Intel Core Duo: AOpen i975Xa-YDG to the Rescue
by Gary Key on May 4, 2006 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Audio Performance
We limited audio testing to the Rightmark 3D Sound version 2.2 CPU utilization test and tested with sound enabled to show the performance effects on several games. The Rightmark 3D Sound benchmark measures the overhead or CPU utilization required by a codec or hardware audio chip.
The Realtek ALC-880 HD audio codec on the AOpen board was tested with the recently released 1.36 driver set. The Realtek DirectSound audio drivers do not support more than 32 hardware buffers and the OpenAL 1.1 drivers do not support more than 30 hardware buffers at this time so the scores cannot be directly compared to the Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi cards in the benchmarks.
It is interesting to note the reduced CPU utilization with the Core Duo or Opteron 165 as the load is balanced between each processor with the Realtek 1.36 drivers and the Creative drivers to a certain extent. However, these CPU utilization rate improvements with the dual-core setup does not have any bearing on actual game benchmarks as the reduction in frame rate percentages are the same as our single core score.
The Realtek ALC-880 codec offers very competitive CPU utilization rates when compared to the Realtek ALC-882 on the Asus board. The ALC-880 generates significantly better audio quality than the AC97 based systems and very similar audio quality to the ALC-882 solution. The ALC-880 was released before the ALC-882 but has nearly the same audio quality and performance in our testing. Our subjective headphone testing revealed a slight difference between the two codecs, with the output from the ALC-882 sounding clearer in the treble and mid-range tones. However, the difference was negligible when utilizing our 4, 5.1, or 7.1 speaker setup in a typical room environment. The Sound Blaster X-Fi has the lowest overall CPU utilization (single core systems) with the ALC-880 and the ALC-882 following closely. Let's find out how these results translate into real world numbers.
The audio performance numbers remain consistent as the Realtek ALC-880 consistently finishes near the SoundBlaster X-Fi in the benchmarks. Serious Sam II has an average loss of 37%, Battlefield 2 at 28%, and F.E.A.R. at 2%. F.E.A.R. is extremely GPU limited so the CPU has additional cycles to generate the audio streams required by the Realtek drivers.
The overall output quality of audio with the Realtek ALC-880 ranks with the ALC-882/883 series as the best of the on-board HD audio solutions we have heard to date, while performance continues to improve with each driver release. The vast majority of users should have no issues utilizing the ALC-880 as their primary audio solution considering the quality of audio and performance at this time in most applications.
Obviously, if you are a serious gamer, then a dedicated sound card is still useful to ensure consistent frame rate averages across a wide variety of games, and in the case of the Sound Blaster X-Fi, you also get improved audio quality and EAX3/4/5 support. If you'd like more details on the Realtek solution, you can refer to the Realtek ALC-880 Specifications.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
SexyK - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
There are many, many differences between the Yonah and Conroe designs that should lead to a significantly higher IPC for Conroe. Macro-ops fusion, memory disambiguation, 4-issue core, etc, etc... Here's a good overview of some of the changes as compared to the X2s and older Intel chips: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...SexyK - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I think these tests are the nail in the coffin for those out there still saying the Conroe benchmarks were 'fixed' by Intel. Clock for clock, Yonah is already beating X2 on a regular basis, sometimes by large margins. Based on those results, plus all the m-arch improvements made in Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom, I'd say there's little doubt that we're in store for a 20-40% performance lead from Intel in the near future, depending on the final outcome of the AM2 lauch...LEKO - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I'm really impressed by the Core Duo performance... But this CPU lacks 64bit support. I know that if you upgrade on a yearly basis, it'S not an issue. But when you want something that will be capable for years, I think that the 64bit capable Athlon X2 and Dual-Core Opteron becomes better alternatives.I think that AMD will get a kick in the butt when Intel will launch their Next-Gen 64bit Desktop CPU! I hope AMD have very good hidden cards.
Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
This issue will be addressed with Conroe/Merom. However, given the almost dearth amount of 64-bit applications on the desktop in the WinTel world at this time we still feel like it is a safe purchase for the next couple of years, or wait for Intel's new products this summer. Of course, AMD's products are still top notch with the X2 series offering a truly long term solution (at least in CPU years) if you are buying today.
IntelUser2000 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I don't know. You are comparing DDR2-667 at 3-3-3-8 timings with 975X compared to DDR2-533 on 4-4-4-12 on this Core Duo review using 945GM: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
Not only being at DDR2-667 being synchronous with FSB give advantage, the lower latency will make enough difference in both. There are other possibility like updated BIOS and mature motherboards.
This is the best comparison benchmark I have seen for Core Duo vs. other CPUs(whether Opteron, X2 or Pentium D's), but 975X beating 945GM because its a newer chipset makes no sense.
There is also a possibility that 945GM chipset used in laptops is performance wise lowered compared to the 945GT(which is 945G just Core Duo support), to save power, and if Asus N4L-VM is using 945GM, it MIGHT be the reason it performs lower.
Viditor - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Agreed...though I should say that while Merom is inspired by Yonah, they really are quite different. Will this mobo also work for Merom?
Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Agreed, was not trying to address the core architecture differences, just stating 64-bit support is on the way for Yonah's successors. :) We hear rumors the board can work with Merom, no official statements from AOpen or Intel yet. We will update the article once we have a statement or if Crestline will be the official requirement for Merom. At one time Merom was going to drop into the 945GM but who knows about i975X support as the directions seem to change every Tuesday. We are still waiting on our i965 samples to ship in order to showcase "eornoc". ;-)
Viditor - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Thanks Gary! I will be very interested in the update once you get confirmation. I'm still a bit murky on the platforms for Merom...Cheers!
stmok - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
From what I hear (Engineers in AOpen R&D as well as enthusiasts who have gotten samples), they have tested this mobo with Merom. You need a BIOS update. Otherwise, it will NOT boot to the operating system!I'm still wondering if it supports Virtualization Technology. This is what I'm really interested in. :)
Questar - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
You plan on running apps that require greater than 4GB of ram in the next couple years?Didn't think so.