It’s been a few years since we’ve written a full review featuring an Intel motherboard. The reason for that is simple; we just didn’t see some of the Intel boards as being competitive in terms of features, performance and pricing when compared to products from third party vendors. Probably not a good decision on our part because appearances can be deceptive... Take a look at our H55/H57 coverage and you’ll see that sub-vendors often struggle to get the basics right - here and here.

In hindsight, we should have added an Intel motherboard or two to those articles, because it would have been interesting to see how Intel measures up in the areas that truly matter. Better late than never we suppose, over the next month, we’ll be providing you with full reviews of three Intel boards; two are P55 chipset based, while the third and most exciting (if you like mini-ITX) is the DH57JG - formerly known as “Jet Geyser”. It’s the DH57JG that we’ll be looking at today; it should be on retailer shelves in a couple of weeks priced at around $125:

At present, Intel’s main rival in the mini-ITX segment is Zotac who released the H55-ITX last week. We’ve already got a review up on Zotac’s board here. It’s not a bad effort at all on Zotac’s part, our only gripe would have to be the asking price of $145, especially when you consider what’s available on m-ATX for less outlay.

Still, there’s a lot to be said for boards that work as advertised out-of-the box without the need for copious debugging from end-users. That’s probably a good precursor for this review, because Intel are only too keen to point out that these are the areas where they get things right. With that in mind, we lead you into our user-experience summary below...


There’s only one public BIOS release for the DH57JG so far, and it appears that Intel’s pre-launch validation process is capable of delivering a motherboard that’s almost retail ready. In truth though, there’s little on the DH57JG that can give rise to issues - Intel played it safe, or at least within the comfortable confines of their design. For starters, overclocking is limited on Clarkdale CPU’s by the absence of voltage control for processor VCore. BIOS options are basic; there is no direct control of CPU/IGP clock ratios and DRAM timing options are limited too. This all adds up to keep Clarkdale processors south of 3.8GHz unless you have a lucky sample that overclocks well at stock voltage.

Lynnfield processors will work in the DH57JG, and you get a tiny pocket of overclocking headroom that is capped by current/temperature monitoring and stock VID. We managed to get the board to post at 21X150 BCLK, but found processor core frequency throttles down to 3GHz or so under full load to ensure safety for the CPU VRM. Curiously, we did manage to change CPU core multiplier ratios on our i7 860 CPU by disabling SpeedStep – something that does not work on Clarkdales at all on the current BIOS. We’ve asked Intel for clarification on this matter and await a response. 

Another area which often gives rise to problems on third-party motherboards is bundled software, there’s not much for Intel to get wrong in this department because the DH57JG doesn’t feature any kind of OS level overclocking tools or power saving software as part of the package.

Board layout is similar to Zotac’s H55-ITX, in that the CPU socket is placed very close to the PCIe slot and also the memory slots. This leaves little room for tall/wide heatsinks, although we don’t think you need anything other than the stock Intel cooler on this motherboard given the limited range of overclocking at your disposal.

On the overclocking front, our i3 540 retail processor topped out around 3.5GHz on the DH57JG, while our i5 661 ES sample managed to retain stability at 3.85GHz on stock VID. It’s not quite the 4GHz we’d have preferred to see, but we should add that the real-world gains in performance between 3.5GHz and 4GHz aren’t huge anyway.

That leaves the all important plug and play features of the chipset to experiment with, and it’s an area we don’t have anything negative to report on. All of our peripheral devices worked fine as did resume from long S3 sleep states - even when overclocked.

For an in-depth look at performance and board layout, read on...

Performance Summary


View All Comments

  • DanNeely - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    Aren't benchmark numbers for CPUs almost always lower than reported TDPs? Intel/etc have to design for peak theoretical power draws even if they're extremely unlikely in real life. The intel burntest utility will run your CPU hotter and draw more power than any "normal" CPU benchmarks because it's designed to run everything at the highest power load possible. Reply
  • deruberhanyok - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    It would be great if you all could look into testing with less... beefy power supplies, though. I think a lot of people (myself included) would be interested to see the power draw in a more "realistic" setup.

    For example, Antec's ISK 300-65 with a 65W power supply, or 300-150 with a 150W power supply, are a much more likely configuration than a system with a 610W PSU (as used in the recent Zotac H55 ITX article) or a 950W PSU (as used in this article). And the difference in power supply could make for a noticeable difference in idle/load numbers.

    For low-power purposes, perhaps the boards could also be tested with low power memory modules (1.35v instead of 1.5v / 1.65v) and 2.5" hard drives (as many ITX enclosures may not have space for a 3.5" hard drive).

    Anyways, these are just a few suggestions that I thought would help make the information presented here more practical. Feel free to ignore them. :)

    Loving these articles on ITX boards, keep 'em coming!
  • FATCamaro - Tuesday, March 2, 2010 - link

    Yeah 600W PSU is crazy. As well there is no mention of stability or quirks versus the other H55/57 boards tested.
    For those looking for virtualization intel has a Q57 board with VT-d support with an i5 or i7 processor.
  • Rajinder Gill - Tuesday, March 2, 2010 - link


    Point taken on the PSU. For a rundown of stability and quirks of the other boards used check out these articles:">">

  • DanNeely - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    I'd like to second this request. PSU efficiency drops off at the low and high ends of their output ranges. Optimal levels are generally around 50% of max and while performance doesn't suffer much in the 20-80% load.

    If you're concerned about noise you generally want to avoid going above about 70% with normal desktop PSUs to keep the fan spinning at idle. I'm not sure if the fan noise thresholds are true of the low power models designed for mini-itx systems with onboard gfx or not.
  • JonnyDough - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    I concur with your post. Realistic PSU makes a huge difference. Reply
  • Rajinder Gill - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    Thanks, we're working on it... Reply
  • GeorgeH - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    DH57JG, DH57G, and a DH55JG; either you’re reviewing 3 different boards or breaking a NDA. Hopefully the latter, as I’d really like to see a cheaper H55 option. ;) Reply
  • gtrgtgt - Sunday, March 7, 2010 - link">
  • Rajinder Gill - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link

    Sorry about that - fixed..


Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now