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: Test Configuration
The Intel 925X and 915 were configured using the same top-end 560 (3.6GHz) CPU, 1 GB DDR2 memory, video card, hard drives, and SATA RAID Array to compare chipset performance accurately.| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | Intel 560 (3.6GHz) Socket 775 AMD FX53 (2.4GHz) Socket 939 |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB Micron DDR2 533 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev.2 (Samsung 2-2-2-5 tested at 2-2-2-10 for A64) |
| Hard Drive(s): | 2 x 250GB Maxtor MaXLine III in SATA RAID Seagate 120GB 7200RPM SATA (8Mb buffer) |
| Video AGP & IDE Chipset Drivers: | Intel Chipset Driver 6.0.0.1014 Intel Application Accelerator 4.0.0.6211 NVIDIA nForce version 4.24 |
| Video Card(s): | nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra PCIe nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra AGP 8X |
| Video Drivers: | nVidia 61.45 Graphics Drivers |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Power Supply: | HiPro 470W (Intel) Enermax 465W |
| Motherboards: | Intel 925XCV (Intel 925X) Socket 775 Intel 915GUX (Intel 915G) Socket 775 MSI K8N Neo2 (nForce3-250 Ultra) Socket 939 |
The AMD Athlon 64 Platform used the top-end FX53 (2.4GHz) CPU, an AGP 8X version of the same GeForce 6800 Ultra video card, 1 GB OCZ DDR400 2-2-2 DDR memory (tested at 2-2-2-10 for best A64 performance) using the new Samsung chips, and (due to time limitations) a single hard drive instead of a RAID array. Using a single drive instead of SATA RAID should place the FX53 system at a performance disadvantage.
The nVidia 6800 Ultra PCIe uses a bridge chip to the PCI Express bus. The performance impact of the nVidia 6800 Ultra bridge chip for PCIe is unknown at this point.
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...