Intel 925X/915: Chipset Performance & DDR2
by Wesley Fink on June 19, 2004 3:01 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
925X vs. 915 vs. Athlon 64: Gaming Performance
The performance difference between 915 and 925X remains very small in Gaming benchmarks. 925X is faster, but the performance advantage for 925X ranges from almost nil in DirectX 9 games like Halo to about 2% in other games. We really expected a wider difference in 925X and 915 performance. Perhaps as DDR2 memory matures and timings improve, we will begin to see a wider performance difference in the Intel chipsets.
The Gaming advantage of the FX53 here is striking. The top Athlon 64 leads in every gaming benchmark, but it completely dominates OpenGL performance in games like Quake and the more recent Return to Castle Wolfenstein. FX53 also dominates in DirectX 8.1 games like Unreal Tournament 2003. Not surprisingly, Final Fantasy XI is another game that FX53 dominates. Other Direct X 9 titles show much more competitive performance between the Intel platforms and Athlon 64. Overall, AMD's top FX53 completely dominates Intel's top 560 (3.6GHz) in most games.
925X vs. 915 vs. Athlon 64: General Performance & Encoding
925X vs. 915 vs. Athlon 64: Workstation Performance
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
Cygni - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
The three big "must upgrades", DDR2, BTX, and PCIe will offer little to no reason for people to switch over. This is one of those rare times where I say go ahead and spend. There really isnt anything much better on the immediate horizon. Get a nice high end P4 or A64 setup with the nicest vid card you can find and enjoy. All the new tech is useless.On the 925/915 itself, the high quality audio, upped integrated graphics, and 4 SATA ports are all good things for sure. Im waiting to see how the audio and graphics perform. Could be a future super-platform for low end computers.
JustAnAverageGuy - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
#4You're probably right.
Would have been a much fairer comparison had they used the same CPU.
A Northwood on 875
vs a
Prescott on 925
hardly compares the chipsets.
A prescott on 875
vs a
Prescott on 925
probably would have been a bit more objective.
JustAnAverageGuy - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
Is that a typo on page 19?Second graph
http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=2...
rjm55 - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
I'm sure Intel won't like this review, but it exactly the reason I keep coming back to Anandtech to see what's really going on in computers. Thanks for asking the hard questions, and reporting the answers honestly!You just saved me a lot of disappointment on my next upgrade - which will now be an Athlon 64.
thatsright - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
#8, GhandiInstinctDude!!! You need to get out a bit more man!
overclockingoodness - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
Not to mention the fact that with practically no performance differences, Intel is trying to change the whole hardware industry. It is very hard to keep up with technologies these days, but it's annoying when the performance gains are minimal.overclockingoodness - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
So let's see what we have here...1. AMD is better in performance wise than Intel's new chipsets and LGA775 processor, however, the difference is not that big.
2. There isn't a much difference between PCIe and AGP graphics cards (even though it is not tested yet), but one would suspect the performance difference to be rather minimal.
3. 875P chipset is better than Grantsdale and Alderwood chipsets.
4. DDR "I" is better than DDR II.
Basically, all the new technologies have failed as far as the performance results are concerned. People should now go with AMD64 systems. If you still want to stay with Intel, it is better to predict that a good high-end 875P system will still be better for another 6 months, if not more. Secondly, people shouldn't jump on the new hardware as soon as it comes out. Wait for the new technologies to mature. And if you really want to jump bandwagon of new technologies, purchase a board that supports both DDR2 and DDR memory modules, choose DDR modules and save some money as DDR 2 modules are heavily priced. However, you will have to jump the PCIe graphics bandwagon, but I guess you win some and lose some.
Is it me or is Intel not holding up that well this year? Maybe this is a bad year for them. Research reports show that Intel will remain at the top but AMD will gain more market shares this year, which is expected.
Did I missed something or am I pretty much on the right ball?
overclockingoodness - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
medfly - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
the thing that i was most dissapointed in, is the fact that intel feels they need to shaft non sata users by only providing one pata channel. Intel's anti consumer attitude "you'll upgrade when we tell you to" with constantly changing sockets, crippled chipsets (remember how 815 only supported 512 megs ram when the older 440bx did 2 gigs of ram in an attempt to force people to the extremely expensive (and slow) P4 platform at the time), will only force more and more of the white box and DIY market to amd.GhandiInstinct - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
This article has let me down completely. I have been looking forward to this new technology for my new system build. To see the benchmarks and the virtual lack of performance gains has hit me like a bullet.A novice computer builder hears "3.6ghz, PCI-E, DDR2, ICH6" and goes insane with happiness.
I beg the question, has Intel lost its mojo? Trying to redfine the computer world by exhibiting hardware that barely exceeds the preceeding hardware? What is a man to do?
I should admit, I am a hyper-threading fanatic. But Since A64 beat Intel in everything, I guess "hyper-transport" is what I'll settle with.
The message is clear, my life is over....