Intel P965: Mid-Range Performance Sector Roundup
by Gary Key on October 20, 2006 9:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Firewire and USB Performance
After looking at many options for Firewire and USB testing, we finally determined that an external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, and Firewire 800 hard disk would be a sensible way to look at USB and Firewire throughput. We utilize a RAM disk as our "server", since memory removes almost all overhead from the serving end. We turn off disk caching on the USB and Firewire side by setting up the drives for "quick disconnect" so our results are consistent.
We use 2GB of system memory with timings of 3-3-3-9 and set our RAM disk to 450MB with system memory at 1550MB. Our standard file is the SPECviewPerf install file, which measures 432,533,504 bytes (412.4961MB). After copying this file to our RAM disk, we measured the time for writing from the RAM disk to our external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, or Firewire 800 drive utilizing our internal Windows based timing program. The copy times in seconds were then converted into Megabits per second (Mb) to provide a convenient means of comparing throughput. Higher Rates therefore mean better performance in this particular test.
Possibly the most interesting finding in our Firewire and USB throughput tests is the outstanding performance of an external hard drive connected to Firewire 800. Our benchmarks show Firewire 800 is up to 42% faster than a drive connected to the more common Firewire 400, and about 11% faster than the fastest USB 2.0 solution.
We see our Intel ICH8 chipset finally overtake perennial champion NVIDIA in USB 2.0 performance. We see the USB performance on the ATI SB600 still trailing the other solutions but it has vastly improved compared to the SB450. The Firewire soltuion from VIA is still slightly faster than the TI solutions normally used.
Ethernet Performance
The current motherboard test suite includes LAN performance measurements. All of these boards utilize PCI or PCI Express based controllers with the only difference being the supplier of the core logic.
The Windows 2000 Driver Development Kit (DDK) includes a useful LAN testing utility called NTttcp. We used the NTttcp tool to test Ethernet throughput and the CPU utilization of the various Ethernet Controllers used on the Intel motherboards.
We set up one machine as the server; in this test, an Intel system with an Intel CSA Gigabit LAN connection. Intel CSA has a reputation for providing fast throughput and is a logical choice for our Gigabit LAN server.
On the server side, we used the following Command Line as suggested by the VIA whitepaper on LAN testing:
The CPU utilization performance favors the Marvell Gigabit controllers with the Realtek solutions having the highest utilization numbers. The throughput numbers also favor the Marvell Gigabit controllers with the Realtek options close behind. ASUS recently switched to the Attansic L1 PCI Express based controller chip with it posting decent results in each test. We do not understand ASUS's decision to utilize a PCI based Gigabit controller on the 570SLI when the NVIDIA chipset has native support for Gigabit operations. This decision results in the worse throughput and average CPU utilization numbers. However, even with throughput at 646Mb/s it still exceeds what most home networks are capable of and certainly any DSL or Cable based Internet connection.
After looking at many options for Firewire and USB testing, we finally determined that an external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, and Firewire 800 hard disk would be a sensible way to look at USB and Firewire throughput. We utilize a RAM disk as our "server", since memory removes almost all overhead from the serving end. We turn off disk caching on the USB and Firewire side by setting up the drives for "quick disconnect" so our results are consistent.
We use 2GB of system memory with timings of 3-3-3-9 and set our RAM disk to 450MB with system memory at 1550MB. Our standard file is the SPECviewPerf install file, which measures 432,533,504 bytes (412.4961MB). After copying this file to our RAM disk, we measured the time for writing from the RAM disk to our external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, or Firewire 800 drive utilizing our internal Windows based timing program. The copy times in seconds were then converted into Megabits per second (Mb) to provide a convenient means of comparing throughput. Higher Rates therefore mean better performance in this particular test.
Possibly the most interesting finding in our Firewire and USB throughput tests is the outstanding performance of an external hard drive connected to Firewire 800. Our benchmarks show Firewire 800 is up to 42% faster than a drive connected to the more common Firewire 400, and about 11% faster than the fastest USB 2.0 solution.
We see our Intel ICH8 chipset finally overtake perennial champion NVIDIA in USB 2.0 performance. We see the USB performance on the ATI SB600 still trailing the other solutions but it has vastly improved compared to the SB450. The Firewire soltuion from VIA is still slightly faster than the TI solutions normally used.
Ethernet Performance
The current motherboard test suite includes LAN performance measurements. All of these boards utilize PCI or PCI Express based controllers with the only difference being the supplier of the core logic.
The Windows 2000 Driver Development Kit (DDK) includes a useful LAN testing utility called NTttcp. We used the NTttcp tool to test Ethernet throughput and the CPU utilization of the various Ethernet Controllers used on the Intel motherboards.
We set up one machine as the server; in this test, an Intel system with an Intel CSA Gigabit LAN connection. Intel CSA has a reputation for providing fast throughput and is a logical choice for our Gigabit LAN server.
On the server side, we used the following Command Line as suggested by the VIA whitepaper on LAN testing:
Ntttcpr -m 4,0,‹server IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
On the client side (the motherboard under test), we used the following Command Line:Ntttcps -m 4,0,‹client IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
At the conclusion of the test, we captured the throughput and CPU utilization figures from the client screen.The CPU utilization performance favors the Marvell Gigabit controllers with the Realtek solutions having the highest utilization numbers. The throughput numbers also favor the Marvell Gigabit controllers with the Realtek options close behind. ASUS recently switched to the Attansic L1 PCI Express based controller chip with it posting decent results in each test. We do not understand ASUS's decision to utilize a PCI based Gigabit controller on the 570SLI when the NVIDIA chipset has native support for Gigabit operations. This decision results in the worse throughput and average CPU utilization numbers. However, even with throughput at 646Mb/s it still exceeds what most home networks are capable of and certainly any DSL or Cable based Internet connection.
62 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
Oh, trust me, Gary tested with a LOT of RAM types and manufacturers. However, for the *benchmarks* he settled on one specific set of DIMMs. I think he's trying to put together some information on how the various boards worked with other RAM (see above comment from Gary). Cheers!stmok - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
LOL...I think its more like: "What the hell were the Abit engineers thinking?!"Based on your experiences, do you know if the Analog Devices AD1988A HD Audio Codec works in Linux? I wouldn't mind going for the ASUS P5B-E at the end of the year.
And finally, is the rev 1.02G mobo available now? Or in a few months time?
Gary Key - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
The 1.09 ADI AD1988A drivers worked fine in SUSE 10.1. Realtek has better support at this time but ADI seems to be catching up. Believe it or not, but we booted every board with SUSE 10.1 just to make sure they went to the desktop. We might even do a once in a while look at Linux down the road.
xsilver - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
what is the range of overclocking possible with pc6400 ram?without dividers? with dividers?
Gary Key - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
Good question, depends on the PC2-6400 RAM. We are working on something right now to answer your question with a few different modules.xsilver - Sunday, October 22, 2006 - link
probably something standard like corsair VS or something priced very similar if there is better performance elsewherexsilver - Sunday, October 22, 2006 - link
also I would assume that 1gig vs. 2gig makes no difference but if it does, it would be good to know.Madellga - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
Excellent review Gary. I also look forward for the round 2 and also for a 975/ATI/Nvidia reviews.Please try to mention the Vmch used for the overclocking results, as this says a lot about the motherboads also.
Gary Key - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
I am setting up a overclocking settings table and will try to show some additional results with different memory types that we used in testing. I have no idea when this will be finished. ;-)Ryan Norton - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
This article is terrific-- now I just need to read the high-end part and I can finally put together a Core 2 Duo system.Will the DS4 be included in the high-end guide? I don't want a DQ-6 because the copper backplate under the processor socket would prevent installation of a Scythe Ninja heatsink.
Are the AHCI issues going to stay the way they are, with needing to load the drivers from a floppy disk during Windows install, or are there any P965 boards that don't require "an engineering degree and a day off" as you guys said?