Intel 925X/915: Chipset Performance & DDR2
by Wesley Fink on June 19, 2004 3:01 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Performance Test Design
With so many changes in the Intel desktop, there were a lot of burning questions to be answered. It seemed a little inadequate just to run a few benchmarks on the new chipsets, or quote performance figures supplied by Intel, so we tried to devise some comparisons that would answer the most common questions that we have heard regarding the new Intel architecture.1. How do the 925X and 915 compare in performance? Is there a significant performance difference in the new chipsets? How does the top Intel system compare to a top AMD Athlon 64 System? 925X and 915 systems were identically configured with Intel 560 processors (3.6GHz) and performance compared with a full set of motherboard benchmarks. We included benchmarks using Dual-Channel DDR memory and the same video card in an AGP 8X flavor on an AMD Athlon 64 FX53 system for comparison. These tests begin on Page 8.
2. How does Intel's new top 925X with PCIe, DDR2, and SATA Matrix RAID compare in performance to a similarly equipped top 875P system? We compared performance of a top 875 with a 3.2 Northwood, GeForce 6800 Ultra AGP 8X, SATA RAID, and DDR 2-2-2-5 memory to the Intel 925X with a 3.2E (775) Prescott, GeForce 6800 Ultra PCIe, SATA Matrix RAID, and DDR2 memory. These tests begin on Page 12.
3. Is DDR2 really faster than DDR? We verified there was no memory performance degradation of the Gigabyte Dual-Memory board compared to Intel 915. Performance with DDR and DDR2 were then compared on the Gigabyte over our motherboard test suite. These tests begin on Page 16.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
#22 & #23 - This will all make more sense when Derek's companion piece is posted later today, which compares the 3.6, 3.4EE, and AMD chipsets.There is no 3.6EE, and we considered comparing the 3.4EE, but the early benches showed the 3.6 to be a fairer comparison. The 3.6 is the only new Intel chip and the top (3.4EE is just a new 775 package launch) and the FX53 is the top AMD chip. The FX53 runs at the same speed as the 3800+ (2.4GHz) but has twice the cache, and both are Dual-Channel Socket 939. The FX55 will not be released until late this year.
Comparing last year's 3200+, the first Socket 754 Athlon 64 and single-channel, to the just-released 560 (3.6GHz) compares nothing.
Bozo Galora - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
If the chipset supports only one IDE channel, why does the Gigabyte board have two green IDE sockets.Am I missing something?
I really wanna know, because only one IDE means I dont buy this stuff.
shabby - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
So when are the dual core cpu's coming out? Think ill wait for those.SDA - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
That's just it, though, the FX-53 is just a few tens of dollars more than the 3800+, so some people figure why not? AMD is overcharging because they know they can get away with it..stephenbrooks - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
Maybe replace '3500+' by '3800+' above.stephenbrooks - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
One interesting thing is the difference it makes which AMD chip people compare the 3.6E to in these reviews. Before coming here I read the one at http://www.bit-tech.net/review/326/ and came away thoroughly impressed. The clincher was that they compared to the A64 3200+ whereas this review compared to the FX-53.I'm not totally sure if the 3.6E _should_ be compared to the FX-53, being as it is marketed as a '560', in the 5xx 'mid-range' desktop segment for Intel. A better comparison for the high-price-end might be 3.4/3.46EE vs. FX-53 or '720' vs. FX-55 later on.
I'd think 3.6E vs. A64 3700+, or even better the 3500+ (as it's on AMD's new socket too) would be an informative comparison. It's just a shame Intel's high-end offerings are a bit thin on the ground right now.
Staples - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
Good review. I wish you had compared the 875 with the 925x however both using a Presscott CPU. With one using a Northwood and one using a Presscott fails to show which chipset optimizes the power of the CPU. The fact that you didn't further inphasises that Intel is in one hellava drought. The 3.2 Northwood/875 combo that came out like 8+ months ago is still faster than ANYTHING they have released.I am waiting for a reason to upgrade but this sure isn't something I was looking for. With Intel having these troubles, AMD is going to take their sweet time putting out anything faster.
Pumpkinierre - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
It would be great to see the 915 with Skt478- best of both worlds. I know that Skt775 is appearing on 865 mobos (Abit AS8). At that last Taiwan computer expo they had dual intel Sckt mobos but were they 915s?rjm55 - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
#16 - I disagree with you. I think Northwood on 875 is exactly the right comparison to Prescott 775 on 925X. Both at the same speed as done in the review. Prescott was not designed for 875, so comparing the best last generation 875/Northwood to the new 925X/Prescott is extremely fair. I'm sure Intel would have preferred a comparison of Prescott to Prescott, because they would have looked better. I think that was #4's point, which you apparently missed.Doormat - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
Now I dont feel so bad about buying that P4-3.0C/i875 combo last month...