ASRock ConRoe945G-DVI: Core 2 Duo goes mATX
by Gary Key on September 1, 2006 5:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Test Setup
Our test setup is not our normal configuration due to time constraints for generating this early look review. We are using the test configuration from our recent Core 2 Duo memory performance articles since we had a base of information with the E6300 and several competing Intel and VIA based motherboards. Also, this test configuration is well suited for this board's capabilities and would be considered a mainstream solution in regards to the overall system cost. We will have extended test results with this board in our upcoming mATX roundup utilizing additional hardware configurations.
Our configuration was operated at a resolution of 1024x768 with high quality settings for each graphics benchmark. We will have onboard graphics test results with this board in an upcoming G965 versus 945G comparison, although we were only able to complete Quake 4 testing with the Intel GMA950.
We are testing our motherboards at the fastest stable timings we can achieve and still pass our benchmark test suite. By increasing the memory voltage on the ASRock board we were able to run our Transcend modules at 3-3-3-9 at DDR2-533 and 3-4-3-10 at DDR2-667. With these set ratios our CPU speed remains the same at 1.86GHz in the test platform with memory speed being varied by selecting the different ratios. Our memory settings were derived from extensive stress testing with a variety of applications. While certain settings that allowed lower latencies worked well with certain applications, the final settings we arrived at had to work with all applications.
The Sandra bandwidth Unbuffered memory performance of the Intel 945G chipset is the highest of our group at DDR2-533 (1:1 ratio) and second highest at DDR2-667 (4:5 ratio). The Unbuffered scores of the 945G chipset increase by 10% when going from DDR2-533 to DDR2-667 which equals the same increases found on the ASRock 945P. However, both the P965 and 975X scale at a rate of approximately 15%. The buffered memory scores are very competitive with the other solutions but we usually find these scores do not correlate well with real performance in most applications. The 945G scores very well in our SuperPI 2M tests where it ties the NV 570 SLI in the DDR2-533 results and places second in the DDR2-667 test. The latency results are average but improve upon the 945P board. A very good guide to understanding how the chipset, memory, and CPU relate to each other on Intel chipsets is located here.
Our test setup is not our normal configuration due to time constraints for generating this early look review. We are using the test configuration from our recent Core 2 Duo memory performance articles since we had a base of information with the E6300 and several competing Intel and VIA based motherboards. Also, this test configuration is well suited for this board's capabilities and would be considered a mainstream solution in regards to the overall system cost. We will have extended test results with this board in our upcoming mATX roundup utilizing additional hardware configurations.
| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor: | Intel Core 2 Duo - E6300 |
| RAM: | 2 x 512mb Transcend JetRam DDR2-533 |
| Hard Drive(s): | 1 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB |
| System Platform Drivers: | Intel Chipset Software - 8.0.1.1002 |
| Video Cards: | 1 x EVGA 7600GS (PCI Express) |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA nForce 91.31 WHQL |
| Cooling: | Scythe Infinity |
| Power Supply: | OCZ GameXStream 700w |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Motherboards: | ASRock ConRoe945G-DVI ASRock 775Dual-VSTA (VIA PT880Pro) ASRock ConRoeXFire-eSATA2 (Intel 945P) Biostar TForce 965 Deluxe (Intel P965) DFI Infinity 975X/G (Intel P975X) Asus P5NSLI (NVIDIA 570SLI) |
Our configuration was operated at a resolution of 1024x768 with high quality settings for each graphics benchmark. We will have onboard graphics test results with this board in an upcoming G965 versus 945G comparison, although we were only able to complete Quake 4 testing with the Intel GMA950.
We are testing our motherboards at the fastest stable timings we can achieve and still pass our benchmark test suite. By increasing the memory voltage on the ASRock board we were able to run our Transcend modules at 3-3-3-9 at DDR2-533 and 3-4-3-10 at DDR2-667. With these set ratios our CPU speed remains the same at 1.86GHz in the test platform with memory speed being varied by selecting the different ratios. Our memory settings were derived from extensive stress testing with a variety of applications. While certain settings that allowed lower latencies worked well with certain applications, the final settings we arrived at had to work with all applications.
 |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
The Sandra bandwidth Unbuffered memory performance of the Intel 945G chipset is the highest of our group at DDR2-533 (1:1 ratio) and second highest at DDR2-667 (4:5 ratio). The Unbuffered scores of the 945G chipset increase by 10% when going from DDR2-533 to DDR2-667 which equals the same increases found on the ASRock 945P. However, both the P965 and 975X scale at a rate of approximately 15%. The buffered memory scores are very competitive with the other solutions but we usually find these scores do not correlate well with real performance in most applications. The 945G scores very well in our SuperPI 2M tests where it ties the NV 570 SLI in the DDR2-533 results and places second in the DDR2-667 test. The latency results are average but improve upon the 945P board. A very good guide to understanding how the chipset, memory, and CPU relate to each other on Intel chipsets is located here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link
The SATA issues at least are chipset/BIOS/motherboard dependent. As this uses an Intel 945G chipset, it should work fine with SATA. NVIDIA chipsets should also work fine, but I don't know what exactly ASRock did with the AM2NF4G-SATA2. Normally, for XP installs you want to set the SATA ports to IDE mode, and once XP is installed with all the drivers you can switch to AHCI mode instead... not that there's much performance difference anyway.In terms of stability, have you run without the OC? I really don't trust $50-$60 boards for overclocking. Some will do it, but it's still a bit of an iffy propositions for long-term use. I'd much rather spend $100 on a board I know will OC reliably.
yyrkoon - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link
Yeah, I ran everything per spec. for 3 weeks, and wasnt until recently that I decided to OC it. My thinking is that, if this board isnt going to be stable for more than 3 days, I dont care much for it anyhow. Also, I had planned on replacing it with a ABIT AN9 32x when I bought it. Now Im starting to think maybe I'll replace it with a ABIT AB9 Pro, and a E6x00 CPU.Anyhow, the HTT is slightly above 1000MHZ, the memory is running ar 832MHZ, and CPU is reported by the BIOS as running at 2.76GHZ (although CPU-Z says a bit lower), and its running as stable, load, or idle as before. CPU temperatures havent exceeded 122F much, if at all. I have run nvmonitor stability tests, and sandra burn-in test on this system without a hitch, and if you think about it, 16% really isnt a huge OC . . .
JarredWalton - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link
I'm guessing you have a 4200+ chip, right? 11X multiplier with a 250 MHz bus?Deoending on CPU, RAM, etc. you're possibly hitting other limits. Just for kicks, try dropping the RAM from DDR2-800 to a lower speed, like set it for DDR2-533 instead of DDR2-667. That should put the RAM at DDR2-611 vs. DDR2-786 (with a 250 MHz HTT speed).
I would also adjust the memory timings for more conservative values. I'm guessing that with limited memory voltages, you might have problems running any DDR2 memory at 800 MHz. It's a thought anyway. :)
yyrkoon - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link
Also, according to Sandra, my memory bandwidth is slightly above 7000MB/s int, and float. IS this decent ?yyrkoon - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link
Oh, sorry here:Asrock AM2NF4G-SATA2
AMD 64 3800+ (single core)
2x1 GB Cosair XMS 6400 DDR2
eVGA 7600GT KO (stock), Antec SL 450 450W PSU.
Since on this board there is no divider settings (or atleast none that I know of), basicly, all I've adjusted is memory (533,667,800), HTT link speed, CPU FSB, and multiplier. First I started off at 12x multiplier, and achieved a 230 FSB, anything above, wenbt unstable either in windows, or wouldnt boot. Here, I noticed the memory was quite capable of 880MHZ DDR, but I've had it as high as 902MHZ DDR stable(5-5-5-18). This memory will also run 4-4-4-12 stock volts at stock settings(even though SPD says otherwise). OK, then I dropped the multiplier, and increased FSB in increments of 10's until it failed to boot, then I dropped HTT link speed(800/1600), and memory to 533 standard. After this I increased FSB speed by 10's again, until falure, and eventually arrived at 250MHZ. Dropping the multiplier to 10x would not post with minimum FSB speed I wanted, so I called it quits.
So in summer basicly, right now, my HTT link is 800/1600, multiplier 11x, and memory is set to DDR2 667 (in the BIOS). nvmonitor reports CPU is running at 2.7x, memory is running at 832, and HT bounces around from high 900's to low 1000's. CPU-Z says the memory speed is 392.xx, CPU is 2.7x, and HT is 1000.
As far as I know, I've done about all I can, and still maintain a decent clock/ ratio settings. However, I havent OC's since I owned a P55 233mmx CPU (yes, MANY years ago) so I may be missing something. If so, Im all ears :)
yyrkoon - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link
err summer = summary ? :/JarredWalton - Saturday, September 2, 2006 - link
Your CPU multiplier should only affect things if you set it lower than stock. The Athlon 64 3800+ has a 12X multiplier by default. I generally don't think there's much point in using lower multipliers, as the difference in memory bandwidth has very little impact on Athlon 64 processors. At the stock 12X multiplier, you get nicer memory ratios at DDR2-800 and DDR2-533 settings. Remember that memory speed is actually based off of a divider of the CPU speed. So:12 x 200 = 2400 MHz
DDR2-800 = CPU/6 = 400 MHz (DDR2-800)
DDR2-667 = CPU/8 = 300 MHz (DDR2-600)
DDR2-533 = CPU/9 = 267 MHz (DDR2-533)
Overclocked:
12 x 233 = 2796 MHz
DDR2-800 = CPU/6 = 466 MHz (DDR2-932)
DDR2-667 = CPU/8 = 350 MHz (DDR2-799)
DDR2-533 = CPU/9 = 311 MHz (DDR2-621)
Change the multiplier to 11X and you get the following:
11 x 200 = 2200 MHz
DDR2-800 = CPU/6 = 367 MHz (DDR2-733)
DDR2-667 = CPU/7 = 314 MHz (DDR2-629)
DDR2-533 = CPU/9 = 244 MHz (DDR2-489)
Notice how certain memory ratios and up with odd final results. That's what you're getting right now most likely. Let's say you go with a 250 MHz bus as an overclock. This is what you get:
Overclocked:
11 x 250 = 2750 MHz
DDR2-800 = CPU/6 = 458 MHz (DDR2-917)
DDR2-667 = CPU/7 = 393 MHz (DDR2-786)
DDR2-533 = CPU/9 = 306 MHz (DDR2-611)
yyrkoon - Saturday, September 2, 2006 - link
Jarred, heres a link to a post I made on the forums, if you care to comment further, to see a couple of OC test cases I've done so farhttp://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...amp;thre...
yyrkoon - Saturday, September 2, 2006 - link
Perhaps I should benchmark both, although all sanda CPU tests already indicate that my system performs a slight bit slower than a Fx-57 system.The reason why I dropped the multiplier, was in hopes of gaining a higher CPU Frequency, which proved true. My thinking was that if voltage is limiting my increases, perhaps lower the multiplier will relax the CPU some. Since memory bandwidth to a point is rather moot, memory bandwidth isnt a big deal IMO either, how I may do some serious benchmarking comparrison for the hell of it, and may even post them somewhere. I can tell you however that Oblivion does perform better with the OC (was the first thing I checked).
Dfere - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link
Anyone give me a general ballpark on what this integrated video should perform as? 6200 TC ?? 7300?Thanks