Intel 925X/915: Chipset Performance & DDR2
by Wesley Fink on June 19, 2004 3:01 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
925X vs. 915 vs. Athlon 64: General Performance & Encoding
We see the 915 trailing the 925x by only about 2% to 3%, which is a much smaller performance difference than we saw with a non-PAT 865 compared to a PAT 875. We continue to see the pattern of Intel processors performing better in FutureMark Benchmarks like PCMark2004 and Sysmark 2004, and AMD Athlon 64 performing much better in Veritest Winstones. Since a significant component of PCMark 2004 is hard drive performance, the SATA RAID on the 2 Intel chipsets likely accounts for part of the performance advantage for Intel in this benchmark. Media Encoding in 32-bit has been dominated by Intel, and Intel still enjoys about a 12% performance advantage over AMD's best. However, the arrival of 64-bit encoding for AMD will dramatically change these results in the near future.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
nserra - Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - link
You guys are only evaluating the performance, I think it's not that important, the features yes, those are important. The P4 is crap even with hyper-x,y,z, so it wasn't a "chipset" that was going to make a miracle.I would like to see the new platform tested, IGP, Sound system, EMT64 (is it enable on LGA775 processors?), NX bit?, new power saving techniques, so new features up to test.
At least the DDR vs DDR2 comparison is a good thing.
I was hopping that DD2 would give a performance boast, since the P4 architecture relies on higher bandwidth and higher latency (the pros of RDRAM i850), but I guess not....
Bozo Galora - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
yes he's sureRyanVM - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
#54, Are you sure you aren't thinking of the S754/S939 dual socket mobo?tfranzese - Sunday, June 20, 2004 - link
#53, yes, there's a board that was shown at Computex that had both sockets giving the option to use one or the other.RyanVM - Sunday, June 20, 2004 - link
So, any chance that the 915 chipset can be tied to a socket 478 + Northwood? :DMarlin1975 - Sunday, June 20, 2004 - link
AMD does not really need dual ch. memory. Look at the diff. between a socket 939 and 754, it is very little for most apps. Also Dual Ch memory is not new. It was used WAY back in the day.The only reason it is back is because intel can't design a decent CPU so they have to make up for it with pricey and unneeded tech.
tfranzese - Sunday, June 20, 2004 - link
Anemone, there's really little reason you need dual-channel memory on the AMD64 platform with the memory controller being on the chip.Anemone - Sunday, June 20, 2004 - link
Anti overclocking designs in the new chipsets? Very poor choice.I will reiterate Intel performance per $ over its previous generations is pathetic. More $ required per degree of performance and the increase over last year is poor.
AMD is expensive until you get to the 754 - but perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought the industry had left single channel memory configurations behind 2 years ago. Oh wait, it's AMD, that's about their catchup period, sorry. So yes look at AMD in dual channel AMD64 chips and yes they are very pricey. So much for their argument that by providing competition they keep prices down.
Add to all that the overclocking unfriendly stuff, and while AMD comes out as better overall, the performance per $ is still not markedly better than last year, imo.
:)
Bozo Galora - Sunday, June 20, 2004 - link
"My My We are in trouble now arent we..."Yeah, I guess we might have to offer AMD a few of our (cash in the bank) billions to buy them out. I wonder if the FTC will allow that? Hmmmmm. Let's investigate.
firtol88 - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link
My My we are in trouble now aren't we...Looks like AMD is the clear choice, unless you need a heater.