NVIDIA 680i: The Best Core 2 Chipset?
by Gary Key & Wesley Fink on November 8, 2006 4:45 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Memory Performance
The AMD AM2 has essentially removed concern about the Memory performance of chipsets by providing a low-latency memory controller directly on the processor. Intel continues to integrate the memory controller in their chipsets, and the Intel Core 2 chipsets achieve competitive memory performance and low latency with caching schemes and read-ahead algorithms. Because Intel has done such an excellent job of providing stellar memory performance in the 975x/P95 chipsets, any chipset that hopes to compete with Intel would have to perform similarly in memory controller performance.
To assess the effectiveness of the NVIDIA 680i chipset we measured memory performance with Everest 3.50 from Lavalys and compared results to the top-end Intel 975X chipset.
The results of memory performance on the NVIDIA 680i are truly impressive compared to the 975X. NVIDIA has clearly produced a competitive memory controller for Intel Socket 775, a task which has eluded other chip makers who have tried to compete on this platform. Results can only be called equivalent in any of the Everest benchmarks.
Another widely used measure of latency and memory bandwidth is ScienceMark 2.0.
ScienceMark confirms the results with Everest 3.5. NVIDIA has built a memory controller in the new 680i chipset that is every bit as good as the outstanding Intel memory controller in the 975X. This is not a minor achievement.
The final confirmation of memory controller performance with the 680i chipset comes with SiSoft Sandra 2007. The most common measurement is buffered or Standard Memory Bandwidth.
The AMD AM2 has essentially removed concern about the Memory performance of chipsets by providing a low-latency memory controller directly on the processor. Intel continues to integrate the memory controller in their chipsets, and the Intel Core 2 chipsets achieve competitive memory performance and low latency with caching schemes and read-ahead algorithms. Because Intel has done such an excellent job of providing stellar memory performance in the 975x/P95 chipsets, any chipset that hopes to compete with Intel would have to perform similarly in memory controller performance.
To assess the effectiveness of the NVIDIA 680i chipset we measured memory performance with Everest 3.50 from Lavalys and compared results to the top-end Intel 975X chipset.
| Everest 3.5 Memory Performance | ||||
| Chipset | Read | Write | Copy | Latency |
| NVIDIA 680i | 8045 | 4865 | 5506 | 54.8ns |
| Intel 975x | 7751 | 4868 | 5512 | 52.3ns |
The results of memory performance on the NVIDIA 680i are truly impressive compared to the 975X. NVIDIA has clearly produced a competitive memory controller for Intel Socket 775, a task which has eluded other chip makers who have tried to compete on this platform. Results can only be called equivalent in any of the Everest benchmarks.
Another widely used measure of latency and memory bandwidth is ScienceMark 2.0.
| ScienceMark 2.0 Memory Performance | ||
| Chipset | Latency (512 byte stride) | Memory Bandwidth |
| NVIDIA 680i | 37.12ns | 5449.37 MB/s |
| Intel 975x | 37.81ns | 5430.69 MB/s |
ScienceMark confirms the results with Everest 3.5. NVIDIA has built a memory controller in the new 680i chipset that is every bit as good as the outstanding Intel memory controller in the 975X. This is not a minor achievement.
The final confirmation of memory controller performance with the 680i chipset comes with SiSoft Sandra 2007. The most common measurement is buffered or Standard Memory Bandwidth.
| Sandra 2007 Standard Memory Performance | ||
| Chipset | INT (Integer) | FLT (Float) |
| NVIDIA 680i | 5969 | 5944 |
| Intel 975x | 5949 | 5953 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
StriderGT - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - link
Also, some Intel chipset fans believe that Intel chipsets are best for a rock solid system (for the record, I'm not one of these people), I guess we'll see if nVidia will change thier minds.No it won't, its the same group of people that suggested the P4 was a more "stable" platform than the Athlon 64 platform. Its simply a psychological state of denial, when someone has paid more for less needs an excuse: "Stability"
skrewler2 - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
I agree with you on your two points.I also wish PM tech was standardized.. I just went through a headache researching what was compatible with what chipset etc, imo it should just all work. From what I understand, the SATA II standard isn't even really a standard at all.. anyways I agree that NV should start implementing Port Multiplier support!
yyrkoon - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
Yeah, I recently bought a budget Asrock board that SUPPOSEDLY supported SATAII connections. As per the standard, SATAII is supposed to support native command queuing (NCQ), and up to 3Gbit/s throughput on each connector. Anyhow this motherboard does not support NCQ . . . which is the majority of the reason to own a SATAII drive / interface, the rest is basicly marketing hype.Kougar - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
Wanted to point out all the tables on the Memory Performance page are mislabled as "980i".Also some power consumption figures would be good, even if not critical. With a chipset cooler that huge it's about a giveaway it is hiding a nice and crispy chipset! ;) Thanks for the article!
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
The perils of Table cut-and-paste are now corrected.Please see comments above above Power Consumption. That information will be added to the review since several have requested it.
Avalon - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
I was much more interested in the 650i Ultra boards, specifically how well they overclocked compared to the 680i you benched. Additionally, do you think it's necessary for an active fan cooling the northbridge when highly overclocked on this chipset, or does it run fairly cool?Gary Key - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
We will not have 650i boards until early December for review. The fan is required for upper-end 24/7 overclocking in my opinion, otherwise the board ran fine without it.yzkbug - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
tables in page 10: NVIDIA 980i -> NVIDIA 680iShoNuff - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
I'm impressed with the review. It was very thorough. In particular, I was amazed at your overclock with the X6800. I am looking forward to getting one of these boards in my hands.
It appears that NVIDIA has done it this time with respect to the on board memory controller. It is hard to imagine things getting better when the OEM's add their nuances to this board. If results are this good based upon the reference design, it is almost scary thinking about how good a board DFI would/could produce.
Oh…and btw…I like the new location of the front panel connectors. The new location will make it easier to "stealth" the wires.
hubajube - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
These are ass-kicking OC's!!! Can't wait to own this board.