Intel P35: Intel's Mainstream Chipset Grows Up
by Gary Key & Wesley Fink on May 21, 2007 3:45 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Synthetic Graphics Performance
The 3DMark series of benchmarks developed and provided by Futuremark are among the most widely used tools for benchmark reporting and comparisons. Although the benchmarks are very useful for providing apples-to-apples comparisons across a broad array of GPU and CPU configurations they are not a substitute for actual application and gaming benchmarks. In this sense we consider the 3DMark benchmarks to be purely synthetic in nature but still very valuable for providing consistent measurements of performance.
In our 3DMark06 test, all of the boards are grouped together with a 2.5% spread from top to bottom. The 975X board takes last place by a small margin, and we noticed in this benchmark that the R600 and 975X do not play well together as the 975X scores within 64 points of the P5K when using a NVIDIA 8800GTX. The latest beta R600 drivers have cured this problem and we will update our scores with the new 8.38 driver set for the roundup. The additional bandwidth available when using the P5K board at 1333/1066 settings resulted in the best CPU and SM2.0 scores in this benchmark.
In the more memory and CPU sensitive 3DMark01 benchmark we see our ASUS P5K Deluxe board taking top honors but only with the FSB set to 1333 (8x333). The Gigabyte P35-DQ6 has the best stock scores at 1066/1066. Our 975x board is slightly handicapped at the 1066/800 settings although this chipset continues to offer excellent memory performance. The higher latencies on the P5K3 board hurt its stock performance although increasing bandwidth to 1333/1333 makes up for it. The spread from top to bottom is again only 2%, however, so minor differences in performance are not really noticeable in either 3DMark.
General System Performance
The PCMark05 benchmark developed and provided by Futuremark was designed for determining overall system performance for the typical home computing user. This tool provides both system and component level benchmarking results utilizing subsets of real world applications or programs. This benchmark is useful for providing comparative results across a broad array of Graphics, CPU, Hard Disk, and Memory configurations along with multithreading results. In this sense we consider the PCMark benchmark to be both synthetic and real world in nature, and it again provides for consistency in our benchmark results.
The ASUS boards have historically done well in this benchmark due to very strong multitasking performance and the same holds true once again. The stock P5K3 scores continue to show an issue with high latencies as this board scored at the bottom in the general application test. The increase to the 1333FSB provides slightly better results with the main increases coming in the multitasking tests. The spread in overall scores is only 1.5%, although in individual areas the differences between the boards may be more or less pronounced.
Rendering Performance
We are using the Cinebench 9.5 benchmark as it tends to heavily stress the CPU subsystem while performing graphics modeling and rendering. Cinebench 9.5 features two different benchmarks with one test utilizing a single core and the second test showcasing the power of multiple cores in rendering the benchmark image. We utilize the standard multiple core benchmark demo and default settings.
The improved bandwidth and front side bus speeds of the P5K3 board results in the top score, putting it 2.5% ahead of the closest competitor for the time being. The remaining boards are all clustered within 2% of each other, with most of the P35 boards placing ahead of the incumbents.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
58 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
X38 is basically ready, going through some fine tuning now... I understand it will be held until after the 1333CPUs are launched and DDR3 availability is a little more widespread/cost effective. I expect late August right now, but you never know with Intel. ;-)JarredWalton - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link
Technically Q3 is any time between July 1 and September 30, but if they're saying Q3 right now it probably means some time in August at best.gigahertz20 - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link
I applaud ASUS for only including 1 legacy connection on their P5K series, and not 4 like Gigabyte has chosen to do for their P35 board. Death to legacy connections!I mean really, why even include those damn legacy ports. The enthusiast that buys one of these boards will not be using them, they are a waste of space. Instead of having them, they should replace them with more USB ports or something useful.
JarredWalton - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link
I still have a parallel based laser printer that works fine for what I need, and I'm quite happy using it until it dies. There are also people that use serial devices that cost a lot of money. I don't think every board needs legacy support, but it's good that there are still options for people that *need* certain legacy devices. I've got several KVM switches that won't be useful if PS/2 ports disappear. :(yacoub - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link
Don't they offer USB or eSATA to serial/parallel convertors for those sort of situations? :)JarredWalton - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link
Sure, but I haven't had the need to try one yet. :)Truth be told, my printer has a USB port, but it behaves very poorly using a USB connection. It's a Brother HL-1240, and if the printer isn't powered on when you boot, Windows won't see it unless you unplug it and plug it back into a different USB port. It just works better with LPT, and as I said for my needs it's sufficient. The way I figure it, having the ports there isn't hurting most people. I've never seen anything to indicate they hamper performance, and how many extra transistors are "wasted" on these ports? Maybe a few thousand? Heheh. 45M transistors on the P35 is a bit crazy....
For what it's worth, between mouse, keyboard, and my LCD (which actually has four USB ports and flash memory readers), I haven't had any need for more than four USB ports on a motherboard. But then, I've got too many PCs around anyway.
TA152H - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link
I agree with you, but for another reason.I don't like USB at all, because a few years ago I ran some tests, on motherboards ranging from MVP3 based to a KT880, and USB seems to have a negative impact on performance, particularly on memory, in many cases.
It doesn't make my keyboard work any better, or my mouse, and I'm not sure why I need it for those functions at all. PS/2 ports don't do it well enough? I'm not crazy about this one size fits all approach, especially when it comes with overhead. The current ports work fine.
USB is a crappy, bloated technology. I'm not sure the "S" should stand for "serial" at all, I think there is a better word that begins with S for it.
strikeback03 - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
Wake me up when Bluetooth works over PS/2.Though one reason to still include PS/2 keyboard/mouse is that it is hard to screw up support for those in Linux kernels. Same can't be said about USB.
TA152H - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
Wake me up when I need Bluetooth.You could implement Bluetooth easily if USB didn't exist, but you're missing the point anyway. When you have to use USB for stuff that is handled more efficiently by PS/2 ports, it's a bad thing. Or other ports. It adds no function for these devices, and comes with overhead. It's a bad idea, but of course Intel was in the mode of making as many things as possible use CPU power so they could keep selling their latest and greatest.
It's just a rehash of some dorky Apple stuff that most people here don't remember. The original MacIntoy didn't have any slots, and you'd attach stuff to some serial bus for expansion. Naturally, it didn't work out, and they had to add slots. At least they didn't get rid of slots for USB, they just made it bloated.
DigitalFreak - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link
Man, if the P35 boards are going to be around the $250 mark, I'm not looking forward to see the price on the X38 boards.... :-(