Final Words

It was hard to resist being glib and titling this article, "Much Ado about Very Little". That feeling of disappointment comes from seeing so much new technology introduced all at once, and then finding out the real performance benefit is extremely small - if it exists at all. If Intel wants us to turn our computer world upside down, there should be a real tangible benefit to the bucks we are expected to spend. Unfortunately, that performance advantage is pretty hard to find - at least for now. There are certainly a few gems in the total package, but if you're looking for a big performance advantage it just isn't there.

The feature side of the equation is a lot easier to handle, as Intel has lavished all the features a techie could dream about on the new chipsets. High-Definition audio, Matrix RAID, a new bus with a bright future, and an 8GB per second bidirectional graphics slot are a few of those features that come to mind. Those new features do come with a price, however. You are also asked basically to give up IDE hard drives and also start the transition to SATA optical devices. This will be an easier task for some than for others.

There is also the question of future advantage. It appears that all these new technologies would set you up well for the future, but frankly, we're not absolutely sure that is the case. Time and the marketplace will answer this question better than any crystal-balling, and seeing where other manufacturers and the marketplace take these new technologies will soon provide a clearer picture of what will win - and what won't. There is no doubt that Intel wields enormous clout in the marketplace, but that clout did not make Rambus a winner for Intel. If prices for the new Intel vision of a PC are high and performance gains remain small, directions can change quickly again.

There were a few real surprises in the new boards and chipsets. The 925X is the Enthusiast part, and it is clearly the fastest of the new chipsets. We were surprised, however, to find the advantage over the mainstream 915 chipset was only 1% to 3%. 925X also must use DDR2 memory, which can make that 1% to 3% performance advantage very costly at current DDR2 prices. 915 will come from some vendors with DDR2, but there will also be a huge selection of DDR 915 boards, at least until DDR2 prices drop to more comparable levels with DDR.

We also clearly saw in our performance tests that a current Intel 875 motherboard, running fast DDR memory and a Northwood processor, was just as fast as a 925X running a Prescott at the same speed. This is not really a failing on the part of the new chipsets, though, as it indicates real progress in Prescott development. When Prescott was first introduced, it was a much poorer performer than Northwood. The fact that it is now competitive with Northwood using all these new technologies indicates a lot of progress has been made.

Last, we looked at DDR and DDR2 on the 915 chipset. We saw that DDR is just as fast as DDR2 on the 915 boards, given the current state of DDR2. If you are looking for a new Intel motherboard, don't hesitate to choose a 915 with DDR support because there really isn't a performance penalty. As prices drop and timings get faster for DDR2, then DDR2 will be a better choice.

There is a lot to like in all the new features and technologies that Intel has introduced with the new chipsets. We will be covering these new features in more detail in future reviews. We just wish that there were more real performance gains to get excited about. This is nothing new for Intel, and they are a company that always seems to have plans down the road that suddenly makes it all fall into place. Be sure to read the rest of the story, which compares the new Intel processors and takes a closer look at PCIe graphics and Intel's new integrated graphics solution.

DDR2 vs. DDR: Workstation Performance
Comments Locked

57 Comments

View All Comments

  • gsellis - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link

    I am with #4 and #16, it is OK to leave the Northwood, but this is not apples to apples if you did not use two Prescotts to compare the boards to get a percentage difference in the architecture. The 'weak' areas almost match up to a Prescott vs Northwood comparison. It does not tell anything. Sorry Wesley, but the conclusion is flawed on a direct comparison.
  • Bozo Galora - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link

    and notice the alderwood gigabyte only has the single red intel IDE, no greenies

    http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040619/i...
  • Bozo Galora - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link

    Tom's says new Intel chipsets are O/C locked - tied to PLL

    http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20040619_1103...
  • Kahless - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link

    Am i missing something or is intel not as familiar with there own products as ATI...ie just read about ATI's chipset optimized for prescott and its faster than northwood which is a change from most benchmark comparisons on other boards ...
    http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=2...
  • ZobarStyl - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link

    Combined with the fact that they gonna start putting all this new tech on BTX format, Intel is really trying hard to completely remove itself from the DIY market. And although your average computer buyer doesn't even know what an AMD processor is, you can bet that OEM's are too happy about being asked to either a) swallow the cost of these upgrades or b) raise prices and lose customers, and this might make them eye AMD as a way to shore up the bottom line. Being a trendsetter is one thing but bringing in DDRII when it's slower and PCI-E when it offers practically no benefit isn't exactly blazing a trail that I want to follow...
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link

    "AMD is too pricey and Intel performance is pathetic"

    I can honestly say that is the FIRST time I have ever read that phrase.
  • Falloutboy525 - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link

    from what i've read on ddr2 it won't start make a big performance difference unless its clocked almost twice the speed as the ddr1 your compairing it to due to the fact all ddr2 is is 2 ddr1 chips dual channeld run thru a buffer. so when your running at 400mhz ddr2 the latency is the same as ddr200 due to the speed the chips are running at not the external frequency.
  • Marlin1975 - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link

    "AMD is too pricey"


    WTF?
    You can get a Athlon64 chip for less then $199 now and there is a sempron 3100+ socket 754 chip that has a MSRP of only $124

    AMD hsa the best bang for the buck if you want low/mid end (atlon XP) or even mid/high end (Athlon 64/fx)

    I went from a 800Mhz FSB HT P4 to a Athlon64 and and glad I did.
  • Zebo - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link

    "AMD is too pricey and Intel performance is pathetic"


    I agree socket 939 is way overpriced, especially for the underdog AMD who has an opporunity to make real enroads into the market with Intel down right now... but the rest of this is untrue. Socket 754 3200+ is the same price and P4 3.2 and they split the benchmarks. I'd argue for gamers the A64 3200+ is underpriced. Then intels performance is just fine unless you call 5-10% differences here and there signifigant. I don't and i doubt you'd even notice without charts to prove it.
  • tfranzese - Saturday, June 19, 2004 - link

    "AMD performs great till you give it too much to do at once, and they won't fix that till they bring in dual core."

    Every processor is like this, Hyper-Threading doesn't save any Intel chip from this same thing. Benchmarks like Winstone, etc are benchmarking with multitasking in mind.

    "AMD is too pricey and Intel performance is pathetic"

    lol, it's ironic, but I'm glad AMD is where they are. They certainly aren't the same company there were 8 years ago.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now