Core 2-Compatible Chipsets Compared 145
theraindog writes "Intel's Core 2 Duo is clearly the most attractive processor on the market, but which motherboard chipset is it best paired with? The Tech Report has rounded up four of the most common Core 2-compatible chipsets on the market to find out. The chipsets' features are compared and their performance is tested in a wide range of application, peripheral, and even power consumption tests. One emerges as a lemon, two as solid options, and the other as a clear winner." From the article: "Some fanboys still stubbornly cling to their favorite underdog, but most enthusiasts have seen the light and are looking at Core 2 for their next upgrade or system build. The prospect of a Core 2 system build can seem a bit daunting for enthusiasts who have spent years focused solely on the Athlon 64. Core 2 processors need new motherboards for those switching from the Athlon 64, and that requires navigating a whole new world of core logic chipsets. Since the Core 2 processor relies on the chipset for its memory controller, one's chipset choice can also have a much more profound impact on performance. "
No bias there... (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, that doesn't sound like the author had an opinion up front. No sir.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No bias there... (Score:5, Insightful)
What ever happened to evauating the performance of a chip based on the actual application that is going to be run? I can honestly tell you right now that almost every application that is memory bandwidth limited is going to perform better on an AMD K8 chip than Core2/conroe. The K8's integrated memory controller supports much better memory throughput.
I suppose it is out of style to recognize the good and bad charictaristics of each offering. The current trend is to call one the all around "winner" and call everyone else a fanboy..
Re:No bias there... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Damn caffiene-deficient SLC tech center!)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, let's see your performance benchmark.
"opinion up front" (Score:2)
and you have to be a fanboy to get it right? (Score:1, Troll)
Since the Core 2 processor relies on the chipset for its memory controller, one's chipset choice can also have a much more profound impact on performance.
Since I'm not really a fanboy and don't have time to research memory controllers, I might end up with a dog system? Screw that. I'm not going to be playing chipset roulette, especially with a company that's infamous for not cooperating with the free software community outside of slower graphics chips. Hardware zealotry is almost as expensive as soft
Re:and you have to be a fanboy to get it right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What does you using Debian have to do with anything in the rest of your post? Were you just trying to name drop to look good?
No, AMD64 is a better deal for me. (Score:2)
I use Debian because it's easy and it works. Because of that AMD 64 looks like a cheap and practical platform for my next computer. I'll wait and see what things look like under core duo, but I doubt it will be a contender anytime soon for software and hardware reasons. New stuff is almost always a huge pain in the neck for me. It also costs more. Like I said, right now I can ge
Hardware TCP/IP acceleration (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:I can't understand why Nvidia would drop a unique feature like hardware TCP/IP acceleration.
Might I suggest it's because this acceleration has been found to cause serious data corruption on some NFORCE4-based AMD motherboards? I'm surprised the authors weren't aware of this problem.
Myself, I'm wary of NFORCE4 for other reasons. I've recently found that my quad-core Opteron box, built on a Tyan S2895 (K8WE) mobo with an NFORCE4 chipset, will undergo spontaneous data corruption under Linux when I transfer large (>GB) files. I'm not the only one who's had this problem; looks like there's a bug in the NFORCE4 SATA controller. Caveat Emptor.
Re:Hardware TCP/IP acceleration (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> Nvidia fixed ActiveArmor's data corruption issues a while back.
Source please.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly now... Why then did you buy an XPS? You are seriously confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't understand why Nvidia would drop a unique feature like hardware TCP/IP acceleration.
Because unless you're running a server with gigabit Ethernet at high utilization, it won't noticeably help performance. For an "enthusiast PC" out on a DSL line, you'll never notice.
Re: (Score:1)
That hardware acceleration just makes everything feel snappier.
CONCLUSION (Score:5, Informative)
Conclusions
The landscape of Core 2-compatible chipsets is an interesting one. On one hand, you have tried and true chipsets like the 975X Express and nForce4 SLI X16 appearing on boards that have been updated to support Core 2 processors. These chipsets aren't new or particularly flashy, but they're proven designs that don't sacrifice performance when compared with the latest and greatest core logic.
Of course, the Core 2 chipset market isn't all retro refits. Nvidia's nForce 570 SLI is new, at least in name. Unfortunately, the chip's features make it look more like a minor update to the aging nForce4 SLI than a legitimate member of the nForce 500 series. The discrepancies between the chipset's features and those offered by the nForce 570 SLI for AMD processors are striking, and for the life of me, I can't understand why Nvidia would drop a unique feature like hardware TCP/IP acceleration. Extra features have long been a tenet of nForce chipsets, and on that front, the 570 SLI comes up well short.
Compounding the 570 SLI's disappointing feature set is comparatively high memory latency with two-DIMM configurations. This particular problem might be a quirk of the Asus P5NSLI motherboard we used for testing, but it's a retail board with a production BIOS--a board Nvidia itself provided for review.
Intel P965 Express
September, 2006
Unlike the nForce 570 SLI, which feels like little more than an uninspired retread, Intel's P965 Express still has that new chipset smell. It also has a number of new features, including Fast Memory Access optimizations and additional south bridge Serial ATA RAID ports. The P965 also has relatively low power consumption, competitive performance, more robust Matrix RAID options, and evolving CrossFire support that should be complete by the end of the year. No wonder this chipset has proven so popular with motherboard manufacturers, who are building everything from budget $100 wonders to high-end enthusiast boards based on it.
The Intel P965 Express chipset's mix of features, performance, and power consumption make it the perfect partner for Intel's new Core 2 processor and our Editor's Choice. Really, it's an easy call to make. The P965's upcoming CrossFire support kills the one reason we might have recommended the 975X. If SLI's your bag, the nForce4 SLI X16 is a solid--albeit power-hungry--option, but the more attractive nForce 590 SLI should be just around the corner. The nForce 570 SLI, meanwhile, doesn't even measure up to its own name, let alone to the P965
Conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
The Intel P965 Express chipset's mix of features, performance, and power consumption make it the perfect partner for Intel's new Core 2 processor and our Editor's Choice. Really, it's an easy call to make.
Re:Conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
Filled in:Conclusion (Score:1)
4x4? (Score:2)
Wouldn't "4x4" imply four processors with four logical cores each, for a total 16-way system? Somehow I don't think that's what you meant. Or was it?
A dual-core per processor, dual-processor system would be, I would think, a 2x2, and if you had a processor with four cores, and then two of them, it would be a 2x4 or 4x2.
The only way I can think of to make a 4x4 would be with a specialized high-end mobo; I can't see anyone making a quad proc board for consumer use anytime soon. M
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hence 4x4. But it's 8 processor cores, not 16. But heck, when you buy a 4x4 truck do you expect 16 wheels?
Re: (Score:1)
I certainly don't expect 8.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
micro-ops fusion - 32 bit only. DMA - lower 32bit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:micro-ops fusion - 32 bit only. DMA - lower 32b (Score:3, Insightful)
and they support DMA on only memory addressable with a 32 bit pointer.
Indeed. Hence the software bounce buffer in Linux, to make up for the lack of an IOMMU. And while I'm extremely pleased with my recently-purchased E2700 Core 2 Duo box, I wonder how well the Core architecture will fare in quad/oct-core land, with it's memory access issues. The lack of both IOMMU and (more fundamentally) a per-core or per-die memory controller seriously hampers Core's ability to scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to break it to you, but...
I guess Intel's fog screen is working.
There is no E2700 "Core 2 Duo". You have a Yonah, not a Conroe, the "Core Duo E2700: 2.33 GHz, FSB 667" Yonah is not the same core as the Core 2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_mi croprocessors [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_ microprocessors [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My brief summary is this: For video and 3D rendering, quad core KICKS ASS. For more routine tasks, it's performance edge isn't a big deal and probably not worth it. Keep in mind though that these tests were done on "beta" chips, other performance areas and heat dissipation might improve
I really wish sites would do benchmarks on things like compilation times (a bunch of sites used to do this based on compilin
Re: (Score:2)
You know it's funny (Score:4, Interesting)
1) What's your source? Do you have some Intel technical docs that talk about how their chips are gimped in 64-bit? Remember: A post from some guy on some web forum isn't a legit source.
2) If that's the case, why do they perform well in 64-bit mode, in relation to 32-bit mode? You take things like, say, Prime95. Install XP 32-bit and XP-64-bit on the same system and do some benchmarks. You find that Prime95 gains a little bit of speed when both it and the OS are 64-bit compared to when both are 32-bit. So how's that happen? Isn't that counter-evidence to a poor 64-bit design?
I'm not claiming to have the answer here, just saying I see this "Pentium (and now Core2) sucks at t3h 64-bit, buy AMD!" trotted around a lot, but I see very little backing for it. So please, provide some relevant docs. What I'd like to see:
1) Intel tech docs describing the limitations of 64-bit support on the Core 2.
2) Benchmarks showing a non-trivial loss of speed in 64-bit. This means you take a 32-bit OS, 32-bit app, bench it, then a 64-bit OS and 64-bit app on the same system and rebench it.
3) Benchmarks showing the Core 2 vs Athlon on a 64-bit app, 64-bit OS.
If you haven't looked at things like that, you might want to reconsider the confidence with which you state your point of view. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that there appears to be counter evidence so you need to get some backing to try and straighten things out.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2 duo-64bit.html [xbitlabs.com]
Their conclusion
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the other reply to my comment - 32bit-address-only DMA is a well known limitation of the EM64T ISA. This limitation, by requiring additional memory copies, redu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fanboys (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, 'fanboys'
Just because I'm not rushing out to buy a Core 2 Duo system to replace or upgrade, and instead 'cling' to my AMD64 system, it doesn't make me an AMD fanboy. Core 2 Duo is looking like a fucking superb processor family, but I think I'lll get a bit more life out of my current system before diving into a complete upgrade / replacement of my current hardware thank you.
As a side note; does anyone have any info on what AMD are planning, if anything, to compete against the Core 2 Duo in the near future? I read something a while back about them switching to 65nm at a new fab, but I don't follow the processor market that closely anymore.
Context matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Barcelona / K8L (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD has a couple of interesting products comming out:
- First is 4x4, comming out in 4Q2006. This is essentially a dual-socket platform designed for the high-end desktop and low-end workstation/server market. This isn't a product for everyone, but it will make for a very price attractive dual-socket workstation. To start with, it will support two dual-core chips for a total of four cores. AMD has stated that later, when they release quad-core chips, 4x4 will support two of them for a total of eight cores. It's a niche market, but a neat idea.
- Second, AMD is releasing a new core in 2Q2007. This core has double the number of FP (floating point) pipelines, double the L1 cache bandwidth, larger reorder buffers, a L3 cache, and will come in dual and quad-core versions. This chip is going to be a beast, and will be supported in any current socket AM2 mother board. For more, read this: HardOCP [hardocp.com], HardOCP [hardocp.com]. This new core is the direct answer to Core2/conroe, and I expect it to be a good one. It looks really good on paper, and after seeing AMD's delivery of K8, I expect the new core to live up to the hype.
Fanboys aren't all bad (Score:2)
Consider Linux in the 0.x days, probably buggy as hell. Using Linux at that stage would have been irrational if you just chose what was best on the day. However, without those fanboys that believed in the long term dream and contributed, we'd never have got to where we are today.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Just because I'm not rushing out to buy a AMD64 system to replace or upgrade, and instead 'cling' to my P4 NetBurst system, it doesn't make me an Intel fanboy. AMD64 is looking like it royally fucking owns my processor family, but I think I'lll get a bit more life out o
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Not much perf difference... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fanboyism at its hight (Score:1, Insightful)
That said, I still lean AMD. If Intel lowers the cost on these chips and AMD stays where they are Intel will really have a lead. They certainly have a good product now. However, Once you add the and chips and boards to the basket (by new egg prices) the Intel solution is easily $100-200 more expensive when comparing equivalent power (especially budget) processors. Its not
Re:Fanboyism at its hight (Score:5, Insightful)
If you move away from performance as the only criteria, I think AMD competes well with the cost-to-dollar performance. HOWEVER, if you are willing to overclock, even the sub-$200 Core 2 Duo will outperform any desktop AMD chip you can buy-- at any price.
It's not a matter of fanboy-ism. It's a matter of numbers. Right now Intel wins on performance. That's just a fact. However, AMD could very well get back into the mix and make this argument mute in the near future.
Language tip of the day (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't game much so perhaps you are right on that front. However have one r
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You don't make arguments (or points) mute. You make them moot.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot [wiktionary.org]
Re: (Score:1)
That would make them mute.
Image macros with cute animals end any argument on the internet, everyone knows that.
Re:Fanboyism at its hight - Bad Logic (Score:2)
If so, you deny yourself the benefits available now from Intel for months, or years.
This is the mistake that Dell has made by sticking with Intel while AMD was clearly superior, and only now that Intel is ahead again after years in second place, then going to AMD. And you wonder why Dell is in so much trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the name-calling on both sides, the Core 2 Duo is a *very* fast chip.
steve
"Stubborn" eh? (Score:2, Troll)
Eh.. it depends. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it depends. Core 2 is really good at 32-bit single threaded tasks that fit inside a 4MB cache or have sequential memory access patters. On these workloads Core 2 will wipe the floor with AMD's K8, hands down. Just look at SuperPI scores for an example.
Here's the question though: What happens with heavily threaded 64-bit tasks that use much more than 4MB of memory in a random access pattern? AMD's K8 wipes the floor with Core 2, hands down.
There is a reason most gamers/encoders buy Core 2 for their desktops and many businesses and universities buy K8 Opterons for their servers and HPC centers.
Re: (Score:1)
Anyway, the riot over Core2 isn't that it's faster, it's because Intel stole all the advantages AMD used to have. Intel is no longer making clumsy, high heat/power, and expensive processors by comparison, they're equal now. More than equal, since directly comparing prices puts Intel *way* ahead. That's the catch, Intel is now better on th
Hardly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/08/31/four_cor es_on_the_rampage/xvid.png [tomshardware.com]
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/08/31/four_cor es_on_the_rampage/multi_1.png [tomshardware.com]
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/08/31/four_cor es_on_the_rampage/ogg.png [tomshardware.com]
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/08/31/four_cor es_on_the_rampage/3dm06-cpu.png [tomshardware.com]
No, I cant comment..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where Core 2 makes a difference is for the gamer who wants a fast machine at a good price. You can get a Core 2 that is comparable to an Athlon FX something like $400 cheaper. You can save even more if you are overclocking. Consider that a 1GHz overclock on low end Core 2s is commonly stabl
Parallel ATA isn't dead (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because serial ATA does have performance/connection advantages over parallel ATA, and the new Intel chipsets (965 series) are the fourth generation of Intel chipsets to support SATA (865/875 chipsets were released in May 2003). Intel thinks it's about time, and I think they might be right.
I think around 95% of all motherboards using the new Intel chipsets have at le
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm, the SATA connector is not the best designed connector in the world in my experience. And that appl
Re: (Score:2)
sneering works when facts fail you (Score:2)
True. The rest of us get incredible SMP scaling up to 32 cores on one motherboard, using Opteron socket F CPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's cheap cheap cheap. I've got one being built right now, as I write, that cost less than a two-year old Camry, with 2.4TB RAID and 64GB of ECC DDR2-667 included.
I wouldn't resort to HORUS until I needed to scale to double that CPU*RAM capacity, because it's
not cheap. You're talking new Z5 prices there, not used Camry prices.
atx vs btx (Score:2)
You see, I have several nice ATX cases and like to switch hardware between them.
If I have to buy BTX, my next CPU is still still likely to be AM2, not Core2 Duo...
Re: (Score:2)
P965 Crossfire vs P975x Crossfire (Score:1)
Article says to upgrade from Athlon 64? Why? (Score:1)
I'm sorry but I could envision the same idiot upgrading from his 2500mhz cpu to a 2800mhz cpu as soon as it comes out.
I upgraded from my 700mhz (overclocked from 533mhz) celeron, to an athlon xp 2500 to play Halo (I also got a decent graphics card of course). So far.. even the so called state of the art games coming out run smooth on this same machine. Half life 2 ep 1 is a
Re: (Score:2)
Acutally, it doesnt' say that. Seriously, RTFA, with comprehension this time.
Also, upgrading from a single-core Athlon 64 3000+ to a dual-core Core 2 Duo is a huge leap over the move from 2.5 to 2.8GHz. There are plenty of SMP-aware apps that scale quite nicely, and even ATI and Nvidia's graphics drivers are making use of dual-core chips to improve in-game frame rates.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
not only that, but i decided it was time to get a dual-core because i've started doing multiple things now that i have a pc that's capable. in the past, converting video or extracting, compressing, etc meant leaving my machine to do it's business (or just surf the net). now, i can encode a dvd image for easy access on
G965 Reviews? (Score:3, Informative)
If you want the new Linux XGL/AIGLX/Compiz functionality to work out of the box with no binary drivers, a G965 board may very well be what you are looking for.
The G965 chipset includes the new GMA X3000 graphics core, which is the only DX10 feature level graphics solution with FLOSS Linux drivers: http://intellinuxgraphics.org/ [intellinuxgraphics.org]
The new C2 stepping is rumoured to solve many of the performance problems of the first stepping, and although probably still not suitable for FPS gaming under Linux, other less demanding games and desktop users needs could be well met.
According to the Inq... (Score:2)
I wouldn't hold your breath. It took Intel three tries to make a modern embedded chipset with "decent" low-end performance, with the GMA 900, and that wasn't even very advanced. With hardware shaders, this is an entirely new concept for Intel to tackle, so give them till next chipset to beat the performance of the GMA 950.
Of course, the Inq could be full of shit, but when it comes to Intel and graphics I'
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, the G965 has terrible performance compared to the G945 (GMA 950) [pconline.com.cn], even when you take into account the new DirectX9/10 hardware vertex shaders.
Even in 3dmark 05 the "software vertex shader" GMA 950 beats the much beefier GMA 3000, and in the test with Quake 3 you can see how much the switch back to TWO ROPs (GMA 950 had four) hurts overall performance. GMA 900 is a flop under DX9, and it will continue to be a flop under DX10.
And, as always,
Call me a fanboy if you must... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This link (http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts / 30922105.pdf) [intel.com] points to the Core Duo data sheet. Where does it say it is 64 bit capable ? I can't see it.
I have been researching notebooks in the last few hours and the only ones I can definitly say are 64 bit capable are the AMD AM2 Turion's. Also, if you look at this link: AMD benchmark PDF [amd.com], it's hard t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Go a
Playing Hopscotch (Score:4, Interesting)
Intel is likely to make some inroads in the server market except... well, except unfortunately Core Duo doesn't scale as well once you go to quad cpu setups due to the memory bottleneck. So their only real claim to fame is power use. Power is extremely important in the long term, but I don't see anyone rushing to replace all their AMD boxes with core duo just for that when they know AMD will come up with a power-competitive design in fairly short order.
The real problem Intel has is their inability to compete with Hypertransport. AMD is already pushing hard to make it a defacto standard for chip interconnect. Intel is working on their own solutions to the problem, but they are not hitting on all cylinders yet.
If anything is going to drive machine replacement in today's market, it is going to be the new ultra-fast PCI bus technologies. PCI has needed an upgrade for a long, long time. Nothing else will have much of an impact. GiGE is already faster then most hard drives so there isn't going to be much of a consumer push for 10GiGE. Cpu's are already fast enough and machines are already quiet enough. We are a far cry from the old days where every new advance doubled the performance of the previous year's boxes. In today's world magazines proclaim victory and tell people to trash their old machines for barely a 10% improvement, but unless there is a huge improvement in video technology even game players have no real reason to do so any more. The connection to the video card is the only thing left for which significant improvements can drive machine replacement.
-Matt
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Power Consumption (Score:2)
I hope ATI still releases an Intel RD580 chipset. They are pretty power efficient and acceptable performers. I'm just waiting for one to get used in a small form factor system.
-LM
Core 2 vs The World (tm) (Score:2, Interesting)
Systems Involved
Dual P4 Xeon 3.4GHz (will refer to this as "P4")
Dual Core 2 Duo Xeon 5160 3.0GHz (will refer to this as "Core2")
Test suite for our
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because they were absolute crap compared to what AMD has been putting out.
Core 2 now gives Intel something to actually compare with AMDs. Saying Core 2 is competitive with AMD 64 aready clearly states that it blows P4's out of the water. Who cares by how much? Anyone concerned with performance is going to base the comparison vs AMD's offerings, because they were the only realistic choice before Core 2.
Intel vs AMD Prices (Score:3, Informative)
SERIOUS problems with that chipset (Score:2)
However, I am having a fucking nightmare trying to get any DVDs to play on it (one of the reasons I wanted it silent). The Intel P965 chipset includes ICH8, which should be brilliant but has some serious problems with drive support when compared with its older sibling the ICH7.
It doesn't have P-ATA IDE support as standard, but sort of "cobble
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They could publish "buttmark" synthetic benchmarks too.
Got to say for once, Intel have a superior product (if they're really lucky, it might be competive with the K8L [xbitlabs.com], if not they have the resources for Core3) but their marketing sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
And all the hype about 4x4 is really just AMD's attempt to counter Intel's upcoming quad core chips, which will be out in the same timeframe. 4x4's just a fancy name for what you've been able to do with a pair of dual-core Opterons on motherboards with dual graphics slots for quite some time now. The only real difference is that those Opterons have required regi