Intel 925X/915: Chipset Performance & DDR2
by Wesley Fink on June 19, 2004 3:01 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
DDR2 vs. DDR: Test Configuration
While the 925x/875 benchmarks indirectly compared DDR and DDR2, the Gigabyte 8GPNXP Duo is potentially the perfect platform for directly comparing DDR2 and DDR performance. It is an Intel 915 Socket 775 board that supports both types of memory in a dual channel configuration. First, we took a closer look to see if this design provided any performance penalty in providing support for either DDR or DDR2. One easy, but effective, way to check memory performance among boards is with a utility called "Aida 32", available as freeware from many download sites. Aida 32 has a unique memory test that measures separately read and write memory operations and then provides a composite score.Aida 32 results were compared on all the motherboards used in these benchmarks.
| Aida 32 Memory Test Results | |||
| Memory Motherboard |
Read MB/sec |
Write MB/sec |
Composite Score |
| Micron DDR2 533 Intel 925X |
5277 | 2219 | 7496 |
| Micron DDR2 533 Intel 915X |
5019 | 1898 | 6917 |
| Micron DDR2 533 Gigabyte 8GPNXP Duo |
5683 | 2087 | 7780 |
| OCZ 3200 Platinum R2 Asus P4C800-E |
4700 | 1861 | 6561 |
| OCZ 3200 Platinum R2 Gigabyte 8GPNXP Duo |
5440 | 1981 | 7421 |
It appears that the Gigabyte actually has faster DDR2 performance than either Intel motherboard. While this is very interesting and worth exploring in our future 915 roundup, it is not really important for this DDR2 and DDR comparison. The Aida 32 results clearly show that the DDR2 performance on the Gigabyte is not penalized by the dual-memory design.
Another very interesting test result, and totally unexpected, was that DDR memory actually performed faster on the Gigabyte 915 than on the Asus P4C800-E, which is noted for its very fast memory performance. This is something worth exploring in the future because it may mean 915 boards will run DDR faster than current 875/865 boards. One result is not enough to draw a conclusion, but we will explore this further in our upcoming Intel 915 motherboard roundup.
The Aida 32 results certainly indicate that the Gigabyte Duo is a valid platform for comparing DDR2 and DDR performance on the Intel 915 platform.
| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | Intel 540 (3.2GHz) Socket 775 |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB Micron DDR2 533 2 x 512MB OCZ 3200XL DDR (Samsung 2-2-2-5) |
| Hard Drive(s): | Seagate 120GB 7200RPM SATA (8Mb buffer) |
| Video AGP & IDE Chipset Drivers: | Intel Chipset Driver 6.0.0.1014 |
| Video Card(s): | Gigabyte nVidia 5759 PCX |
| Video Drivers: | nVidia 61.45 Graphics Drivers |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Power Supply: | Powmax 350W |
| Motherboards: | Gigabyte 8GPNXP Duo (Intel 915X) Socket 775 |
Since comparisons of DDR and DDR2 were on the same platform with identical components, the system was configured as you might purchase a mid-range Intel 915 system. Graphics are provided by a mid-range nVidia 5750 PCIe graphics card with no need for auxiliary power, the CPU is a mid-range 3.2, and the power supply is a very common 350-watt with a 20-pin ATX connector attached to the 24-pin power socket. Our goal here is to compare 915 DDR to 915 DDR2, but the test results also provide a picture of typical performance that you can expect with a mid-range 915 system.
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....