Intel Core Duo: AOpen i975Xa-YDG to the Rescue
by Gary Key on May 4, 2006 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
FSB Overclocking Results
| Front Side Bus Overclocking Testbed | |
| Processor: | Intel Core Duo T2400 -1.83GHz |
| CPU Voltage: | 1.400v (1.250V default) |
| Memory Settings: | 4-4-4-15 at 667MHz |
| Memory Voltage: | 2.15v |
| NB Voltage: | 1.575V |
| PCI-E Voltage: | 1.525V |
| Cooling: | AOpen Supplied Cooler |
| Power Supply: | FPS FX700-GLN |
| Maximum CPU OverClock: | 255fsb x 11 (2805MHz) +54% |
| Maximum FSB OverClock: | 255fsb x 11 (2805MHz) +54% |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
This board is a very good overclocker although it does have a couple of quirks. The BIOS allows you to overclock the front side bus by 1MHz increments but you are limited at both the minimum and maximum levels by a set of jumpers. If the JP4 and JP5 jumpers are enabled the board defaults to a 166MHz minimum and a 199MHz maximum. If these jumpers are disabled the board defaults to a 200MHz minimum and a 320MHz maximum.
The Core Duo processor does not allow a change to the CPU multiplier so keep this in mind when deciding what CPU to purchase. We were able to take our retail CPU to a setting of 11x262 before we hit a ceiling with either the board or the CPU utilizing the stock cooling. We are reporting our maximum numbers at 11x255, not because of the board or CPU not being stable at 11x262, but due to our comparative Opteron 175 only reaching this level and remaining stable. This board series has reached the 274FSB level based upon user experiences, so we either reached the limit of our CPU or possibly our board does not overclock quite as well as retail samples.
Considering the maximum official Core Duo CPU is currently running at 2.16 GHz, an overclock to 2.882 GHz (using the relatively inexpensive T2400 CPU) is nothing to complain about! We might even add that our retail CPU stayed in the 36c to 39c range under load at the overclocked settings with the AOpen supplied heatsink/fan. Additional testing with a watercooling unit brought our temperatures down to the 26c range under full load as we reached a 267FSB level (required 1.675V on the Nortbridge, 5-5-5-15 memory timings) before the board would not post.
Memory Stress Testing
Memory stress tests look at the ability of the AOpen i975xa-YDG to operate at the officially supported memory frequencies of 667MHz DDR2 at the best performing memory timings the Corsair CM2X1024-6400PRO revision 1.4 will support.
| AOpen i975Xa- YDG Stable DDR2-667 Timings - 2 DIMMs (2/4 slots populated - 1 Dual-Channel Bank) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 166MHz (667FSB) |
| Timing Mode: | 667MHz - Default |
| CAS Latency: | 3 |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 3 |
| RAS Precharge: | 3 |
| RAS Cycle Time: | 8 |
| Voltage: | 1.9V |
The AOpen board was very stable with two (1GB) DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel mode at the settings of 3-3-3-8 at 1.9V. The board would set tRAS to 12 if the memory selection was left on auto. We did not notice any issues throughout our testing with a tRAS setting of 8 at the stock 11x166 setting. We will now install our Corsair modules into all four available memory slots, which results in more strenuous requirements on the memory subsystem than testing just two DDR2 modules.
| AOpen i975Xa- YDG Stable DDR2-667 Timings - 4 DIMMs (4/4 slots populated - 2 Dual-Channel Banks) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 166MHz (667FSB) |
| Timing Mode: | 667MHz - Default |
| CAS Latency: | 3 |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 3 |
| RAS Precharge: | 3 |
| RAS Cycle Time: | 12 |
| Voltage: | 1.95V |
The AOpen was completely stable with four (1GB) DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel operation at the settings of 3-3-3-12. Note that tRAS had to be changed from 8 to 12 along with a slight memory increase to 1.95V. These are excellent results as the board performed superbly throughout our memory testing regimen that included eight to twenty four hour runs of MemTest86 and Prime95 along with numerous iterations of SuperPI set at 32M. This board along with the Intel 975X core logic is about as solid as it gets.
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.