merom is going to work with 945GM as stated a couple of months ago. The entire situation is so up in the air right now that any statement has the potential to be wrong so being quiet is the best possible option. :)
johnsonx - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
from the spring idf article on AT:Now that may not be a 100% promise, but until Merom is actually released, there's no way to be 100% certain any given board will work with it.
Viditor - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
You mean 4GB or greater...at 4GB, a 32bit processor will be using PAE already.
And yes, I find that 4GB is a great help on a number of my apps...
Questar - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Mobile/SFF apps?Name them.
Viditor - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Photoshop CS2, Premiere Pro, and Mental Ray...
Questar - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I'm a heavy Premiere user, and I can tell you it's a 32 bit app.Chadder007 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
You can still run it under a 64 bit OS and have access to the 4gb or greater amount of ram.defter - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
No you can't. If you have an 32bit software then it can only address 4GB of memory.