Media Encoding Performance

Our first series of tests is quite easy - we take our original Office Space DVD and use AnyDVD and Nero Recode 2 to copy the full DVD to the hard drive without compression, thus providing an almost exact duplicate of the DVD. We then fired up Nero Recode 2, selected our Office Space copy on the hard drive, and performed a shrink operation to allow the entire movie along with extras to fit on a single 4.5GB DVD disc. We then go back and use Nero Recode to shrink the full DVD copy and burn it onto our DVD disc. We left all options on their defaults except we checked off the advanced analysis option. The scores reported include the full encoding process and are represented in minutes/seconds, with lower numbers indicating better performance.

Media Encoding Performance - Nero Recode 2

We continue to see a strong performance from the P965 board in our application tests. Our only issue with the G965 board was that the conversion process would slow down at various intervals while the disk was being heavily accessed. The quality of the video conversion was never affected but it appeared under heavy CPU usage that disk performance or throughput suffered ever so slightly. Both boards utilize the same ICH8 Southbridge so our conclusion would be potential timing or tuning issues between the Northbridge and Southbridge as our disk access/throughput scores in HDTune and IPEAK were identical between the two boards. The end result is one of the larger (a whopping 2.1%!) performance differences - again not something you would typically detect.

Media Performance

We utilize the widely available Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test for measuring platform performance in Adobe's Photoshop CS3. The benchmark applies a number of actions to a test image and we measure the total time elapsed during the active portion of the test. We set history states to 1, cache levels to 4, and CS3 is configured to make use of all available system memory. The scores reported include the full conversion process and are represented in minutes/seconds, with lower numbers indicating better performance.

Media Performance - Adobe Photoshop CS3

The results are once again interesting as we did not expect our G965 board to perform this well after the previous results. Photoshop has generally favored CPU and memory throughput speeds so our results indicate our Encoding and Multitasking scores show an issue with timing or tuning between the Northbridge and Southbridge. However, any differences in actual scores are minor and probably just indicate something additional BIOS tuning could fix.

Audio Encoding Performance

Our audio test suite consists of Exact Audio Copy v095.b4 and LAME 3.98a3. We utilize the INXS Greatest Hits CD that contains 16 tracks totaling 606MB of one time '80s hits.

We set up EAC for variable bit rate encoding, burst mode for extraction, use external program for compression, and to start the external compressor upon extraction (EAC will read the next track while LAME is working on the previous track, thus removing a potential bottleneck with the optical drive). We also set the number of active threads to two to ensure both cores are active during testing. The results are presented in minutes/seconds for the encoding process, with lower numbers being better.

Audio Encoding Performance - LAME 3.98a3

Our Plextor drive consistently takes two minutes and nine seconds to read all sixteen tracks. This means our test systems are only utilizing one core during testing until the midway point of the extraction process where the drive speed begins exceeding the capability of the encoder and requires the use of a second thread.

As in the Photoshop test, the more intensive CPU tests seem to favor the G965 over our P965 board when running at the same basic memory timings. The differences are once again minimal showing that both systems are equal in our opinion.

File Compression Performance

In order to save space on our hard drives and ensure we had another CPU crunching utility, we will be reporting our file compression results with the latest version of WinRAR that fully supports multi-treaded operations and should be of particular interest for those users with dual core or multi-processor systems. Our series of file compression tests utilizes WinRAR 3.62 to compress our test folder that contains 444 files, ten subfolders, and 602MB worth of data. All default settings are utilized in WinRAR along with our hard drive being defragmented before each test.

File Compression Performance - WinRAR 3.62

Once again in a CPU crunching test we see the G965 fair better than the P965. This test is slightly surprising as it tends to be fairly disk intensive. However, the read/write operations are very short in nature with burst speeds being important compared to the constant write activity in the media encoding tests. Where the media encoding favored the P965 by 2%, the reverse is true here and the G965 gets its largest margin of victory: a similarly "huge" 2.1% discrepancy. That's relatively close to the margin of error for these tests anyway, so we can declare performance to be more or less a tie between the two platforms.

General System Performance Standard Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

8 Comments

View All Comments

  • 8steve8 - Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - link

    nice to look at the g965, long overdue.


    but u didnt even touch on integrated graphics.

    lots of people out there dont play many 3d games.


    you should have compared performance between g965 onboard with g965 discrete with p965 discrete

    power/heat numbers would be interesting, then we could see how efficient the integrated x3000 is...

  • xsilver - Saturday, March 17, 2007 - link

    are there ANY G965 boards that DO overclock well?
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, March 17, 2007 - link

    Meaning beyond 325MHz bus speeds? No, because the X3000 IGP really limits the chipset's maximum speed. Where on the P965 you're able to overclock the chipset to 500 MHz and above, the IGP can really only take about a 25% overclock - certainly not more than 33% or so. You might be able to hit 350 MHz on some boards, but that's about it as far as I'm aware. Other IGP chipsets on the other hand... we'll have to see Gary's mATX roundup for that information.
  • Treripica - Saturday, March 17, 2007 - link

    I'd like to echo MrNeutrino's sentiment. How massive of a mATX roundup can we look forward to in the near future?
  • kobymu - Saturday, March 17, 2007 - link

    quote:

    These systems represent about 90% of the personal computers sold in the North American market each year and just a little more worldwide.


    I just wanted to say thanks for saying that.

    While enthusiast discussion is important (I'm PC enthusiast myself), it is always more important to keep a wider, proportional point of view of the industry as a whole, and that sentence has achieved that goal, so when the enthusiasts start discussing higher-end PC components it can take a more practical, sensible approach, and maybe, hopefully, with time we will see a decrease in the "OMG company X is going down!11" department in particular and in radical fanboism in general.
  • sdsdv10 - Saturday, March 17, 2007 - link

    quote:

    when the enthusiasts start discussing higher-end PC components it can take a more practical, sensible approach


    Do you really expect enthusiasts to be either practial or sensible...

    That would be kind of an oxy-moron!
  • MrNeutrino - Saturday, March 17, 2007 - link

    Thanks for taking the time to post the mATX performance update, Gary!

    My performance concerns based on architectural scrutiny of how memory bandwidth is shared between two hungry processors in an IGP chipset vs. its ATX counterpart, were always nagging me as I started looking for a mATX build. Add to that the lack of always reliable reviews - if at all - on the web, and you have the perfect recipe for a burning desire to be sure - and soon - whether almost a thousand some odd dollars of investment in a quality mATX vs. ATX (read: G965 vs. P965) will be worth the money.

    At least in my case, the lingering questions were mostly extinguished by your forum reply with quantifiable benchmark data, after the 690G review. What little concern remained (more like intrigue), has been put to rest with these benchmarks and additional comparison data in this article.

    Impressive, that there is this little difference between the two chipset / system architecture variants. I suppose then, thanks goes in large part to the hunk of cache on the C2D (compared to CPUs of just a few years back), better predictors / prefetchers, shorter pipelines and a myriad of other uArch improvements.

    Anyway, techincal topics aside, all I can say is, HURRAY!!

    I'm just happy that this is concrete, published proof that us SFF / mATX fans can have our cake and eat it too!

    Now if only we all could also get those April C2D price drops soon enough... :)
  • Renoir - Saturday, March 17, 2007 - link

    Agreed this was a good comparison of the performance between G965 and P965 when BOTH are using a discrete card. As for the question of how sharing memory bandwidth between IGP and CPU compares to using a discrete card, it has only been touched upon briefly by Gary in the forum thread you mentioned. More detailed info on this aspect would be much appreciated in the upcoming roundup (already planned?). Bit-Tech.net did just that with the 690G but they used XP so I'm very interested in the results when using the more bandwidth hungry Aero in Vista.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now