I been a Intel user since the first Pentium 3 came out now I have a Intel P4 3.0C I refused to spend more money on things I had already bought so I stayed with the 478 socket, seeing as Intel wants me to move to an expensive platform, I say I'll ditch Intel head with the AMD crowd, I'm sure I won't be the only one, maybe legions of intel campers will leave.
About the config I put together in the previous post; does anyone know if the overclock lock on the 915P chipsets apply to lower FSB's too? Could I overclock the 133MHz Celeron D to 200MHz on any 915P motherboard?
The processor can be overclocked to 3.6+GHz very easily, much like the Athlon Mobiles.
That makes a good budget gaming rig, better than anything you could put together with an AMD processor for the same money. So, at least in my opinion, AMD has a better mainstream/high-end processor, and Intel wins the value segment. Who would say?
--
I have now read the entire article, and oh boy! Though I prefer to read about socket 754/939 motherboards, this has to be the best motherboard roundup I ever read. Ever. Well done.
--
#22,
thank your fixing it. The typo I wrote about on page 10:
"The fact that Asus manages a higher OC than more recognized OC boards like DFI and Asus "
The P5GD2 is expensive compared to most boards, but it includes a ton of stuff, like 8 SATA ports, dual gigabit LAN, on-board 802.11g/b, and on-board hi-def audio with Dolby Digital Live (realtime encoding, like SoundStorm).
Most 915P boards aren't as close to as expensive as the Asus. The Abit AG8 is ~ $130, equal or cheaper in price than the K8N Neo2.
#16 - After I did the price analysis today I changed "outstanding value" to "good value". Thanks for the comment about the review being good reading. It is appreciated as a huge amount of work went into this roundup.
Sorry Didn't see your reply before I posted Wesley.
Sure there is some value to be had but not "outstanding". I still don't agree with you but I guess my mind is made up. Intel needs to come out with something new before I go back.
As a roundup it was very good reading tough. I can't wait for the next AMD roundup to hit AnandTech.
"The P5GD2 is an expensive motherboard, at about $240 on the web, but you can get almost all the same features in the P5GD2 Deluxe for about $50 less."
Thats expensive to me. Compare that to the 134.99 for the 939 Gold Editors Choice winner "MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum"
But thats not the point. If the 915P was substantially cheaper then a 939 system you might call it value for money but is it not. Mind you a 939 board is generally not cheap either but at least it delivers in comparison.
The CPU used in the review that hardly beat the much cheaper 3500+ had a max overclock of 14% and I bet you would find it hard to reach that high without the CPU overheating and start throttling http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=2345...
LGA775 CPUs does not offer great overclocking headroom compared to the much cheaper earlier Intel platforms or AMD for that matter. Sure they still overclock but nothing that we haven't seen before at higher cost and temperature. Again not what I would call outstanding.
#11 - We just ran the 3500+ benchmarks in the same configuration this morning, and we do agree that the 3500+ is a particularly good value in performance for the dollar. However, the larger picture of prices of AMD CPUs compared to Intel show the Intel processors are a good, if not outstanding, value.
Our conclusion was based on Anand's value analysis in the 3.46EE/1066 launch review at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... There he compared the 3800+ at over $600 to a Intel 560 3.6GHz at about $450 and found the 3800+ the winner but probably not a big enough winner to justify the price premium for the 3800+. At that time, there was no 570 (3.8GHz) and the 3.6 was the fastest Intel CPU unless you considered the $1000+ Xeon-based EE processors. Price changes continue, and with them the value relationships do change.
With current prices we would have to agree that there is really no great value advantage to Intel any more. But there is good value in the Intel processors from 2.8GHz (520) to 3.6GHz (560). Certainly the 4000+, at $80 less than the 570 and faster performance, and the FX55 at about the same price as 570 and significantly faster in most benchmarks, are better value at the top. But we still stand by Intel being good value in the middle.
"outstanding value and performance for your buying dollar" ?????????? at $240 for a Mobo?..I guess I need to retake Economics 101...Bah...Intel just continues to shot themselves in the foot. A side note not related to this review..Dell must be deep inside of Intel's pocketbook with there contiued refusal to market AMD based products.
#11 - 915P motherboards are not expensive. They are equal or cheaper in price than socket 939 A64 motherboards.
LGA775 CPUs offer great overclocking headroom if paired with the right board. Intel CPUs have traditionally have had more OCing headroom than AMD chips. That still holds true, for the most part, today. Especially when talking about the low-end chips, like the 2.8GHz.
I'm sorry but I don't see the "outstanding value and performance for your buying dollar"
Expensive Motherboards and CPUs with little overclocking headroom compared to the Athlon 64 competition. How does that translate to excellent value and performance? even the much cheaper 3500 comes out on top on most benchmarks.
Sure there are niche markets where the Intel platform excels but for the big majority of us AMD is where its at right now.
I don't think this review is in sync with your conclusion so either list some valid arguments for your point (Since its not there in the benchmarks) or edit the conclusion.
#4,#5,#6 - The Athlon 64 results with the FX55 were included for Reference, and not direct comparison. However you do make a good point.
The closest A64 we had in the lab to a 3.6GHz 560 was the 3500+ based on the 90nm process. This should provide an advantage to the Intel 560. Since there are complaints here the FX55 is too high end, these new tests tilted toward Intel should balance the playing field. The 3500+ costs about $265 and the Intel 560 (3.6GHz) is about $455, so the 560 is about 70% more expensive than the 3500+.
The added 3500+ benchmarks were also an opportunity to test with the SAME ATI X800XT PCIe we used in benchmarking the 915 boards. Enjoy!
Color codes have been updated and there are now 3500+ results on the Gigabyte nForce4 with the ATI X800XT PCIe in all benchmarks.
Original plans were to include the Intel 570 in this roundup, but much of the testing was already done when the Intel 3.8GHz CPU was launched. This Intel 3.8 is priced at around $800, which is very close to the FX55. You can see how it compares to the FX55 in performance in Anand's launch article at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
It's a pity that all these 4 dimm slot, dual channel
MB's have such a rough time doing it. Imagine trying
to run 4 1GB dimms in DC, this goes for ddr1 as well 2.
Of course the Pentium 4 560 is gonna be outperformed, The Pentium 4 560 is designed to compete at the 417US price point while the Athlon FX 55 is designed for the 827US, were talking double the P4 560 in price. i believethe closest competitor for the Pentium 4 560 in price is probably the Athlon 64 3700+ even though it is on Single Channel DDR.
I know comments like I'm about to make have been made before, and I am not biased, but I wanted to reiterate.
Why is the FX-55 even part of the benchmarks in this review? Why not a 3500+? The FX-55 is TWICE the price of the Pentium 560 according to current Newegg prices.
I know the argument will be that the FX-55 and the 560 are two of the highest performing chips from the two camps. But the fact of the matter is that most people shopping for a 560 aren't going to be shopping for a FX-55. It's in an entirely different class.
Can you do a comparison between soundstorm and dolby digital live? What is the bitrate of the encoding? Frequency range? Overall quality?
It seems like this may be the second time I pass on AC3 encoding though. Last time I chose a northwood platform over AMD and NF2, and this time I'll likely choose the NF4 over intel and dolby digital live.
Would be nice to be able to easily hook it up to my klipsch dolby digital decodor though...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
26 Comments
Back to Article
krelian - Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - link
I been a Intel user since the first Pentium 3 came out now I have a Intel P4 3.0C I refused to spend more money on things I had already bought so I stayed with the 478 socket, seeing as Intel wants me to move to an expensive platform, I say I'll ditch Intel head with the AMD crowd, I'm sure I won't be the only one, maybe legions of intel campers will leave.ChineseDemocracyGNR - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
About the config I put together in the previous post; does anyone know if the overclock lock on the 915P chipsets apply to lower FSB's too? Could I overclock the 133MHz Celeron D to 200MHz on any 915P motherboard?ChineseDemocracyGNR - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
The 915P chipset provides good value for the money. For example:ECS 915P-A $79
Intel Celeron D 325J 2.53GHz $88
Albatron GeForce 6600 128MB $120.50
or
Albatron GeForce 6600GT 128MB $190.50
(newegg prices)
The processor can be overclocked to 3.6+GHz very easily, much like the Athlon Mobiles.
That makes a good budget gaming rig, better than anything you could put together with an AMD processor for the same money. So, at least in my opinion, AMD has a better mainstream/high-end processor, and Intel wins the value segment. Who would say?
--
I have now read the entire article, and oh boy! Though I prefer to read about socket 754/939 motherboards, this has to be the best motherboard roundup I ever read. Ever. Well done.
--
#22,
thank your fixing it. The typo I wrote about on page 10:
"The fact that Asus manages a higher OC than more recognized OC boards like DFI and Asus "
Don't you mean ABIT in the last word there?
ocyl - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Wesley > Thank you for paying attention to the audio features/components of these motherboards, particularly Dolby Digital Live :)Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
#21 - The Foxconn results have been corrected on p.20. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.ChineseDemocracyGNR - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
A few typos:"The fact that Asus manages a higher OC than more recognized OC boards like DFI and Asus "
page 10.
On page 20, the "Front Side Bus Overclocking Testbed" table is probably wrong.
---
Good article.
LeadFrog - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Why does only the socket 915 get a 16mb cache Hard Drive?danidentity - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Wes, I said thanks before but I'll say it again, great roundup. We appreciate your hard work, always.danidentity - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Live -The P5GD2 is expensive compared to most boards, but it includes a ton of stuff, like 8 SATA ports, dual gigabit LAN, on-board 802.11g/b, and on-board hi-def audio with Dolby Digital Live (realtime encoding, like SoundStorm).
Most 915P boards aren't as close to as expensive as the Asus. The Abit AG8 is ~ $130, equal or cheaper in price than the K8N Neo2.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
#16 - After I did the price analysis today I changed "outstanding value" to "good value". Thanks for the comment about the review being good reading. It is appreciated as a huge amount of work went into this roundup.Live - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Sorry Didn't see your reply before I posted Wesley.Sure there is some value to be had but not "outstanding". I still don't agree with you but I guess my mind is made up. Intel needs to come out with something new before I go back.
As a roundup it was very good reading tough. I can't wait for the next AMD roundup to hit AnandTech.
Live - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
#12"The P5GD2 is an expensive motherboard, at about $240 on the web, but you can get almost all the same features in the P5GD2 Deluxe for about $50 less."
Thats expensive to me. Compare that to the 134.99 for the 939 Gold Editors Choice winner "MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum"
But thats not the point. If the 915P was substantially cheaper then a 939 system you might call it value for money but is it not. Mind you a 939 board is generally not cheap either but at least it delivers in comparison.
The CPU used in the review that hardly beat the much cheaper 3500+ had a max overclock of 14% and I bet you would find it hard to reach that high without the CPU overheating and start throttling http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=2345...
LGA775 CPUs does not offer great overclocking headroom compared to the much cheaper earlier Intel platforms or AMD for that matter. Sure they still overclock but nothing that we haven't seen before at higher cost and temperature. Again not what I would call outstanding.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
#11 - We just ran the 3500+ benchmarks in the same configuration this morning, and we do agree that the 3500+ is a particularly good value in performance for the dollar. However, the larger picture of prices of AMD CPUs compared to Intel show the Intel processors are a good, if not outstanding, value.Our conclusion was based on Anand's value analysis in the 3.46EE/1066 launch review at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... There he compared the 3800+ at over $600 to a Intel 560 3.6GHz at about $450 and found the 3800+ the winner but probably not a big enough winner to justify the price premium for the 3800+. At that time, there was no 570 (3.8GHz) and the 3.6 was the fastest Intel CPU unless you considered the $1000+ Xeon-based EE processors. Price changes continue, and with them the value relationships do change.
A quick check of prices today shows
Intel 520(2.8GHz)- $160 AMD 2800+(754) - $128
Intel 530(3.0GHz)- $180 AMD A64 3000+ - $152
Intel 540(3.2GHz)- $220 AMD A64 3200+ - $194
Intel 550(3.4GHz)- $282 AMD A64 3400+ - $269
Intel 560(3.6GHz)- $455 AMD A64 3500+ - $270
Intel 570(3.8GHz)- $795 AMD A64 3800+ - $630
AMD A64 4000+ - $716
AMD A64 FX55 - $812
With current prices we would have to agree that there is really no great value advantage to Intel any more. But there is good value in the Intel processors from 2.8GHz (520) to 3.6GHz (560). Certainly the 4000+, at $80 less than the 570 and faster performance, and the FX55 at about the same price as 570 and significantly faster in most benchmarks, are better value at the top. But we still stand by Intel being good value in the middle.
deathwalker - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
"outstanding value and performance for your buying dollar" ?????????? at $240 for a Mobo?..I guess I need to retake Economics 101...Bah...Intel just continues to shot themselves in the foot. A side note not related to this review..Dell must be deep inside of Intel's pocketbook with there contiued refusal to market AMD based products.danidentity - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
#11 - 915P motherboards are not expensive. They are equal or cheaper in price than socket 939 A64 motherboards.LGA775 CPUs offer great overclocking headroom if paired with the right board. Intel CPUs have traditionally have had more OCing headroom than AMD chips. That still holds true, for the most part, today. Especially when talking about the low-end chips, like the 2.8GHz.
Live - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
I'm sorry but I don't see the "outstanding value and performance for your buying dollar"Expensive Motherboards and CPUs with little overclocking headroom compared to the Athlon 64 competition. How does that translate to excellent value and performance? even the much cheaper 3500 comes out on top on most benchmarks.
Sure there are niche markets where the Intel platform excels but for the big majority of us AMD is where its at right now.
I don't think this review is in sync with your conclusion so either list some valid arguments for your point (Since its not there in the benchmarks) or edit the conclusion.
danidentity - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Wesley, thanks for including tests from a more comparable AMD CPU. Listening to your readers is always appreciated.Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
#4,#5,#6 - The Athlon 64 results with the FX55 were included for Reference, and not direct comparison. However you do make a good point.The closest A64 we had in the lab to a 3.6GHz 560 was the 3500+ based on the 90nm process. This should provide an advantage to the Intel 560. Since there are complaints here the FX55 is too high end, these new tests tilted toward Intel should balance the playing field. The 3500+ costs about $265 and the Intel 560 (3.6GHz) is about $455, so the 560 is about 70% more expensive than the 3500+.
The added 3500+ benchmarks were also an opportunity to test with the SAME ATI X800XT PCIe we used in benchmarking the 915 boards. Enjoy!
Color codes have been updated and there are now 3500+ results on the Gigabyte nForce4 with the ATI X800XT PCIe in all benchmarks.
Original plans were to include the Intel 570 in this roundup, but much of the testing was already done when the Intel 3.8GHz CPU was launched. This Intel 3.8 is priced at around $800, which is very close to the FX55. You can see how it compares to the FX55 in performance in Anand's launch article at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
CrystalBay - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
It's a pity that all these 4 dimm slot, dual channelMB's have such a rough time doing it. Imagine trying
to run 4 1GB dimms in DC, this goes for ddr1 as well 2.
Glassmaster - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Now that Northwood and 865/875 are on the way out, only a fool would buy Intel.Glassmaster.
coldpower27 - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Of course the Pentium 4 560 is gonna be outperformed, The Pentium 4 560 is designed to compete at the 417US price point while the Athlon FX 55 is designed for the 827US, were talking double the P4 560 in price. i believethe closest competitor for the Pentium 4 560 in price is probably the Athlon 64 3700+ even though it is on Single Channel DDR.danidentity - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Even the 3800+ could be included, but that is still about $180 more expensive than the 560, according to Newegg.danidentity - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
I know comments like I'm about to make have been made before, and I am not biased, but I wanted to reiterate.Why is the FX-55 even part of the benchmarks in this review? Why not a 3500+? The FX-55 is TWICE the price of the Pentium 560 according to current Newegg prices.
I know the argument will be that the FX-55 and the 560 are two of the highest performing chips from the two camps. But the fact of the matter is that most people shopping for a 560 aren't going to be shopping for a FX-55. It's in an entirely different class.
mongoosesRawesome - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Can you do a comparison between soundstorm and dolby digital live? What is the bitrate of the encoding? Frequency range? Overall quality?It seems like this may be the second time I pass on AC3 encoding though. Last time I chose a northwood platform over AMD and NF2, and this time I'll likely choose the NF4 over intel and dolby digital live.
Would be nice to be able to easily hook it up to my klipsch dolby digital decodor though...
anandtechrocks - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Thanks for the great review!MAME - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
AMD >>>>>>>>>>>>> *