Back to Article

  • Wander7 - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    Still using "ATI" on the motherboard.. I guess they don't want to use "AMD" or didn't get the memo. Reply
  • anandskent - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    Why are there no results for the overclocked system in the benchmarks for either the SNB CPU article or this mobo article?

    Also, isnt that a fan header by the 8pin cpu power? it would make the board have 6 total then
  • IanCutress - Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - link

    The 3D Movement multithreaded benchmark was tested at the 4.6 GHz overclock. This is mentioned in the text, and in the graph for that benchmark.

    And yes indeed, that is a 6th fan header. It has no fan control in the UEFI or OS.

  • justaviking - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    "the H series taking advantage of the graphics on the processor die"

    Sorry if I missed this, but I wanted to be sure on something obvious.

    P-series = No onboard graphics, discrete only. That's clear.
    H-series = Onboard graphics... but can it ALSO USE DISCRETE GRAPHICS???

    Maybe it's so boneheaded it wasn't worth pointing out. Maybe I should have a second cup of coffee.
  • sviola - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    From what I understood, none have on-board graphics, and the H series is designed to use the on-chip (CPU) graphics, while the P series is designed for discrete graphics (altough you can use the on-chip graphics as well). Reply
  • justaviking - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    Thanks. That is what I assumed, but I didn't see it explicitly spelled out.

    Sorry about the sloppy terminology. I mean "on-chip" when I wrote "on-board". I understand the difference. Thanks being gentle with me.
  • evilspoons - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    Not quite. If you Anand's article from today about Sandy Bridge, I got the opposite impression.

    P can not use the on-CPU graphics at all but supports full overclocking of CPU and memory. H can use on-CPU or discrete graphics (or both simultaneously, it would seem), but only supports memory overclocking. Z is meant to fix that by allowing full overclocking and including the "FDI" (flexible display interface) needed to access the on-CPU graphics processor.
  • bah12 - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    What I'm confused about is this. The K series gives us the faster GPU, and the ability to fully overclock the cpu. However you cant use the GPU since the whole reason for getting the K sku is the overclock, thus the P series board and no GPU.

    Where does this leave QuickSync (arguably the top selling point)? From what I understand we cannot have a fully overclocked QuickSync CPU right?
  • ericore - Tuesday, January 04, 2011 - link

    Overclock option is only for CPU + Discreet GPU (limitation of a current motherboards; a stupid one at that; cheap Intel bast****)

    QuickSync comes with i5 and greater regardless of the motherboard (it is an instruction set; all of which are built-in to CPU)

    I want want AMD Bulldozer to kill your royal heighness, and bring hardware market back to democracy.
  • vol7ron - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    You forgot to mention that P allows for SLI/x-Fire, whereas H does not (since it only supports one discrete gpu). Reply
  • chrnochime - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    So basically for any CPU that has its multiplier locked, there's just no way to oc the CPU. Either pay up for an unlocked CPU or be content with stock speed. Hmm... Reply
  • wolfman3k5 - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    I've read all the Sandy Bridge articles that you guys posted. And while at first glance it seems that you're really enthusiastic about the products, they are low end and mid range products. What I take from all the Sandy Bridge articles is that X58 high end platform is obsolete and that everyone should jump on the mediocre Sandy Bridge bandwagon. When I'm saying mediocre I'm not referring to the Core i5 2500K or to the Core i7 2600K CPUs. I'm referring to the rest of the platform and its limitations. No full support for SATA 6.0 (which AMD already had for months), only two 8X PCI-E lanes for high end SLI or CrossFire configurations, only dual channel memory. I mean, it is obvious that this is a new product and that Intel needs to sell it, but it doesn't mean that everyone who got a high end system on a X58 platform should throw it away. Also, the old X58 platform is far more modular. Yes, I know that X58 is old, and I hope that we'll see an update in the high end segment.

    But the question is: Do you guys ever get tired of advertising for Intel, or is the money just too good?
  • extide - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    If you actually read all the articles like you said, you would see that they said that if you already have a high end x58/i7 system, then you should keep it. If you are considering BUYING a new system then they suggest getting SB over a p55 or x58 system. Reply
  • wolfman3k5 - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    X58 has been around before LGA1156, and is still around. Sandy Bridge is meant to kill everything that runs on LGA1156, not X58. The platform that Sandy Bridge runs on will be obsolete in 6 months. PCI-E 3.0 is just around the corner. That's when LGA2011 will be released, the successor of LGA1366. Conclusion: It doesn't really matter if you buy X58/i7 or P67/SandyBridge, they'll be both obsolete. Reply
  • AssBall - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    So you must never buy anything new, because in 6 months it will be obsolete. Just because there are new platforms doesn't mean the old ones are useless or no longer cost effective.

    I don't see where you get that "advertising for intel" junk from, either.
  • vol7ron - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    Wolfman, if you read any of Anandtech's articles, you'd know they don't accept compensation for any of their reviews - while this has helped them out sometimes, it has also hurt them. They have to be careful to be non-biased, but also respectful of manufacturers. Downing a product too much means they won't get as many products to test in the future (and have to wait longer to buy it for the review), not being honest enough discredits the article in the reader's eyes - the fine line must be walked and words chosen delicately. Still, funding is from advertisement and donations.

    Your AMD points are valid, but still unimpressive in comparison. As they stated, AMD is a better option for the lower CPUs, since you can OC them, whereas Intel has locked the i3's.

    I agree, USB3 needs adoption, they've had long enough. That said, Intel is still in domination and AMD has some work to do if they want to contend.
  • DanNeely - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    The point of the reviews is that unless you need something that is only available on x58 (ie enough PCIe lanes for 3/4GPU setups, or 2 GPUs and a high end raid card) then there's next to no point in buying into the platform because a $300 2600k, is able to beat a $1000 hexcore in most benchmarks.

    I'm interested in LGA2011 too because a 30% faster quad core isn't overly exciting as an upgrade. My main concern is that with the 2600K running $300, that intel might demand $500+ for a hexcore that doesn't have crippled OC limits.
  • Etern205 - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    The only people interested in PCIe 3.0 are the gamers and enthusiast. 99% of the average use won't give a thought about what they have and test shows PCIe 2.0 doesn't have that much of a improvement over PCIe 1.1 in terms of performance.
    LGA 2011 the successor to LGA 1366 is still call Sandy Bridge. Funny how your not interested in this "obsolete" hardware but excited about the one after which by your terms is still "obsolete". This is the first time I've seen a person excited about some outdated hardware which has yet gone out the door.
    As for AMD, if they made a CPU that can out perform Intel, I'm sure this site and all other will be all over it like a celebrity meet with lights and flashes. Unfortunately, the last time AMD has that spot light was before Intel came up with the Conroe.
    Hopefully, AMD's bulldozer will let them once again shine in the spot light.
  • tim851 - Tuesday, January 04, 2011 - link

    99% of the average users are still happy with the Athlon X2s they bought in 2005... Reply
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - link

    That's a good summary, unless of course one prefers to dabble with 'traditional'
    overclocking and/or overall platform costs of P55/X58 are more attractive. There
    are plenty of very well priced P55 boards available now. Hard to give a concrete
    nod to SB without knowing the mbd costs.

    Personally, my results reinforce your summary. Performance-wise, SB offers
    nothing useful over what I already have. Different though perhaps for someone
    who is running with an i3/i5 on a P55 board, but yet again it depends on the


    PS. I've praising Asrock's PCIE slot spacing for months, very glad to see
    they're sticking to it. Their P55 boards use the same setup. Perfect for
    cooling SLI/CF setups and a lot better than most X58 boards.
  • Mazlov - Tuesday, January 04, 2011 - link

    Having read all the SB articles on AT, I must admit that I too feel that this platform is getting a bit more attention than it deserves. I suspect this is because X58 has been around for such a long time, and enthousiasts are eag to get their hands on something new.
    In reality, SB, although providing us with a very decent performance upgrade, is not all that exciting. IPC does not seem to have improved very much. Much of the improvement seems to be realized by the higher stock clocks and excellent Turbo. Both of which are a direct result of the new 32nm production process.
    The thing that realy bothers me though, is that the chipsets look as if it's still 2009. With the exception of sata-600, nothing about the SB platform is particularly modern. No onboard usb3, not a trace of Light Peak (while Apple is rumoured to have it on Macs this year), no pci-e 3.0 (understandable since it has only rercently been finalized). Looks to me as if Intel is indeed hostage of their own time schedule.
    To make matters even worse. Intel has taken their market segmentation one step further, by increasing the amount of different chipsets. All with their own limitations.

    Now I'm not saying that SB is a bad product. For over ninety percent of consumers it will fit perfectly. Whether it is good enough for us enthousiasts... I doubt it. 2011 will see some interesting new technologies and SB sadly does not seem to support them yet. If you are a hardware enthousiast, unless you are willing to upgrade again at the end of this year, SB is not for you.
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - link

    Two 8X PCIE is more than sufficient for SLI/CF with the vast majority of games/apps
    using anything other than perhaps the highest end GPUs. naturally X58 favours 3-way/4-way CF/SLI, but few games benefit significantly from these modes (to the
    extent that the entire additional platforum cost is worthwhile) and some games perform

    Likewise, dual-channel RAM is also plenty, especially since unlike X58 the
    P55 platform does not suffer from the 'vanishing' RAM channel problem when overclocking.

    However, I do agree that X58 is hardly dead for those who've bought them. Very
    few users will really *need* the extra speed offered by SNB CPUs, and all those
    with 920/930 CPUs have the 6-core options which will come down in price.

    But don't claim that dual 16X PCIE and 3-channel RAM is essential for high
    performance because that's just plain wrong. With the help of a friend who has
    an i7 930 system with two GTX 460 SLI, I've accumulated a plethora of benchmark
    results which show what I mean (my system is an i7 870 @ 4270MHz, dual EVGA
    GTX 460 1GB FTW SLI). Google for "3DMark06 Benchmark SGI Depot", see the
    end of the page for the URLs of the other _nine_ pages of performance results,
    more added daily/weekly when I & my friend are able.


  • jp9700 - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    I just wanted to thank you for including your "3D Movement" benchmark. I do a fair amount of computational chemistry myself (although generally quantum mechanics), and I find it incredibly hard to find applicable benchmarks on new hardware. Reply
  • jimhsu - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    Seconded ... most of the scientific community is notoriously conservative when it comes to publishing relevant benchmarks for scientific applications on new hardware. Often, the best you can do is hear from a colleague that "Lab X upgraded to Y and got good results" or "Dr. A. (who published in Nature, Cell, Science, whatever) has 10K in grant money and bought that, so we should too". On rare cases you might see an anecdotal report on a group's public website that tests a single config against another particular configuration and shows a % improvement ... those are rare though. Reply
  • DesktopMan - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    When are they getting rid of the Realtek hardware? The Realtek audio drivers have given me nothing but trouble for years. Isn't there support for gbit ethernet in the platform as well, but board manufacturers choose not to use them? Remember reading about that last bit but not entirely sure if I remember correctly. Reply
  • wolfman3k5 - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    When something CHEAPER and BETTER will come along. And if you're complaining about Realtek, well, do you remember the old audio codecs that where used in the past before Realtek? Reply
  • dgobe - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    It would be nice to see an i7 920(OC'd) vs an i7 2600K at the same clock speed. Turbo off, just to see how the two architectures compare. Reply
  • wolfman3k5 - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    You won't see that because the idea is to throw out the old and buy new. Line your pockets people, in a couple of days you'll be able to buy shiny new toys at As for everyone else, keep and eye on eBay for tons of cheap used CPUs and Mobos. Reply
  • landerf - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    About the bandwidth (muti 3d test), while clock for clock yes 1155 only beats 1156, at max speed it should pass or match 1366 as 1366 is speed limited. That's why I bought 8 gbs of 2400mhz ram in prep for sandy. Reply
  • GTVic - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    I've seen very little information on UEFI, do some Sandy Bridge motherboards have a BIOS or do they all have UEFI.

    Also, this motherboard has two PS2 ports and a floppy connector. I have seen several Sandy Bridge motherboards which have no IDE, no floppy, no serial/parallel ports and only one blue/green PS2 port. So this motherboard seems to be catering to people with legacy requirements. I think the need for a floppy connector is overstated.
  • GTVic - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    On page 3 there is a BIOS version listed? Reply
  • cmdrdredd - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    no SATA 6Gbps, only two 8x PCIe lanes not two 16x, and it's generally low end. Reply
  • IanCutress - Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - link

    The PCIe bandwidth for P67 is double that of P55/X58, so an 8x here is equivalent to an old 16x. A lot of people gloss over this fact, similar to wondering why the 6xxx cards have less SPs than 5xxx counterparts - it's an architectural change.

  • drvelocity - Monday, January 03, 2011 - link

    Why was the ASUS p8p67 getting spanked so hard in the single GPU tests? Any insight on that? Reply
  • Spivonious - Tuesday, January 04, 2011 - link

    Please stop stating that mouse use is something new. I could use the mouse in the BIOS setup of my Tyan 440BX motherboard in 1998.

    Also, you state that you prefer two ethernet ports but never explain why. Unless you're using the computer as a gateway, why do you need more than one?
  • IanCutress - Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - link

    We never state that using a mouse is something new. We state it's an improvement or a major benefit over the majority of previous BIOS implementations, especially in the last ten years of mainstream computing and to most consumers.

    In terms of dual Ethernet ports, there are many options:
    1) Link Aggregation
    2) Large format printers/plotters
    3) Various file/server systems require a second NIC for metadata

    It's true 99.99% of people won't need it, but for the low price of the chip, it's not too much to ask. Ideally, we'd want the Intel NIC every time - it's more configurable.

  • Spivonious - Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - link

    "Major benefits include a graphical interface, the ability to use a mouse..."

    Maybe you didn't mean to, but it definitely implies that these things are new with UEFI.

    1) Gigabit switches are under $30. The average broadband connection is well under 100Mbps. There is also very limited support for link aggregation in consumer-level products.

    2) Yeah, let me pull that one out of the closet. Again, P67 is targeted at home users.

    3) Can you name a few? And again, the average home user might have a simple file/media server.

    I would be surprised if the next X series boards don't feature dual ethernet ports, but to mention it more than once on a board targeted towards the midrange is more than a bit silly.
  • IanCutress - Saturday, January 08, 2011 - link

    P67 may be targeted at home users, but industry will look at it as well as a viable option, regardless of where it's targeted. It's easy to get roped into a home-users own little world when that's the only thing that maybe important to you. As a reviewer, it's important not to overlook that fact.

    The point we make is that it is easy enough for a manufacturer to increase the range of appeal of the hardware, by adding a small hardware element for which there is space. If you read through recent Anandtech motherboard reviews, there is a trend for industry level readers to take note of various products we review and add comments on the benefits/drawbacks certain products have for their line of industry, regardless of where the board is actually aimed for. This is why we cover things like dual Ethernet in reviews.

  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - link

    I could use a mouse for my SGI's equivalent setup in 1992. :D

  • ibudic1 - Tuesday, January 04, 2011 - link

    Thank you for posting your benchmark. We do 3D rendering, and some 3D computation (planned), and your benchmark makes sense for us.

    If I were to produce a benchmark for you to test would you be interested?
  • zipzoomflyhigh - Tuesday, January 04, 2011 - link

    1 yr warranty? REally? Reply
  • regginGUY - Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - link

    Please explain why this motherboard did so much worse than the others. Something doesn't add up. Reply
  • IanCutress - Saturday, January 08, 2011 - link

    That board didn't fair as badly as you claim. In the system benchmarks, it performs very well, and in the 3D benchmarks it's slightly worse than the ASRock in single card (as does the Gigabyte) but performs very admirably in dual card.

    Don't forget, each benchmark has a statistical variation on it, so the results could easily be +/- a certain amount, depending on the consistency of the benchmark. You'll never get the same score on 100 consecutive runs unless the benchmark is written so that the cache management is pre-optimised before every run (which a few synthetics do).

    The 3D benchmarks are representative a typical game. For example, a lap on Dirt2 with a lot of action will have a lower framerate than one where you spend all the time out in front. The benchmark in Dirt2 does a bit of both, by starting the car at the back of the grid, performs some overtakes, and sometimes gets easily overtaken, representing an average lap.

  • IanCutress - Monday, January 10, 2011 - link

    I've actually come across the problem now through my own testing. It turns out that Dirt 2 has an issue on how you do single card mode. If there is two GPUs in the system and you disable one in Catalyst, you get an FPS drop compared to running the benchmark with just one GPU in the system. This issue doesn't affect Metro 2033 in our benchmark suite, thus I'd have to conclude it's an issue with the Dirt 2 engine with AMD Catalyst.

    The new FPS figures for the ASUS and Gigabyte boards will be updated shortly. Full reviews of these boards will hopefully go up in the next couple of weeks.

  • oxyurus - Saturday, January 08, 2011 - link

    Should have mentioned the x8/x8 pci 2.0 mode, as most of the boards at this price range are 16x/x4. Reply
  • Mephi5to - Sunday, January 09, 2011 - link

    Take a look at the picture of the mobo - bottom left corner. PATA connector =/= IDE? Reply
  • Mephi5to - Sunday, January 09, 2011 - link

    Nevermind :) I was so confused that actually went to their site and DL'd manual. It's a floppy connector. Sorry peeps. Reply
  • Shube - Monday, January 24, 2011 - link

    The specs for this board show 32Gb max memory space using unbuffered DDR3. With 4 slots that means 8Gb memory sticks. I can't find any available. Does anyone have any idea when they will be available? At what speed? Any details appreciated! Reply
  • marraco - Sunday, January 30, 2011 - link

    What about UEFI supposedly enhanced boot times? Reply
  • katleo123 - Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - link

    good informative post about sandy bridge
    for more info visit
  • gobe - Saturday, March 26, 2011 - link

    I have the Asrock P67 Extreme4 motherboard and it has serious compatibility issues with USB2 devices.
    Devices such as webcams, USB modems, USB tuners, phones with USB connection doesn't work on the USB 3.0 ports which are built upon the low cost Etron EJ168A chip.

    It is nice that on some storage devices the performance is good, but what about the usability of the USB 3.0 ports?
  • wheretobe - Thursday, April 21, 2011 - link

    Same problem here. Fresh intall windows 7 64 bit and get random BSOD. And no problem in safe mode. Then I used system recovery to get rid of the Etron driver, the BSOD disappeared right away. Reinstall the driver and the BSOD is back again. Reply
  • gobe - Sunday, April 24, 2011 - link

    Some of the issues are resolved by the latest Etron driver version 0.98 which is available only from the Gigabyte support site:

    I have the feeling that sometimes the mobo manufacturers consider the end users as beta testers.

    Etron USB 3.0 is junk.
  • sky_dvr - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    There is a label on top of my SATA connectors on my P67 Extreme4 motherboard. It reads "Connect HDD on SATA Port 0-5 as boot device."

    The problem is that the ports are numbered
    SATA3_M1, White
    SATA3_M2, White
    SATA3_0, White
    SATA3_1, White
    SATA2_2, Blue
    SATA2_3, Blue
    SATA2_4, Blue
    SATA2_5, Blue
    So there isn't a PORT 0-5 that I can see. Does the label mean that I can hook the hard drive to any port 0 THROUGH 5 or is it specifically calling out a port named "0-5"?
    Which one of these is "PORT 0-5"? I hope it is not "SATA2_5, Blue" because it is SATA2 and my SSD is SATA3.

    Thank you so much,
  • adennehy - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I was hoping you would get an answer to your question. Im not sure which socket to connect my ssd to. Which of the 4 white slots are the Marvels (worst) ? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now