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
Per Hansson - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
Hi Gary, just wanted to drop in and give you a kudos on this very nice review!It also makes me smile to finally see Intel catching up with AMD, this can only be good news for the customer...
And a small heads up, there are a few Intel Core Duo Engineering sample CPU's on sale at eBay, "hint hint engineering sample=multipler unlocked"
And also a big thanks for finally posting those capacitor shots and mentioning them, keep up the good work!
Also I think Aopen deserves recognition for designing a mainboard with so high-quality components, Rubycon=Way to go!!!
goinginstyle - Friday, May 19, 2006 - link
Agreed....
vailr - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Updated driver:(from: http://www.station-drivers.com/page/intechip.htm)">http://www.station-drivers.com/page/intechip.htm)
Intel Chipset software Installation Utility
Version 7.3.1.1013 - Windows 2000/XP 32/64bits/2003Server Multi Langues & officiel
ftp://aiedownload.intel.com/df-support/10392/eng/i...">ftp://aiedownload.intel.com/df-support/10392/eng/i...
Version 8.0.0.1005 Alpha
Windows 2000/XP 32/64bits/2003Server Multi Langues & non officiel
http://www.station-drivers.com/telechargement/inte...">http://www.station-drivers.com/telechargement/inte... Alpha.exe
Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Thank you for posting these links. :) We have a policy of utilizing the latest driver sets on a supplier's website at the time our testing starts, in this case the Intel general download page is still posting the 7.2.2.1006 driver set. However, I am using the 7.3.1 driver set on our retail board sample tonight. ;-)irev210 - Sunday, May 7, 2006 - link
Hello Gary,Sorta funny how that other fellow has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
I just wanted to touch upon something that I didnt see get much attention.
You should have mentioned in your article about how efficient the core architecture is, and how well it scales with increased frequency. The chip turns into a total monster once you get past 3ghz, and continues to perform better and better as you increase the speed. The fastest I could get on air was around 3.1ghz. I wouldnt be afraid to crank the volts to the 1.5 max on the aopen board... with a different cooler, you should hit some nice speeds. Try swapping out for a zalman 9500, or a big typhoon.
The shortfalls, are as you mentioned the southbridge lacking raid, and the poor bios options. Vcore should let us up to 1.65-1.7, while Vdimm should let us do atleast 2.3.
While this may not satisfy the most serious enthusiast, this board does fill a nice niche. The price is pretty high, but core duo CPU's can be had on the cheap, which makes up for it. For someone that is worried about their electric bill, and wants performance and performance per watt, this is a great alternative.
For others who must have the fastest. This just makes them drool. This is the low end of the core architecture. Merom and Conroe to follow... we shall be stunned.
Consdering Meroms being tested now at 3.0Ghz are faster than 3.2Ghz Yonah's... AND YOU WILL SEE Conroe EE at 3.33 w/ a 1333fsb doing 4ghz w/ 1500mhz FSB :)
For those that dont get it yet... AMD will need a AM2 processor running at about oh 4.8Ghz to beat a 4Ghz clocked conroe :)
Good things to come. I take no sides, im just excited about new stuff :)
Marlowe - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
How come a ~1 % cpu usage translates into a massiv 20 fps drop in BF2? Looks like EA have a deal with Creative :(A lot of world records have been beaten with this mobo already over here at XS :)
coolaler even got SLI enabled on it ;) also running a merom in it ;)
Your 266 FSB is very good and about normal for aircooling. Give it some cold and it will go further ;)
Frumious1 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
[font color="#000000] (Damn white text. Nice comment engine AnandTech.... Need a new programmer?)Because RightMark is a theoretical test and not actually a real game or audio application. Also, look at the 3D/EAX scores - it's more than 1% CPU usage, but still less than 20% or whatever.
Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
It has to do with the Realtek driver load and Creatives to some extent being split between the cores during the RightMark testing. I noted in the text that although the cpu utilization is extremely low in our Rightmark results due to the load balancing that the actual game results (percentage differences) were basically the same as our single core scores. The drop in BF2 is due to the audio algorithms being generated by the CPU rather in hardware as on the X-FI card. Our audio settings in BF2 are set to hardware, medium quality, EAX enabled, the high quality setting extracts another 6FPS but we generally have not noticed an increase in audio quality. This is one penalty you pay for on-board audio in a CPU limited game although Serious Sam II is the one exception for either solution.
We are hoping to receive a T2700 chip from Intel shortly and will "chill" it to see what results come from it. :) Yes, we had SLI working on the board also, but that is a topic that will be buried with Jimmy Hoffa at this time. ;-)
NT78stonewobble - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
Intriguing last 2 sentences.The comments section has some really good info alot of the time :).
And kudos for bringing into the review something about the penalty for using onboard audio versus dedicated hardware.
You're not by any chance planning on writing something about audio quality some-time? Not that im an audiophile or the like, just curious.
Gary Key - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
We will expand our audio section in the next update to our motherboard review section. We are looking at several variations of the review process as we enter a very busy time of the year with AM2, Conroe, and others all launching over the next 90 days. :)