Test Setup
The Biostar TA690G AM2 was selected as our AMD 690G platform representative today. This choice does not indicate any perceivable performance differences that we have noticed when comparing it against the MSI K9AGM2 or ASUS M2A-VM boards; rather it was chosen after blindly pulling its name tag out of the lab hat. All three boards will be fully reviewed in our mATX roundup next week. At this time, each one offers basically the same base performance with features and pricing differentiating the boards from each other. The MSI feature list is very streamlined but still offers on-board HDMI output along with a price tag that should be south of $80. The ASUS and Biostar offerings are feature rich with price tags that will be around $85 and up. Performance and more importantly stability is excellent in all three boards.
Our first decision was to decide what chipsets to test against. The natural comparison is the NVIDIA GeForce 6150 chipset that has ruled the AMD IGP market for well over a year now. We selected one of the better overall 6150 boards from a feature viewpoint, which is the ASUS M2NPV-VM. There was not enough time to compare the AMD 690G chipset to the current VIA and SIS AM2 offerings as these new products just arrived and we will look at them in the near future.
Our next decision and one that we typically do not do in our normal motherboard reviews was to test the board against a similar board offering but utilizing a different CPU manufacturer. AMD has been adamant that the combination of the 690G/690V chipset and AM2 processor is meant to provide an overall superior platform experience when compared against the Intel G965/Q965 with a Core 2 Duo processor. Of course, they also mean this when comparing their chipset against the NVIDIA products but at least with every NVIDIA AM2 chipset sold, there is a corresponding AMD processor requirement. In the end we chose the MSI G965MDH for our Intel G965 platform offering.
We selected the AMD Athlon 64 5200+ X2 and the Intel E6300 Core 2 Duo processors as our processor choices as both represent great bargains when comparing price against performance in their respective categories. We also switched to Microsoft Vista Home Premium 32-bit as our operating system of choice for this category. After speaking with several of the larger OEMs who are using this chipset and similar ones, we found out this OS choice will be the one most widely offered to consumers. It was a natural then that we would test on Vista Home Premium and a 2GB memory configuration as we suggest this amount as a minimum for Vista.
Our memory and hard drive choices are a little out of the norm for this category but since we are testing the chipset capabilities we were determined not to have a bottleneck in either area. We will test additional budget DDR2-800 memory from G.Skill and Wintec in our roundup along with comparison testing using an external video card. All other components in our test configurations are identical with the boards being set up in their default configurations except for memory settings being optimized to ensure maximum throughput on each board.
Overclocking, network, audio, and memory performance on individual boards will be covered in our mATX roundup. We will say that overclocking on the 690G platforms is in its infancy at this time as the initial BIOS releases concentrated on compatibility and base performance, not overclocking. We have received a performance oriented BIOS for the Biostar and ASUS boards that should allow overclocking now.
Our choice of software applications to test was based on programs that enjoy widespread use and produce repeatable and consistent results during testing. Microsoft Vista has thrown a monkey wrench into testing as the aggressive nature of the operating system to constantly optimize application loading and retrieval from memory or the storage system presented some interesting obstacles. This along with the lack of driver maturity will continue to present problems in the near future with benchmark selections. Our normal process was to change our power settings to performance, delete the contents of the Prefetch folder, and then reboot after each benchmark run. A lengthy process to be sure but one that resulted in consistency over the course of benchmark testing. All applications were run with administrator privileges.
The Biostar TA690G AM2 was selected as our AMD 690G platform representative today. This choice does not indicate any perceivable performance differences that we have noticed when comparing it against the MSI K9AGM2 or ASUS M2A-VM boards; rather it was chosen after blindly pulling its name tag out of the lab hat. All three boards will be fully reviewed in our mATX roundup next week. At this time, each one offers basically the same base performance with features and pricing differentiating the boards from each other. The MSI feature list is very streamlined but still offers on-board HDMI output along with a price tag that should be south of $80. The ASUS and Biostar offerings are feature rich with price tags that will be around $85 and up. Performance and more importantly stability is excellent in all three boards.
| Biostar TA690G AM2 / ASUS M2NPV-VM Testbed | |
| Processor: | AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Windsor Dual Core, 2.6GHz, 2 x 1MB L2 Cache, 13x Multiplier |
| CPU Voltage: | 1.350V |
| Cooling: | Zalman 9500 Air Cooling |
| Power Supply: | Corsair CMPSU-620HX 620W |
| Memory: | OCZ Flex XLC PC2-6400 (2x1GB) (ProMOS Memory Chips) |
| Memory Settings: | 3-4-4-9, 1.90V |
| Video Cards: | On-Board X1250, GeForce 6150 |
| Video Drivers: | AMD 8.345, NVIDIA 15.00 |
| Hard Drive: | Western Digital 74GB 10,000RPM SATA 16MB Buffer Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500GB SATA 16MB Buffer |
| Optical Drives: | Plextor PX-760A, PX-B900A |
| Case: | Cooler Master CM Stacker 830 |
| Operating System: | Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit |
| . | |
| MSI G965MDH Testbed | |
| Processor: | Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Dual Core, 1.86GHz, 2MB Unified Cache 1066FSB, 7x Multiplier |
| CPU Voltage: | 1.3250V |
| Cooling: | Zalman 9500 Air Cooling |
| Power Supply: | Corsair CMPSU-620HX 620W |
| Memory: | OCZ Flex XLC PC2-6400 (2x1GB) (ProMOS Memory Chips) |
| Memory Settings: | 4-4-4-12 1.85V |
| Video Cards: | On-board X3000 |
| Video Drivers: | Intel 15.1 |
| Hard Drive: | Western Digital 74GB 10,000RPM SATA 16MB Buffer Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500GB SATA 16MB Buffer |
| Optical Drives: | Plextor PX-760A, PX-B900A |
| Case: | Cooler Master CM Stacker 830 |
| Operating System: | Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit |
| . | |
Our first decision was to decide what chipsets to test against. The natural comparison is the NVIDIA GeForce 6150 chipset that has ruled the AMD IGP market for well over a year now. We selected one of the better overall 6150 boards from a feature viewpoint, which is the ASUS M2NPV-VM. There was not enough time to compare the AMD 690G chipset to the current VIA and SIS AM2 offerings as these new products just arrived and we will look at them in the near future.
Our next decision and one that we typically do not do in our normal motherboard reviews was to test the board against a similar board offering but utilizing a different CPU manufacturer. AMD has been adamant that the combination of the 690G/690V chipset and AM2 processor is meant to provide an overall superior platform experience when compared against the Intel G965/Q965 with a Core 2 Duo processor. Of course, they also mean this when comparing their chipset against the NVIDIA products but at least with every NVIDIA AM2 chipset sold, there is a corresponding AMD processor requirement. In the end we chose the MSI G965MDH for our Intel G965 platform offering.
We selected the AMD Athlon 64 5200+ X2 and the Intel E6300 Core 2 Duo processors as our processor choices as both represent great bargains when comparing price against performance in their respective categories. We also switched to Microsoft Vista Home Premium 32-bit as our operating system of choice for this category. After speaking with several of the larger OEMs who are using this chipset and similar ones, we found out this OS choice will be the one most widely offered to consumers. It was a natural then that we would test on Vista Home Premium and a 2GB memory configuration as we suggest this amount as a minimum for Vista.
Our memory and hard drive choices are a little out of the norm for this category but since we are testing the chipset capabilities we were determined not to have a bottleneck in either area. We will test additional budget DDR2-800 memory from G.Skill and Wintec in our roundup along with comparison testing using an external video card. All other components in our test configurations are identical with the boards being set up in their default configurations except for memory settings being optimized to ensure maximum throughput on each board.
Overclocking, network, audio, and memory performance on individual boards will be covered in our mATX roundup. We will say that overclocking on the 690G platforms is in its infancy at this time as the initial BIOS releases concentrated on compatibility and base performance, not overclocking. We have received a performance oriented BIOS for the Biostar and ASUS boards that should allow overclocking now.
Our choice of software applications to test was based on programs that enjoy widespread use and produce repeatable and consistent results during testing. Microsoft Vista has thrown a monkey wrench into testing as the aggressive nature of the operating system to constantly optimize application loading and retrieval from memory or the storage system presented some interesting obstacles. This along with the lack of driver maturity will continue to present problems in the near future with benchmark selections. Our normal process was to change our power settings to performance, delete the contents of the Prefetch folder, and then reboot after each benchmark run. A lengthy process to be sure but one that resulted in consistency over the course of benchmark testing. All applications were run with administrator privileges.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
SignalPST - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
I'm interested in this topic as well.Then again, I still waiting for them to come out with a HDMI sound card.
StriderGT - Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - link
Unfortunately there are lots of us who are still waiting for a true HDMI PC audio solution. You can check the thread I started with many technical details for that matter here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=79...">http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=79...Patrese - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
Great review, thanks... I know I asked that a couple times already, but is there a mATX roundup planned here at AT? I'd like to see the Asus M2NPV-VM and Abit NF-M2 NView compared with its 690G counterparts, as this segment makes for most of the computer sales on most places? BTW, weren't you plaged by memory compatibility issues with the M2NPV-VM oe any of the boards tested? This Asus board showed extremely picky on my experience...Gary Key - Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - link
The roundup is scheduled on the 19th, trying to pull it in. What BIOS and memory are you using on the M2NPV-VM, so far I have not run into any real issues except with 2GB modules. The abit board is one of my favorites so far. ;)Patrese - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
There shouldn't be a question mark at the end of the "most sales" phrase... There are also a couple typos, sorry about that. Where's the edit button anyway? ;)RamarC - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
i don't really understand the point of comparing chipsets/motherboards between processor families. subsystem performance figures can show glaring deficiencies but otherwise it really boils down to a cpu comparison. the "media/audio encoding" and "media performance" sections are certainly cpu-centric. and pitting a $230 x2 5200+ against a $185 e6300 winds up handicapping the intel contestant. shouldn't the $222 e6400 have been used instead?Gary Key - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
As stated in the article, AMD is marketing the AM2 and 690G/V as a platform design to compete against the G/Q965 and Core 2 Duo solution. The 690G is targeted to the multimedia, HTPC, home/office, casual gaming crowd and was tested as such. We looked at the total price of a base Core 2 Duo and decent G965 board and then matched the processor choice that would come closest to the price and performance of the Intel offering while meeting the platform cost. Our tests were chosen based upon the target audience for each platform in the home environment. This was not a review of office level machines as the Q965/963 and 690V are targeted to the business user.JarredWalton - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
The conclusion mentions that the G965 + E6300 costs around $300 compared to $315 for the 690G + 5200+ (or 6150 + 5200+), so it's more or less a fair "equivalent price" platform comparison. The E6400 ends up being faster than the E6300, but still slower in a few tests (as the text mentions) and even faster in those tests where E6300 already holds the lead. Nothing new there - we've pretty much beat the "Core 2 Duo is faster" drum to death. We feel anyone looking at 690G is going to be interested in the platform as a whole much more than whether or not it is faster than equivalently price Core 2 offerings.mostlyprudent - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
There may be too many variables, but perhaps you could come up with a way to normalize the benchmarks. For instance, run the gaming tests first with ultra high-end graphics to try and isolate the performance delta for each plattofrm/cpu combo you will test with. Then run the game benchmarks with the IGP solutions and adjust the scores based on the previous tests. Just a thought off the top of my head.asliarun - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
Ah, but you're evaluating a chipset here, not a platform or a system solution. Having said that, I agree that it IS difficult to compare chipsets that are targeted for different CPUs. In such a case, a better way to evaluate might be to take an AMD and an Intel CPU that is similar in performance (not in price), and use them to compare their corresponding chipsets. That would highlight the differences between the chipsets. You could always mention the price alongside, or do a separate price/performance comparison alongside.My point is that a price/performance comparison should complement a pure performance comparison, not the other way around.