ASUS P5Q3 Deluxe: An Early Preview of P45 Express Performance
by Kris Boughton on May 13, 2008 2:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Test System Configuration & General System Performance (PCMark Vantage)
| Test System Configurations | |
| Motherboards |
ASUS Striker II Extreme (NVIDIA nForce 790i-Ultra SPP and 570 MCP)
EVGA NVIDIA nForce 780i SLI MSI PN7 Platinum (NVIDIA nForce 750i SPP) ASUS P5E3 Premium (Intel X48 Experss MCH and ICH9R) ASUS P5K3 Deluxe (Intel P35 Experss MCH and ICH9R) ASUS P5Q3 Deluxe (Intel P45 Express MCH and ICH10R) |
| Processors |
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 (ES)
Dual-core, 3.16GHz, 6MB Unified L2 Cache, 9.5x Multiplier, 1333 FSB Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (ES) Quad-core, 3.20GHz, 2x6MB Unified L2 Cache, 8.0x Multiplier, 1600 FSB |
| Memory |
4x1GB OCZ DDR3 PC3-14400 Platinum Edition
4x1GB OCZ DDR2 PC2-8000 Platinum Extreme Edition |
| Graphics Card | ASUS EN8800GTS TOP 512MB (G92) |
| Cooling | D-tek FuZion CPU block, EK-FC88 GT/GTS full coverage GPU blocks, ThermoChill PA120.3 radiator, 3x SUNON KDE1212PMB3-6A 120x38mm fans, Laing D5 pump, 1/2" ID (3/4" OD) Tygon tubing |
| Power Supply | OCZ EvoStream 600W Modular PSU |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital WD250YS, 250GB, 7200RPM, SATA 3Gb/s, 16MB buffer |
| Video Driver | NVIDIA 169.25 (latest WHQL) |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Ultimate (x64) SP1 with DirectX 10.1 |
In order to compare the relative performance of base gaming rigs built using each chipset, we assembled identically configured systems in which the only component that was varied was the motherboard. All other components - including the CPU, memory modules (whenever possible), PSU, and graphics card - were simply transferred from one system to the next. An ASUS Striker II Extreme was used for the 790i base, an ASUS P5E3 Premium represented our choice in X48 motherboards, the ASUS P5K3 Deluxe for the P35 and the new contender, the ASUS P5Q3 Deluxe, provided the platform for testing the P45 chipset.
System power was measured at the wall, and thus our reported results do not make use of any power efficiency correction factor that would be helpful in more accurate relating actual power draw to typically system power consumption. This is an unimportant detail as these findings are merely intended to provide a means for differentiating one chipset from the next.
Data was collected after booting each system and allowing sufficient time for all OS activity to die down (about 7 minutes) and after total system load was noted to have stabilized for at least 30 seconds while stressing the CPU using a multi-instancing, 64-bit build of Prime95. "Small FFTs" were tested in order to create maximum CPU load while the "Blend" option was used to stress the memory subsystem (and thus the MCH).
At idle the P5Q3 Deluxe (P45) shows a savings of about 6W on average beyond the already low power usage of our X48 test system. Of these results, perhaps the power consumption figures for the P35 board were the most surprising - despite running hotter even the X48 system showed better efficiency than the older P35 chipset. The Striker II Extreme, with the NVIDIA nForce 790i-Ultra chipset, ranked a distant fourth, consuming 7W more than P35 and proving once again that power efficiency often takes a back seat to performance when dealing with high-end systems.
Loading each system by running Prime95 in "Small FFT" mode results in near identical power consumption figures for the P45 and X48 systems. The NVIDIA 790i-based board and the P5K3 (P35) trailed the pack, drawing over 10% more power clock-for-clock than either board featuring a 4-series Intel chipset.
Finally, "Blend" mode shows the P45 board providing quite interesting results - our wall power meter registered little difference between this mode and "Small FFTs". This suggests that the P45 chipset's prefetch algorithms are tuned for exceptionally low power operation even when memory intensive applications call for heavy access to data stored in main system memory. X48 is a stark contrast to this as programs that rely on heavy traffic to system memory consistently result in higher system power consumption.
We ran a just enough of PCMark Vantage as necessary for the generation of proper total system score. As a rule of thumb, DDR3 systems generally out-score their DDR2 counterparts by at least 1000 PCMarks, regardless of tuning. When placed side-by-side P35, P45 and X48 look a lot like NVIDIA's 790i-Ultra when it comes to measuring overall system productivity.
One of the useful aspects of PCMark Vantage is that these figures can serve as baseline results for comparing our test systems to yours at home. Try to match your components as closely as possible to ours, with the exception of your motherboard, when contrasting your results with those shown here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
View All Comments
cuti7399 - Thursday, August 14, 2008 - link
is this true?957004 - Thursday, May 22, 2008 - link
so it mean i will no need to buy ASUS x48 MB?Narg - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link
$250 is way too much, especially for a low end chipset board. I just bought a board for $60 that does 100% of what I need for a new Vista-64 machine with Crossfire. The MB pricing has been going through the roof lately.kjboughton - Saturday, May 24, 2008 - link
We've just received an MSRP update direct from ASUS, expect to see this board selling for about $229 with the P5Q (DDR2) variant available for about $209.Nihility - Thursday, May 15, 2008 - link
the instant on technology Asus put on this thing?Some stripped down linux distro as I understand it
Egglick - Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - link
After looking things over with the P35 added to the mix, I'm going to be completely honest here -- the P45 at any substantial premium is a load of crap.By my calculations, the performance difference between a P35 and P45 is 2-3% at most, and the majority of the time you're only talking about tenths of a percent.
When you consider that P35 boards are selling for as low as $75 now (with several from Asus going for under $100), you'd have to be nuts to pay $225+ for a difference which is hardly even worth mentioning.
Sure, you can save anywhere from 7-19 watts with the P45 (depending on the application), but you can save twice that by replacing one of your light bulbs with a compact florescent. Spend your money elsewhere.
hpram99 - Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - link
"two RJ-45 1000GBps Ethernet ports"Oh my god! I must go out and buy a hundred of these, make a super switch out of them! That's incredible, are they going to do away with SATA now that Asus made Ethernet run 300x faster?
lopri - Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - link
Well, actually I wish ASUS (and other board makers) made their board with ONE Intel Gigabit PHY, instead of two or four Marvell PHY. Heck, get rid of that EPU BS while you're at it.hooflung - Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - link
I want to get excited. I really do. But as an owner of a Gigabyte P965 DS3 I just can't get aroused. My e4300 still is clocking strong at 3.0ghz. There isn't enough speed to justify going .45nm just to hit 3.8 - 4.0ghz and also having to go to DDR3. Even if they release a DDR2 board its likely is it going to be worth buying a new board or just installing a 'beta' bios on my current setup if I did want to get a .45nm chip.Just seems Intel wants to go out with a bang and also have more unload options for their C2Ds when they switch platforms within the next year.
If I was buying new, I'd be really tempted but good ol' faithful P965 is running 1 year strong on a mild OC 'according to today's standards of OCing.'
Stele - Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - link
[quote]The P5Q3 may report the use of a 16-phase PWM but we know better. [/quote]Do we, really?
[quote]Although ASUS design engineers have added a lot of extra chokes and MOSFETS, the overall capacity of the power delivery circuit remains comparable to their competitors' more modest 8-phase designs.[/quote]
From the review we don't know what components Asus used in its PWM design (MOSFETs, drivers etc) - heck, we don't even know what PWM controller they have there. It could be the same ADP3198 4-phase controller Asus had been using for some time, or it could be a newer, improved one - especially considering that Analog transferred much of its CPU PWM controller range to ON Semiconductor late last year.
We don't have figures from Asus engineers. We also did not examine the circuitry's layout, overally efficiency, transient response, peak and sustained load-handling capabilities ... nothing of the sort, yet we're prepared to come to a positive conclusion regarding the capabilities and quality of the circuitry, and indeed compare it with others. An educated guess, based on some evidence to back it up, would've probably been more appropriate. IMHO it's not exactly fair (or professional) to jump to such a conclusion with merely an assertion without any substantiation to support it. That's expected from readers who can only look at the product and play the armchair general, but not from reviewers who actually have the product and can (and should) do what they can to properly assess it for the benefit of said readers.
As for the rest of the review, it was certainly interesting; however correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that ICH10/R is supposed to bring rather more to the table than just 2 more SATA ports plus AHCI capabilities for the non-R version. For instance, apparently a 10GbE MAC is integrated as well.
However, as with the ICH9's integrated GbE MAC, many manufacturers may balk at having to use specific (particularly, i8256x) Intel PHYs in order to make use of that MAC, since it requires a PHY that supports Intel's GLCI/LCI bus. Instead, manufacturers may choose to provide the usual PCIe/PCI controllers that they've normally been using, to keep inventory and costs under control (such controllers can be used on AMD platform products, for example). Perhaps the same proprietary-PHY issues might plague implementation of ICH10's rumoured Wi-Fi capabilities as well... all in all, then, it does seem that as far as the end user of actual motherboard products is concerned, there would apparently be very little that's new with the ICH10. IMHO, Intel could've added more PCIe lanes, which would probably have been better appreciated.
Speaking of PCIe lanes, that's probably one reason Asus chose to stick with USB for the wireless module. USB does the job well enough - if it ain't broken, why fix it? PCIe x1 is overkill and ICH10 is already in dire shortage of lanes, with 1 going to network (2 for dual-NIC motherboards), 1 or 2 going to PCIe x1 slots and just 4 left to go to the third graphics card x16 slot. With the abundance of USB ports that ICH9 and 10 provide, Asus probably figured that using one for the wireless module can't hurt. And if anything it's probably to do with inventory and ease of design as well, since Asus does make wireless USB adapters - you could use the same basic circuit design and fit it with a motherboard USB connector and external antenna interface - voila, wireless for motherboards.
At least Anandtech did not help perpetuate the unconfirmed (and unlikely) rumour that ICH10 eliminates legacy ports like PS/2, parallel, serial, game/MIDI and so on - since those ports have little to do with the south bridge at all. These legacy ports connect to Super I/O chips, which on modern motherboards is also the H/W monitoring IC, and which in turn connect to the south bridge via the LPC interface. Thus the only way an ICH could completely remove support for legacy ports in current motherboard architectures would be to remove the LPC bus - which would also remove H/W monitoring as well as BIOS, unless it's part of Intel's force-forward plan to move to SPI for BIOS, a la RDRAM and PATA. That still leaves H/W monitoring high and dry though.
On another note, as others here (especially Frumious1) have commented, it would be good to compared Intel chipsets from, say, P965 through P45 to see what improvements P45 brings. Perhaps some useful metrics would be performance tests for memory (read/write/copy/latency/overclockability), CrossFire (x8,x8 on P45 vs x8,x8 using a PCIe switch IC vs 16,x4 etc), disk and USB subsystems (read/write/copy/copy across ports), power consumption. Oh and please have all the tested boards participate in all tests, so that there's a complete comparison across the board.
Admittedly, power consumption is the trickiest of them all because each generation of motherboards have different components and/or different features (e.g. one has FireWire while another doesn't, or one uses a FireWire controller from Agere while another uses one from VIA etc). Perhaps we could try disabling all such external controllers in BIOS and seeing if that makes a difference to power consumption (ie whether the option turns the controllers off or merely disconnects them) then, if turning them off does work, test the boards with all external options disabled. That, at least, minimises variables to board layout and CPU/MCH/ICH/RAM power circuitry subsystems - which would be useful metrics themselves. Just a suggestion!