DFI UT P35-T2R: Tweakers Rejoice!
by Rajinder Gill on October 18, 2007 2:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
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 valuable for providing consistent measurements of performance.
In our 3DMark06 test, the P35 boards are basically even in this test. The DFI board did not exhibit any issues during repeated testing in this CPU/GPU intensive test. In the more memory and CPU throughput sensitive 3DMark01 benchmark we see our DFI board performing well though it's just slightly off the top mark. We typically see this in the DFI boards that are tuned more for overclocking results than stock performance. The differences in performance are not really noticeable in either 3DMark unless you're looking to reach the top of the ORB. That of course requires some serious overclocking as well, and we have a good feeling the DFI was designed to do exactly that with the right setup.
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.
Our PCMark05 scores mimic the results from our 3DMark benchmarks with differences between the boards not exceeding 2%. While this benchmark is designed around actual application usage, we will see if these results mirror our application testing.
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 valuable for providing consistent measurements of performance.
In our 3DMark06 test, the P35 boards are basically even in this test. The DFI board did not exhibit any issues during repeated testing in this CPU/GPU intensive test. In the more memory and CPU throughput sensitive 3DMark01 benchmark we see our DFI board performing well though it's just slightly off the top mark. We typically see this in the DFI boards that are tuned more for overclocking results than stock performance. The differences in performance are not really noticeable in either 3DMark unless you're looking to reach the top of the ORB. That of course requires some serious overclocking as well, and we have a good feeling the DFI was designed to do exactly that with the right setup.
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.
Our PCMark05 scores mimic the results from our 3DMark benchmarks with differences between the boards not exceeding 2%. While this benchmark is designed around actual application usage, we will see if these results mirror our application testing.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
View All Comments
Rocket321 - Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - link
I would like to see the overclocking results put into a graph or chart of some kind.I guess tweakers might like the screenshots as "proof" that the overclock ran, but personally I trust you and would rather just have one place to look rather than clicking to enlarge multiple screenshots sequentially.
It was a great review though, I look forward to the future tweaker guides & reviews.
Raja Gill - Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - link
There will be a more typical Anandtech look to future articles, with the DFI board revisited for a round up on a suite of benchmarks, this will be used to cross compare with other boards, clocked to equivalent with board maximums in the range and voltage. In terms of the screenshots, it is nice to have 1 persons trust, but there are many we have to please and not everyone is always as convinced..thanks for the suggestions..
Next up is the Asus Maximus Formula..
regards
Raja
Jodiuh - Thursday, October 25, 2007 - link
Specifically Windvd conversions from divx/xvid to DVD would be wonderful as I've found this app benefits from a solid OC.beoba - Friday, October 19, 2007 - link
It'd be great if this came with a glossary."Strap"?
retrospooty - Saturday, October 20, 2007 - link
strap is a term used for memory clocking. for example, at 266mhz bus, memory can be "strapped" to one of the following.266x(stap2)=533 or DDR 1066
266x(strap1.5)=400 or DDR 800
266x(strap1.25)=333 or DDR 666
If you are running at stock 266 there is no way to have DDR 950 because it has to be strapped to one of the above settings.
I use the 1/1 strap so my bus speed is 500x(strap1)=500 or DDR 1000, in most cases 1/1 is the most efficient, if you can utilize it with your particular hardware, do it.
Avalon - Thursday, October 18, 2007 - link
Unfortunately, DFI's asking price of admission continues to rise for each new board they release. I was mildly annoyed when they started selling boards for $200+ that had little to no tangible benefit over $100-$150 boards, but now they're at the $300 mark? No thanks.This board is for someone who likes to spend his time tweaking and not actually using his computer.
retrospooty - Saturday, October 20, 2007 - link
"This board is for someone who likes to spend his time tweaking and not actually using his computer."The article title is called "Tweakers Rejoice" after all. The idea is not to tweak forever . I did spend alot of time over the first few weeks, but now that its tweaked, I just use it as is.
Avalon - Sunday, October 21, 2007 - link
Yes, I am quite capable of reading the article title. My whole point is that you are working for diminishing returns that I feel could be better spent using your system. If you're doing it to set a record, fantastic. I support that.retrospooty - Sunday, October 21, 2007 - link
Understood... This is obviously not the motherboard for you. I personally love the BIOS options and CMOS reloaded functionality. That alone makes the extra cost well worth it to me. Asus BIOS just sucks, and I have had too many quality problems with them in the past, and Gigabyte just underperforms. I like to know I will not be held back by my motherboard for the next couple of CPU's I buy (will likely get a dual core Penryn on release for under $200, then a high end quad core Penryn a year or so later when it is under $200).I do see your point, but in spite of this article's stock speed comparison (totally pointless for a OC geared mobo), and similar results with one particular CPU, that looks as if it has an FSB limit equal on all 3 boards (meaning the CPU is holding it back) This board overclocks and performs better than any ASUS, or Gigabyte, or any other board out there. If AT tested the max FSB limits on a dozen or so CPU's, or if they had a "golden sample" that had a high FSB limit, you would see the difference. Also if they had time to test many diff RAM stocks and to tweak the memory settings you would also see the difference. Its a good article, but no reviewer has time to really dig into this mobo and all it has to offer. I do feel the article did a good job at explaining that.
JNo - Sunday, October 21, 2007 - link
"I like to know I will not be held back by my motherboard for the next couple of CPU's I buy"I don't know much about overclocking and I hold your views valid Retrospooty but surely this is still a lot of money that will still be needed to replaced in the short/medium-term if a) you want to start using DDR3 once prices come down b) if GPUs come out that take advantage of PCI-E 2 standard (as used on X38). So all that money is only paying for great OC'ing potential for *now* only... no?