POST A COMMENT

30 Comments

Back to Article

  • jdoor0 - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link

    This review has been reviewed:
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18896
    Reply
  • Nige - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    Does the ASUS P5AD2 Deluxe motherboard have the same overclocking capability as the P5AD2 Premium? Reply
  • skiboysteve - Friday, August 13, 2004 - link

    Wow nice catch. i guess my "(I know... toms sucks)" disclaimer came true.


    yaeh i understand.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    #26 -
    There is now an apology to Asus up at THG. They measured the voltage wrong. We had also measured the voltage and found 1.5 to 1.55 which is well within spec, not 2.1 as they reported. They now acknowledge the correct voltage measurement for the P5AD2 is 1.53V.

    High Northbridge voltage is not the reason the Asus, or any other 925X/915 board, overclocks well. There are far too many simple and wrong explanations for the complex overclocking issues of the 925X/915 chipsets.
    Reply
  • skiboysteve - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    Page 10
    "...Broadcom attached to the faster PCI Express bus..."

    there is no PCI Express bus, its a point to point protocal.

    Just nitpicking.

    Great review.



    Also, over at Toms (I know... toms sucks) they looked at 9x5 Boards over there and showed that the Asus P5AD2 was running at an astounding 2.1v on the northbridge (1.5v is the stock)

    Something might have to be mentioned about reliability of such out of spec behavior, and cooling concerns. You might want to conduct your own quick test on the voltage with a multimeter.
    Reply
  • broberts - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    One of the problems with these arguments is that the FX-53 is almost 20% more expensive.

    I've been thinking for a while now that benchmarks should show some form of pricing index so that one can better judge the advantage/disadvantage of the various choices. Just quoting prices isn't ideal, for a host of reasons. I'd suggest, instead, a relative measure. And not just the cost of the particular component being benchmarked. Calculate the cost of the each system used in the benchmarks. Pick one, perhaps the lowest or highest cost one and calculate the relative difference in price. I suggest using the entire system because quite often the choice of one component dictates the available choices for other components. Ideally a relative measure for both the components and entire system would be calculated and published.
    Reply
  • manno - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    Moo Moo MOO. Reply
  • manno - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    why no Doom3? Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    #21 -
    We will definitely be including Doom 3 benches in future reviews. The only reason they are not included in this 925X roundup is because most of the testing was completed before we had a working copy of Doom 3. You can get a clear idea of how the 925X/Intel 560 performs in Doom 3 in Anand's Doom 3: CPU Battlegrounds review published August 4th at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
    Reply
  • kherman - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    Umm, Doom 3 benches? Reply
  • johnsonx - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    What is it with you people griping about CPU choices? This is a review of current top-end 925X boards, not a CPU review! The FX-53 scores are there only for a point of reference. Added to that, Wesley's point is VERY valid: the 560 and FX-53 ARE the top CPU's from each camp.

    If you really want to know how a 3800+ would perform, refer to past Socket-939 reviews, or just mentally subtract about 3% or so.

    STOP WHINING!
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    #17 - Since we were trying to determine the maximum overclocking ability of the boards tested, we used a 3.6 ES LGA 775 Prescott at a 14 multiplier (2.8Ghz). The 14x280 is close to 3.9GHz speed. We also checked with a retail 540 (3.2GHz) and reached 250FSB (4.0GHz) at 1.45V.

    These results lead us to believe that many 775 Prescotts will top out at 3.9 to 4.0GHz on boards that will support those overclock levels. That means that there are likely some 2.8 Prescotts out there that can reach 280FSB.

    As always, overclocking is variable, and you need a really great power supply and decent cooling to support the power requirements at these kinds of overclocks.
    Reply
  • Carfax - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    Wesley, is it possible to do a review of Prescott which focuses on the upcoming 1ghz FSB? I've heard that Prescott scales better than N.W with a higher FSB and greater clockspeed..

    To do the review correctly, you'd need an engineering sample with an unlocked multiplier, so you can see the benefit of the increased FSB, without raising the clockspeed.

    I think Prescott would do pretty well on 1066FSB and with fast DDR2 memory..
    Reply
  • danidentity - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    Wes,

    When you say you hit 280 FSB with the Asus P5AD2, was that with a retail chip, multiplier locked? Or were you using an ES chip. If you were using a retail, that is an absolutely insane overclock.
    Reply
  • danidentity - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    >> Better than comparing a 3500+ to a 3.6F anyway :P

    How would a 3500+ compare with a Intel 3.6? Could it hang? :)
    Reply
  • RyanVM - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    I have no problem with the 3.6E and FX53 being shown together since both platforms will end up costing about the same (factoring in CPU, mobo, and memory costs). Prices fluctuate, yes, but both companies (OK, mainly AMD) tend to adjust prices to stay in line with performance levels (if Intel drops the 3.6E price, I'd put money on AMD dropping prices at the high end within a day or two).

    Better than comparing a 3500+ to a 3.6F anyway :P
    Reply
  • Creig - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    #12/#13 Given the way pricing can fluctuate, it would be futile to compare Intel $$$ to AMD $$$. A couple of days after the article was published, pricing could change to make the monetary comparison useless and therefore misleading.

    I think they're doing it the correct way. It's up to the end user to find his/her best balance between performance and price.
    Reply
  • mjz5 - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    man, i should of read #12 first before posting it.. why not have an edit button?

    anyhow, u all know what i'm saying!!!
    Reply
  • mjz5 - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    the way i see it is that CPUs should be compared by price. If an AMD FX-53 cost as much as a Celeron 2.4 GHz, why not compare the two? If someone is going to looking at these products because they cost X dollars, they aren't interested in seeing that an Intel CPU that cost (X*2) may or not surpass it the competitor at only X dollars. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    #9 & #10 - Corrected Reply
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    On the Gigabyte 8ANXP-D:

    Page 10

    Memory Slots Four 240-pin DDR2 Slots

    Gigabyte provides 6 DIMM slots, but the total memory and number of sides that can be used is the same as the other boards in the roundup.
    Reply
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    Typo page 5:

    "The memory stress test measures the ability of the Abit AA8 to"

    should read Asus P5AD2. :)

    only on page 5, may be more.
    Reply
  • l3ored - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    allright, point taken. howabout testing lower lga775 cpus and combining the results with 939 scores? Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    #5 - You're welcome.

    We also ran and reported the rest of our standard motherboard tests, which included Business and Multimedia Content Creation Winstones and Media encoding (which Intel won by a small margin).

    As we stated in the review the only reason we did not include our standard SPECviewperf 7.1.1 benchmarks is because we have seen variations of up to 100% in SPECviewperf results with certain 925X boards. We don't believe these results are real, and we are trying to find answers for these variations in benchmark results. Until we find some answers, publishing the workstation benchmark results would not really reveal anything about the performance of the 925X boards we are testing.

    The FX53, Intel 925X, and Intel 915 results are included for reference and completeness. We are comparing five 925X motherboards in performance, and we do not mean to detract from that comparison with AMD Socket 939 benchmarks. Please consider the 939 results to be a frame of reference.
    Reply
  • AnnoyedGrunt - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    From what I can see, the P4 560 is about $750, so that puts it right between the 3800+ (about $650) and the FX-53 (about $850) in price. It would be nice to add the 3800+ scores (if you have any) to that review just so we could see how the price/performance of the 560, 3800+, and FX-53 compare.

    -D'oh!
    Reply
  • Shimmishim - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    #2 - Achieving a 4 ghz overclock on a pentium is nothing to sneeze at... i think 3.8 may be possible on air but 4.2 is really pushing.

    As much as a lot of us would love to see overclocked processor results, i think it's best that they only show stock clock results as they are easier to compare...

    #3 - Its hard to say how fair it is to use a FX-53 against the 3.6 ghz 775 chip... but if you think about it, they are comparing the top end pentium 775 skt (new pin count) vs. the top of the line A64 939 skt (new pin count)..

    Both are also 1 megs of L2 even though the extra cache doesn't help the A64 greatly.

    Maybe a 3800+ would have been better comparison but i think he was trying to make things as easy to compare as possible...

    Even if he had used a 3800+ or even a 3700+ i don't think the gaming results would have been that much different... we all know that the A64's dominate in gaming.

    maybe some more tests besides gaming would have been better...

    but all in all...

    thank you Wes for a good article!
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    #3 - The 3.6 is the fastest Intel processor. If you will check our launch reviews you will see the 3.6 outperformed the 3.4EE. We are indeed comparing the best performing Intel - the 3.6 - to the best performing AMD - FX53.

    Prior to the 3.6, the 3.4EE was the fastest Intel CPU.
    Reply
  • l3ored - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    lately i've been noticing unfair comparisons between intel and amd, in this article, high end processors are being compared with the top of the line from amd. this isnt really helpful to anyone, so please go back to the old anandtech way. Reply
  • Anemone - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    Nice article !

    If I could have had one extra wish it would have been to show a set of test charts with a moderate oc on them, think that would put the FX @ 2.6-2.7 and the P4 560's @ 4.2-4.3.

    If the boards can overclock, and the 939's can too, where does it all land for those using just normal or at most water oc'ing.

    No worry, these wishes do not detract from a very nice article.

    Thank you
    Reply
  • stickybytes - Thursday, August 12, 2004 - link

    Nice to see asus get a award but unfourtanetly the word "prescott" mentioned in any sentence will probably scare away 80% of AT'ers. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now