Game Performance Comparison, Continued




In our two games that tend to be GPU limited we see the i865 AGP/DDR solution scoring a win in Prey and coming in second in Serious Sam II where the Intel 945P pulls out a close victory at DDR2-667 settings. The VIA PT880 Pro performance trails the other solutions in SS2, similar to its Quake 4 performance. The difference is only 3-5%, though, so if the features offered (DDR and DDR2 support, AGP and PCIe support) interest you, it's still not a bad choice.

The sweet spot for gaming with this particular video card seems to be at low latency DDR2-667 settings as DDR2-800 provides negligible benefits. We are sure with lower latencies at DDR2-800 and a more powerful GPU solution that we would see further scaling increases in performance. However, for a value based system having DDR2 memory capable of 3-4-3 operation at DDR2-667 or DDR memory that does 2-2-2 at DDR400 is more than sufficient. Your money is best spent on a higher end GPU solution backed by a stable motherboard and a processor like the E6300/6400 Core 2 Duo for Intel systems or a AMD 3800+ X2 for the S939 or AM2 platforms.

Quick Take

Our conclusion from the first article still holds true. A user's choice of memory on our tested platforms is not going to make a huge difference considering the components and benchmarks utilized. The only difference in our expectations was just how close each chipset performed to the other during testing. We also ran our entire benchmark test suite and had the same overall results between chipsets. We came to a sudden and abrupt realization that features have increased dramatically in recent years but chipset performance has not for most users, certainly not to the degree of CPU or GPU improvements.

We did have a couple of surprises during testing and it caused us to retest the boards involved and also verify the results with different memory. One of these surprises centered on our choice for the Intel P965 and 975X chipsets. Our Biostar and DFI boards were the least expensive in their respective categories. We found out that except for the gaming performance of the Biostar board at DDR2-533, the P965 chipset is very competitive if not better performing than the 975X chipset when utilized with mid-range components. In our lab testing of overclocked boards with high end components we generally find the 975X based boards to be better performers in all areas. Unless you are matching high end components and plan on serious overclocking then a solid P965 or for that matter a 945P motherboard is sufficient for the low-end Core 2 Duo processors. In fact, we highly recommend the ASRock ConRoeXFire-eSATA2 and 775Dual-VSTA at this time for their unbeatable combination of price and performance in the budget sector for Core 2 Duo capable boards.

However, the biggest surprise was the overall performance of the ASRock 775i65G board as it was just as competitive with the other chipsets in our testing and proved to be extremely stable with every benchmark or application we threw at it. Who knew that AGP 8x and DDR would still be this competitive after a myriad of chipset, memory, CPU, and GPU enhancements over the last three years? [Ed:sarcastic reflection] While both technologies have come to their end we find it comforting to know that if you own either then you can still upgrade to the fastest processor series currently available and not worry about general system performance. That is unless you want to play the latest games at 1600x1200; in that case we will grudgingly have to advise you to go buy that PCI Express 7950 GX2 or X1900 XT along with the required components to support it. Until you reach the point where you're ready to make such an expenditure, these value based motherboards from ASRock are a wise purchase to extend the life of your current investment.

Game Performance Comparison
Comments Locked

34 Comments

View All Comments

  • randytsuch - Monday, August 14, 2006 - link

    Hi
    I am thinking about upgrading my old P4 to a low end conroe, and after reading the article, was also thinking about the 775i65G.

    Application will be mostly video rendering, and as a music server for my squeezebox, no gaming.

    I am wondering how well the 775i65G overclocks, compared to something like a Gigabyte 865-DS3. I was thinking about the Gigabyte, but the Asrock would save a fair amount of money, will let me keep my AGP card and RAM, as well as being cheaper than the DS4.

    Thanks,
    Randy
  • kmmatney - Monday, August 14, 2006 - link

    From what I understand, the low multiplier of the Conroe hurts its overclocking chances with this motherboard. People have gotten very good overclocks with Prescotts and Celeron D's with the ADrock board, but only becuase those processors have much higher multipliers. I don't think the lack of voltage adjustment hurts it as much as the fact that you just can't take the FSB very high.
  • Paladin165 - Monday, August 14, 2006 - link

    I just want to add that I bought an ASRock 775 Dual-VSTA with a celeron D 326 to hold me over until I get a conroe, and I'm running some old DDR266 with no problems. I'm using an old Geforce 4 ti 4400 AGP in it and it works with most games (not Oblivion though unfortunately). So if you still have some DDR 266 laying around you'd like to use go ahead and buy this board. It has a ton of memory settings including some kind of memory compatability mode so it should work with just about anything.

    However, even with the Celeron D 326 overclocked to 3.3GHZ, super pi 1M takes 59sec...roughly equal to my sempron 1.6ghz at stock speed. It is definitely a slow POS. Temps are still very low, going to try to get it up higher, 3.8 or 4.0ghz, but I'm not sure I can while keeping the memory at such low speed.

    Another thing nice about this board which I haven't seen mentioned in the reviews is that it can run AGP and PCI-E at the same time, so you can have 4 moniters without needing a slow PCI graphics card.

    Also, it seems that the AGP is only 4X. The settings in the bios only go up to 4X and Everest or something told me it was running my card at 4X, I doubt it makes any difference though.
  • cdalgard - Monday, August 14, 2006 - link

    I am wondering how a 6800 Ultra would compare to the 7600GS on these platforms. How might the benchmarks look? Is the 6800 Ultra faster than the 7600GS to begin with?
  • ChronoReverse - Monday, August 14, 2006 - link

    The 7600GT would be a good match against the 6800U but the 7600GS is definitely behind the 6800U.
  • xsilver - Monday, August 14, 2006 - link

    but if i'm not mistaken, the 7600gs and gt only differ in clock speeds, so trying your luck with overclocking the gs may achieve stock gt results
  • SixFour - Monday, August 14, 2006 - link

    Cooling would stop first before the actual video card did.
  • ChronoReverse - Monday, August 14, 2006 - link

    Not to mention the much slower memory. Typically you get GDDR3 with GT while you get GDDR2 (clocked lower as well) with the GS.
  • cdalgard - Monday, August 14, 2006 - link

    How does the memory compare on the 6800 Ultra? There does not seem to be any good benchmarks comparing the 3 cards (6800U, 7600GS, 7600GT). Does anyone have a link to a table for specifications (core clock, memory clock, pipelines)? Thanks.
  • Gary Key - Monday, August 14, 2006 - link

    quote:

    How does the memory compare on the 6800 Ultra?


    The memory on the 6800 Ultra runs at 1.10GHz compared to 400MHz on the 7600GS. We will have scores up for the PCI-E versus AGP on the 6800 Ultra and 7600GS cards shortly.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now