The Motherboards

For this comparison, we used production boards. From Intel, we have the Intel D955XBK and representing NVIDIA, we have the ASUS P5ND2-SLI Deluxe. 

While NVIDIA's nForce4 reference board still doesn't seem to have dual core support, ASUS' board does, so it looks like the chipset will have no problem supporting the Pentium D.  One problem that we have seen, however, is that neither NVIDIA's reference board nor ASUS' board support Intel's Thermal Monitor 2 specification at this time.  While NVIDIA insists that support for TM2 is coming, we are hearing from motherboard manufacturers that support for TM2 will only be there for single core processors.  If that ends up being true, that will be a huge downside for the nForce4 platform - TM2 significantly reduces heat output as well as fan noise on Intel platforms, both features that are much appreciated. 

Despite having numerous problems with their AMD SLI motherboard, the ASUS P5ND2-SLI Deluxe was flawless during our testing.  We had one problem with the system not POSTing, but a later BIOS revision fixed that issue. 


The Test

Note that this is a comparison of Intel platform chipsets. For a comparison of AMD and Intel CPUs, have a look at our latest CPU reviews.

Intel Pentium 4 Configuration
LGA-775 Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840
2 x 512MB Crucial DDR-II 667 Dual Channel DIMMs 4-4-4-15
Intel D955XBK 955X Motherboard
ASUS P5ND2-SLI nForce4 SLI Intel Edition Motherboard
ATI Radeon X800 XL PCI Express
NVIDIA GeForce 6800GT PCI Express
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 Plus (with NCQ)
Maxtor MaXLine III (with NCQ) for NCQ tests

NVIDIA’s nForce4 SLI Intel Edition Chipset Memory Performance
POST A COMMENT

96 Comments

View All Comments

  • segagenesis - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    #15 - Score: -1, Troll

    Why are you here then? Hell, you cant even read I guess. I gave you a link talking about heat output when you said it was "opinion" when it was stated Intel runs hotter. I can tell you that from fact from the 25 prescotts sitting in a lab here and when they are all running the A/C better be running too!

    Why dont you come up with some facts yourself instead of insulting both the site and others?
    Reply
  • Questar - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    #11,
    What makes you think I would care about "a huge landslide of flames regarding your post in this comment section"?

    99% of the people on this site are ignorant cattle without the ability to think for themselves. They are here as part of a communal circle jerk over AMD cpu's. I care as much for their thoughts as I care about the thoughts of the cow that gets slaughtered for my dinner.
    Reply
  • jimmy43 - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    I see we got an Intel fanboy posting in the forums :] Reply
  • Questar - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    #10,
    I see no information in your link that #8's argument. He specifically said that an A64 is faster than Intel in all applications except for video encoding. The link you provided actually proves him wrong, as there are other applications in which the comparable Intel CPU is faster, or the difference is insignificant between the two.
    Reply
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Oops, sorry...correction

    "...release of the K8 architecture 8 years ago..." should read "...release of the K8 architecture 2 years ago..."

    Sorry about that. AMD's 2nd year anniversary of the release of the Opteron is next Thursday where they will introduct dual core Opterons to the public. Can't wait.
    Reply
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Oh my God!!! Questar where have you been?

    Go read all the reviews of Intel and AMD processors since the release of the K8 architecture 8 years ago. You have a lot of reading to do.

    Don't give the editor-in-chief of a 8 million plus readership hardware review site advise about getting his facts straight. Anandtech receives and reviews hundreds and hundreds of hardware that you will never even dream of owning.

    If a statement is made in a review from a site as reputable as Anandtech, it is not made lightly. You have all the right in the world to question it and seek a second opinion elsewhere, but it is COMMON knowledge among those reading CPU reviews over the last two years that AMD CPUs are faster in games and computational number crunching whereas Intel excels in audio and video encoding PERIOD.

    You can easily explain these findings. Games and computational number crunching take low latency, high memory bandwidth to work well. Audio and video encoding need fast processor speeds.

    Wait about five hours after the release of this review and you will soon be finding a huge landslide of flames regarding your post in this comment section.

    Have fun! :)

    PS. You must not read at all if you think anyone has found a performance advantage of PCI-E and DDR2 over AGP and DDR for current software applications. Not tomshardware, Hardocp, Xbitlabs, Anandtech, etc. have found a performance increase between AGP 8X vs. PCI-E 16x or DDR400 vs. DDR2400/533/667.
    Reply
  • segagenesis - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    #9 - You havent been here long have you? Intel does have a performance advantage in encoding applications... but your claims of without proof to others?
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
    Umm yeah. Pay attention 007.

    And why even claim AGP has no performance benefits over PCI? Ever heard of a shared bus (PCI)?

    ?LOGIC ERROR
    READY.
    Reply
  • Questar - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    #8,
    Without proof, it's your opinion. So, find some reviews that showed an Intel cpu being significantly slower than an equivalent A64 in all applications except video encoding.

    I assume you are using an AGP video card. Why? It has no performance benefits over a PCI card. Or is FPS in a game the only way you measure perfomance?
    Reply
  • n yusef - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    #5
    "Honestly, Intel processors and even the platform haven’t been interesting since the introduction of Prescott. They have been too hot and poor performers, not to mention that the latest Intel platforms forced a transition to technologies that basically offered no performance benefits (DDR2, PCI Express)."

    Your opinion only, don't make this out to be fact.

    That is pretty much fact. In all areas except encoding, they were worse performers than their competiton (Athlon 64). The extra heat sure didn't improve that either. As far as forcing DDR2 and PCI Express, when they didn't improve performance, you can't disagree with that.
    Reply
  • radx - Thursday, April 14, 2005 - link

    Questar

    I'm happy you're not the one writing these reviews here at anandtech. :-)

    Go Anand!
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now