POST A COMMENT

81 Comments

Back to Article

  • Per Hansson - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link

    Hi Gary, just wanted to drop in and give you a kudos on this very nice review!

    It also makes me smile to finally see Intel catching up with AMD, this can only be good news for the customer...

    And a small heads up, there are a few Intel Core Duo Engineering sample CPU's on sale at eBay, "hint hint engineering sample=multipler unlocked"

    And also a big thanks for finally posting those capacitor shots and mentioning them, keep up the good work!

    Also I think Aopen deserves recognition for designing a mainboard with so high-quality components, Rubycon=Way to go!!!
    Reply
  • goinginstyle - Friday, May 19, 2006 - link


    quote:

    Hi Gary, just wanted to drop in and give you a kudos on this very nice review!


    Agreed....

    Reply
  • vailr - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Updated driver:
    (from: http://www.station-drivers.com/page/intechip.htm)">http://www.station-drivers.com/page/intechip.htm)
    Intel Chipset software Installation Utility
    Version 7.3.1.1013 - Windows 2000/XP 32/64bits/2003Server Multi Langues & officiel
    ftp://aiedownload.intel.com/df-support/10392/eng/i...">ftp://aiedownload.intel.com/df-support/10392/eng/i...

    Version 8.0.0.1005 Alpha
    Windows 2000/XP 32/64bits/2003Server Multi Langues & non officiel
    http://www.station-drivers.com/telechargement/inte...">http://www.station-drivers.com/telechargement/inte... Alpha.exe
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Thank you for posting these links. :) We have a policy of utilizing the latest driver sets on a supplier's website at the time our testing starts, in this case the Intel general download page is still posting the 7.2.2.1006 driver set. However, I am using the 7.3.1 driver set on our retail board sample tonight. ;-) Reply
  • irev210 - Sunday, May 07, 2006 - link

    Hello Gary,

    Sorta funny how that other fellow has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

    I just wanted to touch upon something that I didnt see get much attention.


    You should have mentioned in your article about how efficient the core architecture is, and how well it scales with increased frequency. The chip turns into a total monster once you get past 3ghz, and continues to perform better and better as you increase the speed. The fastest I could get on air was around 3.1ghz. I wouldnt be afraid to crank the volts to the 1.5 max on the aopen board... with a different cooler, you should hit some nice speeds. Try swapping out for a zalman 9500, or a big typhoon.

    The shortfalls, are as you mentioned the southbridge lacking raid, and the poor bios options. Vcore should let us up to 1.65-1.7, while Vdimm should let us do atleast 2.3.

    While this may not satisfy the most serious enthusiast, this board does fill a nice niche. The price is pretty high, but core duo CPU's can be had on the cheap, which makes up for it. For someone that is worried about their electric bill, and wants performance and performance per watt, this is a great alternative.

    For others who must have the fastest. This just makes them drool. This is the low end of the core architecture. Merom and Conroe to follow... we shall be stunned.

    Consdering Meroms being tested now at 3.0Ghz are faster than 3.2Ghz Yonah's... AND YOU WILL SEE Conroe EE at 3.33 w/ a 1333fsb doing 4ghz w/ 1500mhz FSB :)


    For those that dont get it yet... AMD will need a AM2 processor running at about oh 4.8Ghz to beat a 4Ghz clocked conroe :)

    Good things to come. I take no sides, im just excited about new stuff :)






    Reply
  • Marlowe - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    How come a ~1 % cpu usage translates into a massiv 20 fps drop in BF2? Looks like EA have a deal with Creative :(

    A lot of world records have been beaten with this mobo already over here at XS :)
    coolaler even got SLI enabled on it ;) also running a merom in it ;)

    Your 266 FSB is very good and about normal for aircooling. Give it some cold and it will go further ;)
    Reply
  • Frumious1 - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    [font color="#000000] (Damn white text. Nice comment engine AnandTech.... Need a new programmer?)

    Because RightMark is a theoretical test and not actually a real game or audio application. Also, look at the 3D/EAX scores - it's more than 1% CPU usage, but still less than 20% or whatever.
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    How come a ~1 % cpu usage translates into a massiv 20 fps drop in BF2? Looks like EA have a deal with Creative :(


    It has to do with the Realtek driver load and Creatives to some extent being split between the cores during the RightMark testing. I noted in the text that although the cpu utilization is extremely low in our Rightmark results due to the load balancing that the actual game results (percentage differences) were basically the same as our single core scores. The drop in BF2 is due to the audio algorithms being generated by the CPU rather in hardware as on the X-FI card. Our audio settings in BF2 are set to hardware, medium quality, EAX enabled, the high quality setting extracts another 6FPS but we generally have not noticed an increase in audio quality. This is one penalty you pay for on-board audio in a CPU limited game although Serious Sam II is the one exception for either solution.

    We are hoping to receive a T2700 chip from Intel shortly and will "chill" it to see what results come from it. :) Yes, we had SLI working on the board also, but that is a topic that will be buried with Jimmy Hoffa at this time. ;-)
    Reply
  • NT78stonewobble - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    Intriguing last 2 sentences.

    The comments section has some really good info alot of the time :).

    And kudos for bringing into the review something about the penalty for using onboard audio versus dedicated hardware.

    You're not by any chance planning on writing something about audio quality some-time? Not that im an audiophile or the like, just curious.
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    quote:

    You're not by any chance planning on writing something about audio quality some-time? Not that im an audiophile or the like, just curious.


    We will expand our audio section in the next update to our motherboard review section. We are looking at several variations of the review process as we enter a very busy time of the year with AM2, Conroe, and others all launching over the next 90 days. :)
    Reply
  • snorre - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    What in the world are you doing?

    Is AT's review's getting worse and worse???

    This has to be one of the worst reviews ever... comparable to those found at Tom's...

    Gary... what in the world were you on when you did this review???

    ANANDTECH
    in our next review, we'd like to show your how an AthlonFX60 compares to a 2.8Ghz Celeron

    ........."as you can see, the Celeron just cannot keep up with the AMD monster, looks like intel is really going to have to pick up the pace or AMD could rule the frickin' world with this new behemoth"

    For real though, did Intel pay you off for this review???

    I've been a loyal Anandtecher for quite some time, and if I keep seeing reviews of this caliber, I've no choice than to delete my bookmark.
    Reply
  • kmmatney - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    I wouldn't mind if you deleted your bookmark. Your post was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Reply
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    What in the world are you doing?


    I am replying to your post. What are you doing?

    quote:

    Is AT's review's getting worse and worse???


    It depends on how you look at it. I am usually positive so I think the three reviews posted on our website this week are probably some of the best you will read. However, I really did enjoy a mobile hard drive article at Tech Report this week.

    quote:

    This has to be one of the worst reviews ever... comparable to those found at Tom's...


    How exactly is this one of the worst reviews ever? Really, I would like to know so I can address any shortcomings in future articles? My personal grade was a B+ to A-, the article really needed the 3dsmax 7 benchmark (still working on but our Opteron/Asus combo barfs on it during overclocking, trying a new load tonight), a Photoshop benchmark would have been nice, Oblivion benchmark is coming, a Sim or RTS benchmark would be great, and thermals will be posted once we come to a decision on what numbers to post.

    After seeing the other reviews on this board I see very little real world application benchmarks for every option on the board, the lack of overclocking, and CrossFire is totally absent. Tell us what we can do better, we are listening. :)

    quote:

    Gary... what in the world were you on when you did this review???


    I was on my Herman Miller Mirra for about 140 hours while completing this article. :)

    quote:

    ANANDTECH-in our next review, we'd like to show your how an AthlonFX60 compares to a 2.8Ghz Celeron


    That is a very good idea, actually the Celeron would win if we only tested power consumption, thermals, and pricing. I guess Intel wins this battle without much of a fight and I can complete this article in a few hours instead of weeks. ;-)

    quote:

    For real though, did Intel pay you off for this review???


    Actually, Intel declined our request for a Duo Core CPU for this article. I purchased it from NewEgg directly and will have to explain to the wife why I spent $327 to get insulted.

    quote:

    I've been a loyal Anandtecher for quite some time, and if I keep seeing reviews of this caliber, I've no choice than to delete my bookmark.


    We hope you continue to be a loyal reader and while I disagree with your assessment of our article, I do respect your right to an opinion.
    Reply
  • snorre - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    quote:

    I am replying to your post. What are you doing?

    Commenting on your no-good review of course.

    quote:

    How exactly is this one of the worst reviews ever? Really, I would like to know so I can address any shortcomings in future articles? My personal grade was a B+ to A-, the article really needed the 3dsmax 7 benchmark (still working on but our Opteron/Asus combo barfs on it during overclocking, trying a new load tonight), a Photoshop benchmark would have been nice, Oblivion benchmark is coming, a Sim or RTS benchmark would be great, and thermals will be posted once we come to a decision on what numbers to post.

    After seeing the other reviews on this board I see very little real world application benchmarks for every option on the board, the lack of overclocking, and CrossFire is totally absent. Tell us what we can do better, we are listening. :)

    As a review of AOpen i975Xa-YDG I guess it's all ok, but the comparison of Core Duo to Opteron is really hopeless IMHO. What were you thinking?! Just a brief look at your test setup made me really mad, the AMD box is totally inadequate set up to say the very least. If you're going to do a desktop processor comparison, then please do it properly with the best possible desktop processors, motherboards/chipsets, memory and graphics cards currently available. Just to get you started; Opteron 175, Asus A8R32-MVP, OCZ EB DDR PC-4000 Platnium Edition and ATI X1900 CrossFire are hardly the best setup the AMD platform can provide today.

    And with regards to comparing overclocked processors; C'mon give us a break!

    I'm starting to wonder if you set up the mysterious AMD box yourself when you published all those fishy Conroe benchmarks from IDF earler this year... *sigh*

    quote:

    That is a very good idea, actually the Celeron would win if we only tested power consumption, thermals, and pricing. I guess Intel wins this battle without much of a fight and I can complete this article in a few hours instead of weeks. ;-)

    That was a joke if you didn't get it. At first glance your review reminded me about Kristopher Kubicki's hopeless comparison of Intel Xeon Nocona 3.6GHz to AMD Athlon 64 3500+.

    What's next? Anandtech's server shoot-out: Intel Woodcrest vs. AMD Sempron? That'd be really interesting....NOT!

    quote:

    We hope you continue to be a loyal reader and while I disagree with your assessment of our article, I do respect your right to an opinion.

    Thank you, I do too. Still, I hope you shape on your benchmarking in the future. Anandtech should know better than to do benchmarketing like this, unless you loose your credibility as an independent review site IMHO. Be critical, provide us with facts and not marketing bullshit, please!
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    quote:

    As a review of AOpen i975Xa-YDG I guess it's all ok, but the comparison of Core Duo to Opteron is really hopeless IMHO. What were you thinking?! Just a brief look at your test setup made me really mad, the AMD box is totally inadequate set up to say the very least. If you're going to do a desktop processor comparison, then please do it properly with the best possible desktop processors, motherboards/chipsets, memory and graphics cards currently available. Just to get you started; Opteron 175, Asus A8R32-MVP, OCZ EB DDR PC-4000 Platnium Edition and ATI X1900 CrossFire are hardly the best setup the AMD platform can provide today.


    Please tell us what possible platform changes could have been made in order to keep the comparison fair? This was a motherboard review, different than what we normally do with the facts as to our component choices were explained thoroughly in the article, and not a CPU comparison although it lended itself well to that point in the end. If I were doing a CPU comparison, it would have been FX60+ versus Conroe E6800, and lets just say you would have been even more upset with the results regardless of board, video, or memory choices. ;-)

    In order-

    1. What AMD processor would you have used for the stock clock settings? The T2400 in our review runs at 1.83GHz and is a dual core design, you must stay at this CPU speed for a fair comparison.

    2. What AMD motherboard would have been your choice? It has to have CrossFire capability in order to match the specs on the AOpen board. There are only about eight choices and they all perform within a couple of percent of each other.

    3. What 1GB x 2 DDR memory kit would you have chosen? Remember our memory choice for the Intel platform runs at 3-3-3-8 at stock and at 4-4-4-15 at the 11x255 setting. Our OCZ is in the top two choices of 1GB DDR sticks, in our testing it ran at 3-3-2-7 1T at stock and at 3-3-3-7 1T at the 11x255 settings, giving it an advantage over the DDR2 system. A CAS2 or CAS2.5 setting would have improved the AMD platform scores at the stock settings but remember, we are equalizing all items within the platform for testing and these settings must pass our benchmark tests.

    4. What ATI card or otherwise would you have chosen for CrossFire testing? I am really interested in this one as the last time I checked the 7900GTXs did not have official SLI support in the Intel board. It is a toss up in most situations between the two cards anyway, what other cards currently on the market are better?

    5. What AMD CPU would you have chosen for running at the 11x multiplier? Remember, it must be 11x and a dual core.

    quote:

    And with regards to comparing overclocked processors; C'mon give us a break!


    Why, we always show overclocked results in our motherboard comparisons. Are you just upset with results?

    quote:

    I'm starting to wonder if you set up the mysterious AMD box yourself when you published all those fishy Conroe benchmarks from IDF earler this year... *sigh*


    I never published any Conroe benchmarks or attended IDF this year.

    quote:

    That was a joke if you didn't get it.


    I did get, my response was a joke also. Did you get it?

    quote:

    Thank you, I do too. Still, I hope you shape on your benchmarking in the future. Anandtech should know better than to do benchmarketing like this, unless you loose your credibility as an independent review site IMHO. Be critical, provide us with facts and not marketing bullshit, please!


    We are an independent review site. I was critical in the review about the board's shortcomings, took shots at NetBurst technology several times, and briefly touched on the Core Duo issues with 64-bit extensions even though this was not a CPU article. The results presented are facts, thoroughly reviewed, and retested over a dozen times. Our results are based on these facts, in fact we used numerous real world applications in this review and stayed away from presenting strictly synthetic benchmarks which obviously favored Intel. I cannot begin to understand why you believe this was marketing b.s. as we real world applications, equal platforms, default settings, and presented the results as fairly as possible. Intel was never involved, never provided review materials, as this review was about the AOpen i975Xa-YDG and its ability to work as advertised. It was a fair review, end of subject.

    I was just as surprised as anyone else with the results. The numbers speak for themselves, if you do not like them there is nothing I can do about it. If these results upset you then I highly suggest you take some Prozac before this July. ;-)

    In the end we will have to agree to disagree. However, if you still think we are spewing marketing propaganda then visit http://www.xtremesystems.com/index.php">XS- Your Source for Conroe/Yonah Benchmarks and see what users are doing with these chips. These same users are some of the most avid AMD enthusiasts on the planet. Thank you. :)
    Reply
  • snorre - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Please tell us what possible platform changes could have been made in order to keep the comparison fair? This was a motherboard review, different than what we normally do with the facts as to our component choices were explained thoroughly in the article, and not a CPU comparison although it lended itself well to that point in the end. If I were doing a CPU comparison, it would have been FX60+ versus Conroe E6800, and lets just say you would have been even more upset with the results regardless of board, video, or memory choices. ;-)

    In order-

    1. What AMD processor would you have used for the stock clock settings? The T2400 in our review runs at 1.83GHz and is a dual core design, you must stay at this CPU speed for a fair comparison.

    Athlon 64 FX-60 downclocked to 1.8GHz, although I don't see why as I find comparing clock frequencies across microarchitectures totally irrelevant.

    quote:

    2. What AMD motherboard would have been your choice? It has to have CrossFire capability in order to match the specs on the AOpen board. There are only about eight choices and they all perform within a couple of percent of each other.

    I don't see why it has to have CrossFire for? To really match the specs on the Asus board the AOpen board also has to have ATi CrossFire Xpress 3200 chipset and it don't. DFI Lanparty UT NF4 SLI-DR Expert would be my AMD motherboard of choice and I'd DFI Lanparty UT NF4 SLI-DR Expert and I'd have tested it with a single nVIDIA GeForce 7900GTX 512MB GDDR3 graphics card on both boards (no SLI).

    quote:

    3. What 1GB x 2 DDR memory kit would you have chosen? Remember our memory choice for the Intel platform runs at 3-3-3-8 at stock and at 4-4-4-15 at the 11x255 setting. Our OCZ is in the top two choices of 1GB DDR sticks, in our testing it ran at 3-3-2-7 1T at stock and at 3-3-3-7 1T at the 11x255 settings, giving it an advantage over the DDR2 system. A CAS2 or CAS2.5 setting would have improved the AMD platform scores at the stock settings but remember, we are equalizing all items within the platform for testing and these settings must pass our benchmark tests.

    I'd have used 2 x Crucial PC4000 BallistiX Tracer 1024MB running 2.5-2-2-5 1T @ 250MHz HTT. Using slower memory would give Core Duo's faster shared cache a unfair advantage in my opinion.

    quote:

    4. What ATI card or otherwise would you have chosen for CrossFire testing? I am really interested in this one as the last time I checked the 7900GTXs did not have official SLI support in the Intel board. It is a toss up in most situations between the two cards anyway, what other cards currently on the market are better?

    If you're so interested in testing CrossFire I'd do it on the nForce4 SLI board mentioned above, but I'm more interested seeing single card benchmarks like 7900GTX.

    quote:

    5. What AMD CPU would you have chosen for running at the 11x multiplier? Remember, it must be 11x and a dual core.

    Athlon 64 FX-60 as you can set the multiplier to anything you like, but as I said I find this requirement strange because I find comparisons of clock frequencies across microarchitectures totally irrelevant.

    quote:

    Why, we always show overclocked results in our motherboard comparisons. Are you just upset with results?

    I'm only upset with what I regard as a flawed test setup that in turn made the results totally uinteresting to me.

    quote:

    I did get, my response was a joke also. Did you get it?

    Good, I was a bit unsure there for a second ;-)

    quote:

    We are an independent review site. I was critical in the review about the board's shortcomings, took shots at NetBurst technology several times, and briefly touched on the Core Duo issues with 64-bit extensions even though this was not a CPU article. The results presented are facts, thoroughly reviewed, and retested over a dozen times. Our results are based on these facts, in fact we used numerous real world applications in this review and stayed away from presenting strictly synthetic benchmarks which obviously favored Intel. I cannot begin to understand why you believe this was marketing b.s. as we real world applications, equal platforms, default settings, and presented the results as fairly as possible. Intel was never involved, never provided review materials, as this review was about the AOpen i975Xa-YDG and its ability to work as advertised. It was a fair review, end of subject.

    Good to hear it, and I hope it will stay that way in the future too. Sorry for being so harsh, on second thought it seems like I mistaked you for just another Kristopher Kubicki clone (he got a few bad reviews on his record FYI).
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Athlon 64 FX-60 downclocked to 1.8GHz, although I don't see why as I find comparing clock frequencies across microarchitectures totally irrelevant.


    How would an FX-60 make a difference? I can try it, but the differences in previous testing with an FX-60 down clocked to match an Opteron showed zero differences (same memory controller). If you are comparing CPU architectures then performance comparisons at like clock speeds is of great value to determine design advantages. AMD's greatest advantage with the Athlon64 series has been their performance per watt when compared to the Intel Pentium 4 series. A level that after several years Intel is just now equaling. In terms of product histories, this is an incredible feat for AMD.

    quote:

    don't see why it has to have CrossFire for? To really match the specs on the Asus board the AOpen board also has to have ATi CrossFire Xpress 3200 chipset and it don't. DFI Lanparty UT NF4 SLI-DR Expert would be my AMD motherboard of choice and I'd DFI Lanparty UT NF4 SLI-DR Expert and I'd have tested it with a single nVIDIA GeForce 7900GTX 512MB GDDR3 graphics card on both boards (no SLI).


    It needed to be CrossFire capable as the AOpen board fully supports CrossFire, a feature on the board that was fully tested and compared to another CrossFire capable board. I have not seen any performance advantages of the DFI Lanparty UT NF4 over the Asus A8R32 at stock speeds, in fact the Asus board commands a 2%~3% performance advantage across the board in testing. This is no surprise as DFI forgoes stock level performance in order to ensure they have the highest performing boards when overclocking. As part of our test suite, we test all boards with the latest GPU options. I tested both boards with an EVGA 7900GTX and had the same results (percentage differences) in the benchmarks. Any thoughts that the NVIDIA card would make a difference is incorrect. In fact, on the HL2-LC scores the AMD platform went from a tie to a 4% disadvantage.

    quote:

    I'd have used 2 x Crucial PC4000 BallistiX Tracer 1024MB running 2.5-2-2-5 1T @ 250MHz HTT. Using slower memory would give Core Duo's faster shared cache a unfair advantage in my opinion.


    I ran the OCZ at 2.5-3-2-7 1T on a couple of benchmarks at the stock settings, had about a 1% positive effect at the stock settings, same for running some new Corsair memory on the AOpen board at 3-2-2-8, even trade. However, I did not run any benchmarks at the overclocked settings yet.

    quote:

    If you're so interested in testing CrossFire I'd do it on the nForce4 SLI board mentioned above, but I'm more interested seeing single card benchmarks like 7900GTX.


    CrossFire does not work on the NF4 boards without a hack which causes a performance decrease of up to 8% in most cases so this option is not viable.

    quote:

    I'm only upset with what I regard as a flawed test setup that in turn made the results totally uinteresting to me.


    Flawed because the numbers did not go in AMD's favor? For an article that was uninteresting you certainly have made an incredible amount of statements about it. :)

    quote:

    Good to hear it, and I hope it will stay that way in the future too. Sorry for being so harsh, on second thought it seems like I mistaked you for just another Kristopher Kubicki clone (he got a few bad reviews on his record FYI).


    We all will have bad reviews at one time or the other. :) Cheers......
    Reply
  • snorre - Saturday, May 06, 2006 - link

    quote:

    How would an FX-60 make a difference?

    For one thing, it's the best desktop processor AMD have to offer right now. Secondly, it's a far better overclocker since its memory controller works flawlessly with DDR500 memory at the exact same timings as DDR400 memory. Thirdly, it dosen't have any multiplier lock.

    quote:

    I have not seen any performance advantages of the DFI Lanparty UT NF4 over the Asus A8R32 at stock speeds, in fact the Asus board commands a 2%~3% performance advantage across the board in testing. This is no surprise as DFI forgoes stock level performance in order to ensure they have the highest performing boards when overclocking.

    I really doubt that a board based on ATi CrossFire Xpress 3200 performs better on average than a board based on nVIDIA nForce4 SLI X16. DFI Lanparty UT NF4 SLI-DR Expert is currently regarded by many enthusiasts as the best nVIDIA nForce4 SLI X16 based board out there, but if you don't like it then I'd suggest Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe instead.

    quote:

    I tested both boards with an EVGA 7900GTX and had the same results (percentage differences) in the benchmarks.

    With a proper nForce4 SLI X16 board, Athlon 64 FX-60 and Crucial PC4000 BallistiX Tracer 1024MB running 2.5-2-2-5 1T @ 250MHz HTT there should be a noticable difference. If not something must be seriously wrong with your test methodology.

    quote:

    I ran the OCZ at 2.5-3-2-7 1T on a couple of benchmarks at the stock settings, had about a 1% positive effect at the stock settings, same for running some new Corsair memory on the AOpen board at 3-2-2-8, even trade. However, I did not run any benchmarks at the overclocked settings yet.

    I don't know the OCZ memory or the board you used, but if you only see 1% performance improvements going from 3-3-3-8 1T to 2.5-3-2-7 1T then something seriously must be wrong. I'd expect 3-5% performance increase on average depending on memory intensive benchmarks, e.g. RealStorm Global Illumination Benchmark 2006. However, I'd strongly suggest that you run the OCZ memory at DDR500 speeds with the best possible timings. If it can't handle it, then switch to Crucial PC4000 BallistiX Tracer 1024MB sticks instead.

    quote:

    Flawed because the numbers did not go in AMD's favor?

    No, because I still question your test setup. This one's for you:

    The only genuinely objective benchmark is the one left on a person's trousers when they sit on a bench that has just been painted.

    quote:

    For an article that was uninteresting you certainly have made an incredible amount of statements about it. :)

    I'm not your average reader either, but hey your average reader dosen't bother commenting your articles either right? :)

    quote:

    We all will have bad reviews at one time or the other. :) Cheers......

    Yeah, after all it's human to fail. Quite understandable as long as we learn from our failures, else we're condemned to repeat history. Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.

    Cheers! :)
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Saturday, May 06, 2006 - link

    quote:

    For one thing, it's the best desktop processor AMD have to offer right now. Secondly, it's a far better overclocker since its memory controller works flawlessly with DDR500 memory at the exact same timings as DDR400 memory. Thirdly, it dosen't have any multiplier lock.


    Our Opterons have the same E6 memory controller as our FX60. The FX60 down clocked to 9x204 or 11x255 does not generate any different scores. It does not overclock any better than our Opterons on air or water. In fact our Opteron 170 overclocks to 2.90GHZ on air and 3.05GHz on a cheap water system. The FX60 does 2.82GHz on air and barely hits 3.0GHz on the cheap water system.

    quote:

    I really doubt that a board based on ATi CrossFire Xpress 3200 performs better on average than a board based on nVIDIA nForce4 SLI X16.


    Some do, some do not, already have the Asus A8N32-SLI, sorry scores are not any better at our test settings. Please purchase the DFI CFX3200 and try it. :)

    quote:

    I don't know the OCZ memory or the board you used, but if you only see 1% performance improvements going from 3-3-3-8 1T to 2.5-3-2-7 1T then something seriously must be wrong. I'd expect 3-5% performance increase on average depending on memory intensive benchmarks, e.g. RealStorm Global Illumination Benchmark 2006. However, I'd strongly suggest that you run the OCZ memory at DDR500 speeds with the best possible timings. If it can't handle it, then switch to Crucial PC4000 BallistiX Tracer 1024MB sticks instead.


    If you had read the review completely you would know what memory and board we used. ;-)
    The majority of memory benchmarks show an advantage of up to 37% for the AMD platform we tested over the Intel platform. In the end, what matters is the real world application performance, not some synthetic memory benchmark. As stated in the article we utilized the default settings for each board as not to give an unfair advantage one way of the other. Once again this was a motherboard review, not a CPU comparison.
    By the way, in most of our memory benchmarks the ATI3200 does better than the NF4-SLI, that does not mean one board is better than the other. I switched to our Corsair and Crucial, no real difference, did not expect it be as they all use the same ICs. Please email your SuperPI32m scores along with your A64 tweaker / CPU-Z screenshots. Do you know what die series your ICs are? Only two series would come close to those timings and be benchmark stable. :)

    quote:

    No, because I still question your test setup.

    Go buy the components we tested and let me know your results. :)

    Did you visit XS? Do you doubt the user scores utilizing the Yonah, Merom, or Conroe CPUs?

    In closing, taking away the CPU scores being kept equal, let the memory run at best possible settings, in other words tweaked..... plus your 7900GTX request-

    FEAR - 1280x960.
    FX60- 111 (2.6GHz) 42.69fps per GHz
    T2600- 102 (2.16GHz) 47.22fps per GHz

    BF2 - 1280x1024.
    FX60- 104.04 (2.6GHz) 40.01fps per GHz
    T2600- 101.63 (2.16GHz) 43.25fps per GHz

    Tell me what processor is more efficient per GHz? These are but a few samples and we have our T2600 (2.16GHz) running at 3.27GHz now (on air), kind of walks away from the FX60 at 3.0GHz. But as you said in an earlier comment about overclocking comparisons, "C'mon give us a break", so I will not post some very embarrassing scores on the overclock side.


    Have a great day.... :)

    Reply
  • MrKaz - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    I don’t think he would do some Intel Woodcrest vs. AMD Sempron, but more like:

    64 bits processors to the test: Turion 64 vs Intel Woodcrest.

    That would be more likely...


    I also don’t understand what is happening with all the sites not just anandtech.

    For example the FX57 with the AGEIA PhysX Hardware, not that it was a bad choice but the only used in the review...
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    quote:

    For example the FX57 with the AGEIA PhysX Hardware, not that it was a bad choice but the only used in the review...


    The card was delievered over the weekend, Derek only had a couple of days and nights to test it. He will be expanding upon this article in the near future as more games are launched with support, not to mention all of our test platforms will undergo a radical change here shortly. ;-)
    Reply
  • goinginstyle - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    I was on my Herman Miller Mirra for about 140 hours while completing this article. :)


    Best quote of the day. Ignore that guy as he is just a tool or had his first visit on a computer today.
    Reply
  • ShapeGSX - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    This is a server chip vs a laptop chip. If anything, the AMD server chip had the upper hand in this review, and the little Intel laptop chip bested it in almost every category.

    Though, technically the review was a review of the motherboard, not the CPUs, I think it speaks volumes as a comparison of the K8 vs the Yonah architecture given the identical clocking used.
    Reply
  • Frumious1 - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    "If anything, the AMD server chip had the upper hand in this review."

    Again with the reading comprehension! Look at the chart for Christ's sake. Notice that a bunch say "lower is better"? At 2.8 GHz, the Core Duo sweeps the tests - only in disk controller performance could you potentially level a complaint. At 1.83 GHz, it's a bit closer, but to say the Opty has the upper hand?

    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
    Moderate to substantial wins by Core Duo across the benches.

    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
    More ties or wins for Core Duo.

    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
    Opty wins in Nero Digital Audio... which I have never even used or seen as a benchmark. One win for Opty 165! Woohoo! AMD Rules!

    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
    More substantial losses in file compression.

    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
    It loses every gaming test by a reasonable margin, with or without CrossFire.


    ONE win for AMD at 1.8 GHz, and that's in Nero Digital Audio. A few ties, but otherwise AMD loses. Boy, I can't imagine why AnandTech would do an article like this. I mean, Intel managing to win almost every benchmark is old news! I remember Pentium II/III spanking K6/K6-2/K6-3 ages ago. Looks like nothing has changed... except for the whole K8 vs. NetBurst era where Intel got the shit kicked out of it!

    Intel looks primed to take back the performance lead. I've been running lots of AMD K8 systems for the past 3 years, but it looks like I will now have a serious reason to consider Intel again. (Before K8, I ran mostly K7 setups. Before that I was always running Intel because they were better. Notice the pattern? Buy the BEST chip, regardless of who makes it!)
    Reply
  • Calin - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    What is sad for AMD is the fact that the Intel chip is advantaged by frequency increase. At 1.8GHz, they are more or less at a tie (with few not-so-great exceptions), and the increase in frequency to 2.8GHz favors Intel much more than AMD.
    So, overclockers would choose the chip that will give them a bigger increase in performance for the same increase in MHz (Intel). The situation changed from the Athlon64 versus Prescott days.
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    "If anything, the AMD server chip had the upper hand in this review."


    His context was in the positive, meaning the AMD had the upper hand going into the review but was outperformed in several areas.

    :)
    Reply
  • ShapeGSX - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Indeed it was meant to be positive. Thanks!

    Laptop cpus beating server cpus, dogs and cats living together!
    Reply
  • Frumious1 - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    I'm not sure what you read, but I saw a review in which a ~$590 Core Duo + AOpen board was able to basically match a ~$550 Opteron 170 + ASUS board in performance. What exactly don't you like - the fact that Core Duo overclocks more than 50% on the board? Or the fact that Athlon X2/Opteron doesn't win every benchmark?

    Thanks for being such a retard. FYI, Intel doesn't want this type of review, because AT is basically promoting buying their $240 CPU and overclocking rather than buying their $600 CPU. Let me rephrase your post:

    ANANDTECH
    In this review, we'd like to show your how an "Athlon FX-62" compares to a 2.8Ghz Core Duo.

    ..."As you can see, the Core Duo actually beats the FX-62 equivalent on just about every fucking benchmark. AMD's former monster has been humbled, and it looks like the stupid ass AMD fanboys like snorre need to stop snoring and brush up on their god damned reading comprehension! If that's not enough, Core Duo will add another 25-40% performance clock for clock over Core Duo (see Johan's article). Needless to say, even the best AMD is prepared to offer looks to be in serious trouble."

    Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Comparing this to a THG article is an insult to both parties. THG would have used more hyperbole and run fewer benchmarks, while AT wouldn't accept large cash payment to do an article. Go back to whatever black ole you crawled out of. PLEASE!

    BTW thanks for proving that no matter how good an article is some stupid shit will wander in and bitch about the results. "OMG my eyes! I can't look at a graph and stand to see AMD lose!" The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory has been proved yet again. (Google that if you don't get the reference.)
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    I think I see the problem, frumious. You used some odd text in your post and it killed the colors. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Note to others: don't use the abbreviation for HardOCP. LOL Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Why did someone mod this post down? I'm serious: if you put an H in brackets, the AT comments engine interprets that as "turn on white text". No insult was intended towards HardOCP; I'm merely pointing out that Frumious' post turned the text white, unintentionally. Thanks for the negative mod points.... :| Reply
  • Frumious1 - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Anyone else getting white text? What's up with that?

    Test:
    [/font]



    [/link]

    Did that help?
    Reply
  • goinginstyle - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    At least the quote was a bit different this time but still not needed. I thought the article was great and actually one of the best ones I have read lately. It was nice to finally see two like platforms compared against each other with the same cpu speeds and components although AMD2 would have been good to see.
    You really should do more of these comparisons as the reviewing one motherboard against another in the same product family gets boring. You never see much of a variance in the scores so the only question is if it sucks or not. At least this way you review the board and compare it against something you might be thinking about buying if you are a Intel or AMD user. You honestly get to see what works best for you. It was nice to see additional real application benchmarks instead of the same old winstone that or 3dmark this.
    I was disappointed in not seeing any Photoshop benchmarks or something that has to do with graphics, it would round out your audio and video benchmarks nicely. Anyway, keep up the good work and hopefully you can do this same type of article when Conroe gets here against the AMD products.
    In the meantime props to Intel for finally showing some performance improvement without needing a nuclear powerplant for the CPU.
    Reply
  • goinginstyle - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Any numbers yet? Reply
  • goinginstyle - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    ....and temperature readings??? Reply
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    We pulled the charts, the AOpen board uses a thermal sensor instead of the on-chip diode so our numbers are off. Once we decide what number to utilize, these numbers will be posted. If you refer to our Yonah Preview article, the power consumption numbers are listed for the 945GM board. I posted a couple of numbers earlier in this thread with the AOpen board. Thanks.... Reply
  • goinginstyle - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Thank you for the update and hopefully we can see these numbers soon. Reply
  • BigLan - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    "The rear panel contains the standard PS/2 mouse and keyboard ports, parallel port, LAN port, and 4 USB ports."

    Looking at the picture, I don't see a parallel port there and it's not listed on the specs either. Did you mean a firewire port?

    Also, how useful is the external sata connector? Does the board come with a cable to utilise the power connector?
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Sorry about that, yes, it was suppose to be Firewire. I had it corrected on my final draft and missed it twice in the edits.

    AOpen ships an excellent cable that has the drive and power port plugs together. I found the external connector to be very useful during testing on the JMicron chipset. Since I really enjoy HTPC tinkering, it will be of great usefulness for attaching or swapping large PVR drives out without entering the system. The JMicron chipset performed very well in our testing and had no issues handling Seagate's new 750GB drive.
    Reply
  • BigLan - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Thanks for the reply. Any chance you need an independent review doing on that 750GB drive ;) Reply
  • Gary Key - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Thanks for the reply. Any chance you need an independent review doing on that 750GB drive ;)


    Sorry, being a selfish s.o.b. with this drive, actually I am testing two of them for an upcoming article. :)
    Reply
  • sabrewulf - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    I haven't been following the development of Conroe too closely, but isn't this chip essentially performing like Conroe will? Or am I missing something?

    Some of the tests were impressive, but the gaming tests were certainly not "20-40%" improvement over AMD like everyone is wishing.
    Reply
  • MrKaz - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    And "will" never be.

    Don’t forget Intel was using:
    - Some special ATI driver.
    - Crossfire setup (maybe modified),

    20%~40% that you will never get, unless you have such kind of configuration.
    On non SLI/Crossfire configuration will never be higher than 5%, 10% improvement...

    And thanks that a lot to the 4MB cache, and minor processor (P3 redesign) changes.

    Don’t forget that the Intel dual core with 4MB shared cache can act as one BIG single core processor with 4MB cache and the second core with 0MB of cache for the extra “stupid” calc...
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    And "will" never be.

    Don’t forget Intel was using:
    - Some special ATI driver.
    - Crossfire setup (maybe modified),

    20%~40% that you will never get, unless you have such kind of configuration.
    On non SLI/Crossfire configuration will never be higher than 5%, 10% improvement...

    And thanks that a lot to the 4MB cache, and minor processor (P3 redesign) changes.

    Don’t forget that the Intel dual core with 4MB shared cache can act as one BIG single core processor with 4MB cache and the second core with 0MB of cache for the extra “stupid” calc...


    LOL. I always doubt that people can be such a dumb fanboy even I see them over and over again in time.

    How do you explain Xtremsystems benchmark, and all the architectural advantages?? Did Netburst's poor showing really blind you??
    Reply
  • MrKaz - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    Fun boy me?

    It's you who calls him self by the stupid nick name Inteluser2000.

    Some time there are complete morons here and you are one of them.
    ME the "fan boy" has to "defend" Intel, a thing that you with your little brain can’t do.

    Read my reply to your fan boy friends, there you will find why conroe will be good, and it's not because it's Intel.... dumb moron....
    Reply
  • redbone75 - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Don’t forget Intel was using:
    - Some special ATI driver.
    - Crossfire setup (maybe modified),


    I don't think it was a "special" driver per se, if I recall the driver had some changes made in order to recognize Conroe.

    quote:

    And thanks that a lot to the 4MB cache, and minor processor (P3 redesign) changes.


    I just love how a lot of people refer to Conroe as a P3 redesign as if it's something so bad. No, it's not a P3 redesign, there are elements of what made the P3 so successful incorporated into the chip, but that's not what makes the chip so awesome. Also, so what if it is ultimately just a "P3 redesign" as you put it? You use what works, and obviously this works. Hey, the K7 core was pretty good, and K8 is so well designed that AMD can ride it for a few more years.
    Reply
  • MrKaz - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    "in order to recognize Conroe"

    Why they need to recognize Conroe?
    -Would work?
    -Did work but with inferior performance?
    -Special optimizations?
    -New instruction set (SSE4) support for improved performance?
    Reply
  • Questar - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Wow, some fanboys are still in denial.

    This is an interim MOBILE chip that just put the smack down on an Opteron. What's going to happen when the real thing comes out?
    Reply
  • MrKaz - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    When the real thing come out? That’s easy:

    Core duo plus:
    - 2MB cache (+5%~10%)
    - 2X FSB (+4%~8%)
    - 800Mhz DDR2 (3%~6%)
    - x64 support (0%)
    - Higher clock speed 2.1Ghz to 3.3Ghz (anyone can say 50% performance increase?)

    I’m not a fan boy, it’s you Intel stupid morons that can even read and make some thought why should Conroe be faster than AMD Athlon 64….

    Go back and reread the article about:
    Intel Core versus AMD's K8 architecture

    Don’t expect conroe be very different from core duo... I’m not saying that’s bad…
    Reply
  • Questar - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link

    You forgot a couple of things:

    Addidtional ALU Unit
    Twice the SSE performace
    Better code reordering
    Larger reservation station
    New micro-ops
    Reply
  • SexyK - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    There are many, many differences between the Yonah and Conroe designs that should lead to a significantly higher IPC for Conroe. Macro-ops fusion, memory disambiguation, 4-issue core, etc, etc... Here's a good overview of some of the changes as compared to the X2s and older Intel chips: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... Reply
  • SexyK - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    I think these tests are the nail in the coffin for those out there still saying the Conroe benchmarks were 'fixed' by Intel. Clock for clock, Yonah is already beating X2 on a regular basis, sometimes by large margins. Based on those results, plus all the m-arch improvements made in Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom, I'd say there's little doubt that we're in store for a 20-40% performance lead from Intel in the near future, depending on the final outcome of the AM2 lauch... Reply
  • LEKO - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    I'm really impressed by the Core Duo performance... But this CPU lacks 64bit support. I know that if you upgrade on a yearly basis, it'S not an issue. But when you want something that will be capable for years, I think that the 64bit capable Athlon X2 and Dual-Core Opteron becomes better alternatives.

    I think that AMD will get a kick in the butt when Intel will launch their Next-Gen 64bit Desktop CPU! I hope AMD have very good hidden cards.
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    I'm really impressed by the Core Duo performance... But this CPU lacks 64bit support.


    This issue will be addressed with Conroe/Merom. However, given the almost dearth amount of 64-bit applications on the desktop in the WinTel world at this time we still feel like it is a safe purchase for the next couple of years, or wait for Intel's new products this summer. Of course, AMD's products are still top notch with the X2 series offering a truly long term solution (at least in CPU years) if you are buying today.
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    In our limited testing with the Asus N4L-VM featuring the 945GM mobile chipset our stock Intel Core Duo numbers were slightly better than the AMD platform in the Cinebench 9.5 benchmark and only about 6% greater in the POV-RAY benchmark indicating AOpen's choice of the i975x chipset certainly makes a difference in the performance ability of the Core Duo.


    I don't know. You are comparing DDR2-667 at 3-3-3-8 timings with 975X compared to DDR2-533 on 4-4-4-12 on this Core Duo review using 945GM: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    Not only being at DDR2-667 being synchronous with FSB give advantage, the lower latency will make enough difference in both. There are other possibility like updated BIOS and mature motherboards.

    This is the best comparison benchmark I have seen for Core Duo vs. other CPUs(whether Opteron, X2 or Pentium D's), but 975X beating 945GM because its a newer chipset makes no sense.


    There is also a possibility that 945GM chipset used in laptops is performance wise lowered compared to the 945GT(which is 945G just Core Duo support), to save power, and if Asus N4L-VM is using 945GM, it MIGHT be the reason it performs lower.


    Reply
  • Viditor - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    This issue will be addressed with Conroe/Merom

    Agreed...though I should say that while Merom is inspired by Yonah, they really are quite different. Will this mobo also work for Merom?
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Agreed...though I should say that while Merom is inspired by Yonah, they really are quite different. Will this mobo also work for Merom?


    Agreed, was not trying to address the core architecture differences, just stating 64-bit support is on the way for Yonah's successors. :) We hear rumors the board can work with Merom, no official statements from AOpen or Intel yet. We will update the article once we have a statement or if Crestline will be the official requirement for Merom. At one time Merom was going to drop into the 945GM but who knows about i975X support as the directions seem to change every Tuesday. We are still waiting on our i965 samples to ship in order to showcase "eornoc". ;-)
    Reply
  • Viditor - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Thanks Gary! I will be very interested in the update once you get confirmation. I'm still a bit murky on the platforms for Merom...

    Cheers!
    Reply
  • stmok - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    From what I hear (Engineers in AOpen R&D as well as enthusiasts who have gotten samples), they have tested this mobo with Merom. You need a BIOS update. Otherwise, it will NOT boot to the operating system!

    I'm still wondering if it supports Virtualization Technology. This is what I'm really interested in. :)
    Reply
  • Questar - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    You plan on running apps that require greater than 4GB of ram in the next couple years?

    Didn't think so.
    Reply
  • Myrandex - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Believe it or not, people can run 64bit apps for other reaons from 4GB memory...such as increased performance? I knwo not many apps right now show increased perofrmance with 64bit mode, but some do and I believe this will go up when more developers start programing for it with more intensity and all that.
    Jason
    Reply
  • peternelson - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    For me this is the showstopper, and the reason I much prefer Turion at present.

    Core Solo/ Core Duo are 32 bit only. That makes them quite rarely disadvantaged - even the new Celerons can do 64 bit EM64T.

    This board would be of much more interest if the review said "THIS BOARD IS MEROM-READY". As it doesn't, I assume it isn't. The review here might have highlighted this important issue which will be crucial deciding factor for some potential purchasers, especially considering the price.

    I see Conroe and Merom systems quickly filling the market need this board is targetted at.
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Friday, May 05, 2006 - link


    quote:

    Core Solo/ Core Duo are 32 bit only. That makes them quite rarely disadvantaged - even the new Celerons can do 64 bit EM64T.


    Only disadvantaged for those utilizing 64-bit applications and operation systems, but for 95% of the marketplace they are fine. Not that I do not think it is an issue, but one that is way overblown in today's marketplace.
    Probably in a couple of years it will be completely different but for now, 32-bit applications are still king of the hill (market share wise). This upsets me as I have to believe the entire migration path should have been completed by next year but the foot dragging between Microsoft and Intel negated AMD's advantage in this area for far too long. With that said, Merom takes care of the Yonah 64-bit issue in the mobile sector for Intel in a couple of months. It will be very interesting to see how it compares to Turion 64 X2, it will be good for all of us to have choices in the mobile sector.


    quote:

    This board would be of much more interest if the review said "THIS BOARD IS MEROM-READY". As it doesn't, I assume it isn't. The review here might have highlighted this important issue which will be crucial deciding factor for some potential purchasers, especially considering the price.


    We cannot quote on whether this board is Merom approved or not until qualification testing is complete. Will a Merom T7400 work in this board with the bios 1.3b, yes it will, and the initial results show a great deal of improvement over Yonah in certain benchmarks. Will Merom be fully supported by Intel and AOpen on this board, we do not know yet. AOpen is waiting a production spin of Merom before trying to the qualify it on this board and even then Intel might force everyone to Crestline for official support. We are still trying to figure out if Merom is going to work with 945GM as stated a couple of months ago. The entire situation is so up in the air right now that any statement has the potential to be wrong so being quiet is the best possible option. :)
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    from the spring idf article on AT:

    quote:

    The other beauty of Merom is that it is 100% compatible with existing Yonah designs, meaning that all Core Duo notebooks today should be able to accept a Merom processor with at most a BIOS update.


    Now that may not be a 100% promise, but until Merom is actually released, there's no way to be 100% certain any given board will work with it.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    You plan on running apps that require greater than 4GB of ram in the next couple years?

    You mean 4GB or greater...at 4GB, a 32bit processor will be using PAE already.
    And yes, I find that 4GB is a great help on a number of my apps...
    Reply
  • Questar - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Mobile/SFF apps?

    Name them.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Name them

    Photoshop CS2, Premiere Pro, and Mental Ray...
    Reply
  • Questar - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    I'm a heavy Premiere user, and I can tell you it's a 32 bit app. Reply
  • Chadder007 - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    You can still run it under a 64 bit OS and have access to the 4gb or greater amount of ram. Reply
  • defter - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    No you can't. If you have an 32bit software then it can only address 4GB of memory. Reply
  • Viditor - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Premiere Pro 2.0 has a 64 bit version that works very well. It has not yet been "optimized" for 64 bit (meaning that basic functions won't run much faster), but you have access to 4 GB+ of memory (which can be a HUGE help when dealing with very large movie and audio files).
    http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/pdfs/premie...">Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 pdf
    Reply
  • Griswold - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    This was obviously a test of a mobile CPU on a desktop platform, so his point is valid. And what does SFF have to do with it? Reply
  • Calin - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    That more than 50% overclock is mind boggling - I hope this will bode well for the soon-to-be released Intel processors. Performance as good as or better than Opteron 175? Looks like Intel already have this side of the market covered. Reply
  • xsilver - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    have intel chipset limitations been discussed on the upcoming conroe?
    wont all conroes be runnning 1066fsb already? meaning there is little headroom left for fsb overclocking unless some serious progress is made on the new chipsets?
    (300ish fsb is the current general limit for intel chipsets right?)
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    That more than 50% overclock is mind boggling - I hope this will bode well for the soon-to-be released Intel processors.


    We felt guilty when raising the voltage up to 1.3875 as temps increased from 25c to 31c, makes you wonder what a really good heatsink/fan will on this board. :) Anyway, I think we reached the limit of our board around 267fsb in further testing with a water cooling unit. I am sure the CPU had more in it as temps were around 26c at load, or maybe not. We spoke with AOpen and it appears the boards will top out around 275FSB at this time, we had an early board and based upon some user experiences the retail boards are doing around 275 at this time. We have a retail board on the way for our HTPC article.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    What was the ambient (room) temperature? Reply
  • Gary Key - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    What was the ambient (room) temperature?


    It varies during the day, variation is 20c~22c. There is a new program out that will measure the Yonah core temperature through the on-chip diode instead of the AOpen thermal sensor. I withheld our temperature and power consumption numbers until we decide which temperature reading to report as another utility in XP gives a slightly different reading also. Power consumption is excellent.

    Our test system (11x255, ~2.8GHz)-

    X1900XT
    idle - 114w
    load - 232w

    X1900 CrossFire (P4 of video cards)
    idle - 139w
    load - 357w
    Reply
  • redbone75 - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    That price is a bit daunting for a mobo. This is where if you absolutely have to build a PC right now I would go with an AMD system b/c you still get stellar performance at a lower price point. The A8R32-MVP is a little under $200, and the Opty 165 still costs less than the Core Duo T2400. So, although this is a great effort from Aopen, I personally would build the AMD system or just wait for Conroe/Merom to launch. Boy, but does this make your mouth water if you choose the latter, doesn't it? Reply
  • dexvx - Sunday, May 07, 2006 - link

    Lol, what happened to the fanboi arguement of saving power for the long term (if you visit the AT forms, its frequently used arguement for not buying a cheap Pentium-D system)? Based on the powerdraw tests from Tech-report.com, you save more power going from a X2 to Yonah than from Pentium-D to X2.

    That Aside, this Aopen board *is* Meron compatible with a bios update. The folks over at xtremesystems.org has confirmed it.
    Reply
  • Schmeh - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    or just wait for Conroe/Merom to launch. Boy, but does this make your mouth water if you choose the latter, doesn't it?


    I absolutely agree. I have been putting of upgrading my system for almost a year and I am glad that I did. I can't wait to see what Conroe and Merom have to offer. My only fear is that Intel will overprice them at launch.
    Reply
  • BrownTown - Thursday, May 04, 2006 - link

    Conroe prices have been out for like 4 months now, they are anything but overpriced, actually way underpriced when it comes to performance/$$$. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now