Intel 945P Motherboards: Going from Hopeless to Enthusiastic
by Gary Key on November 15, 2005 12:02 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
FOXCONN 945P7AA-8EKRS2: Features
The Intel ICH7R IDE port connector is located in between the Intel SATA II and ITE 8211F IDE port connectors. Cable management was an issue in this area as a typical IDE ribbon cable created partial access to the SATA II ports.
The Intel SATA II ports are located between the ICH7R chipset and Intel ICH7R IDE connector. The SATA II ports do not feature the new clamp and latch design. Foxconn should have included the new design as it enhances the security of the SATA connections. Twice in our testing, we had a SATA cable come loose and cause an issue.
The ITE 8211F IDE port connectors are located to the left of the Intel ICH7R IDE port and could create cable clutter in certain case designs.
The Intel USB connectors are located above the Intel SATA II ports and in between the ICH7R chipset and Intel IDE port connector. The USB connectors sit on either side of the capacitors and are truly located in a cluttered area. The IEEE 1394a connector is located between the x16 PCI Express slot and the first 32bit PCI slot. The CMOS reset is a traditional jumper design located conveniently along the edge of the board.
The board comes with (1) physical PCI Express x16 slots, (3) 32bit PCI slots, and (2) PCI Express x1 slots. The layout of this design offers a very good balance of slots and allows for numerous add-in peripheral cards.
However, in between the x16 PCI Express slot and first 32bit PCI slot are two x1 PCI Express slots. This configuration could potentially render the first x1 PCI Express slot useless when utilizing the x16 PCI Express slot. We did not have any issues utilizing this slot with video cards containing single slot cooling systems, but we were unable to install a network card upon installation of a NVIDIA 6800 Ultra in the x16 PCI Express slot.
The Northbridge and Southbridge chipsets are passively cooled with large heatsinks that do not interfere with any installed peripherals. In fact, this system, like the other two boards, kept the chipsets cool enough so that additional chipset voltage was not a factor in our overclocking tests. Foxconn places the four-pin 12V auxiliary power connector to the left of the CPU socket area, which could cause cable management issues.
The BIOS options are limited on the Foxconn 945P7AA-8EKRS2, with memory voltage to 1.9V, and a limited range of chipset, bus, and vCore voltage adjustments. Memory ratios are limited compared to the nForce4 Intel Edition boards and the 945P boards that were reviewed. The board fully supports manual memory timing adjustments or allows for an Auto setting that will set the memory to the SPD settings.
The Intel ICH7R IDE port connector is located in between the Intel SATA II and ITE 8211F IDE port connectors. Cable management was an issue in this area as a typical IDE ribbon cable created partial access to the SATA II ports.
The Intel SATA II ports are located between the ICH7R chipset and Intel ICH7R IDE connector. The SATA II ports do not feature the new clamp and latch design. Foxconn should have included the new design as it enhances the security of the SATA connections. Twice in our testing, we had a SATA cable come loose and cause an issue.
The ITE 8211F IDE port connectors are located to the left of the Intel ICH7R IDE port and could create cable clutter in certain case designs.
The Intel USB connectors are located above the Intel SATA II ports and in between the ICH7R chipset and Intel IDE port connector. The USB connectors sit on either side of the capacitors and are truly located in a cluttered area. The IEEE 1394a connector is located between the x16 PCI Express slot and the first 32bit PCI slot. The CMOS reset is a traditional jumper design located conveniently along the edge of the board.
The board comes with (1) physical PCI Express x16 slots, (3) 32bit PCI slots, and (2) PCI Express x1 slots. The layout of this design offers a very good balance of slots and allows for numerous add-in peripheral cards.
However, in between the x16 PCI Express slot and first 32bit PCI slot are two x1 PCI Express slots. This configuration could potentially render the first x1 PCI Express slot useless when utilizing the x16 PCI Express slot. We did not have any issues utilizing this slot with video cards containing single slot cooling systems, but we were unable to install a network card upon installation of a NVIDIA 6800 Ultra in the x16 PCI Express slot.
The Northbridge and Southbridge chipsets are passively cooled with large heatsinks that do not interfere with any installed peripherals. In fact, this system, like the other two boards, kept the chipsets cool enough so that additional chipset voltage was not a factor in our overclocking tests. Foxconn places the four-pin 12V auxiliary power connector to the left of the CPU socket area, which could cause cable management issues.
The BIOS options are limited on the Foxconn 945P7AA-8EKRS2, with memory voltage to 1.9V, and a limited range of chipset, bus, and vCore voltage adjustments. Memory ratios are limited compared to the nForce4 Intel Edition boards and the 945P boards that were reviewed. The board fully supports manual memory timing adjustments or allows for an Auto setting that will set the memory to the SPD settings.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
26 Comments
View All Comments
MadAd - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
Overall another good review Gary, thanks a lot, just one thingQuote:
"We will be reviewing additional sound card results in our next article."
Could you please include at least one external USB sound card/processor? They are getting more and more available and my thinking is based on the observation that more and more mobo designs are making it hard to plug in PCI cards when you have double width x16 cards.
SLId double width cards in the P5N32 (as well as the A8N32, not being tested here) would only leave one pci slot and since I have an ide raid array with at least a year or 2s life in it, that leaves me with no slot for a sound card therefore say, a USB Audigy NX would be useful. This would apply to other people with other cards such as mpeg, extra nics etc... two other boards in the review here (Asus + Epox) leave only 2 pci slots so its still a possibility to offload sound to the usb, provided the performance was not horrible.
Thanks a lot
Gary Key - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
I will see what I can do. The next article will have the X-FI, HDA Mystique 7.1, and a surprise audio solution. ;-)
I completely agree about losing the slots and did not like Asus's AMD layout with both PCI slots in the middle. Due to SLI and CrossFire the available real estate on the board is shrinking rapidly and at this time we know of no PCI-e audio solutions on the horizon. It will be PCI or on-board for a while so proper slot layout or better audio solutions are a must.
I have found through repeated testing (over 300 runs) of our BF2 benchmark that the largest impact to the sound results were with the aircraft. We would get frame stuttering with the ALC88x solutions when the aircraft came on screen during the benchmark. However, the sound quality was very good in all games and was quite a surprise after hearing the SB Z2S in comparison (not saying it is better but good enough for most people). I am continuing testing in this area along with headphones and 7.1 output now instead of 2,4, and 5.1 output.
Missing Ghost - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
That's sad. I want pcie sound cards.yacoub - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
See, sound enabled can make a HUGE difference. Thanks for testing that, Gary. The obnoxious few around here that actually DON'T want you to test that because they think they know everything and "oh it doesn't make that much difference and it's just making more work for the reviewer" can go eat their feet. Here's damning proof it can and does make a huge difference in the performance even on this system with an 820D and 7800GTX OC!Houdani - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
Dude, no one argues that sound has no influence on benchmarks. Particularly the case of integrated sound. It makes sense to test the affect of sound when you're testing a motherboard which has on-board sound to see it's impact.HOWEVER, when you're reviewing a graphics card or processor, the sound should be removed from the equation entirely so as to test the product with the fewest amount of outside variables possible. After all, in those reviews we want to see the performance of the individual component, NOT the performance of the system as a whole.
yacoub - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
You might, but that would be silly. Gamers care infinitely more how the new graphics card does in the real world - ie, playing games - and that would be with sound enabled considering most of us are not deaf. It's great that it's all uber and whatnot - cool, that's fine. Now also show us how it does in a real rig under real conditions. It's not asking much and it's a lot more useful for those of us trying to decide which GPU we should get.peldor - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
It's just not interesting to do so. Anyone serious enough about gaming to buy an expensive video card can spend <$50 for a sound card which puts the actual fps difference into the low single digits. In a video card review, all that's going to happen is that the scores drop by 2-4 fps across the board. That's not going to really change the relative performance.yacoub - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
Situation: You have to upgrade your GPU no matter what. You have a soundcard you are happy with. You want to know if CardA will provide enough performance gain for your system or if you should go with CardB instead. You cannot tell that with the current GPU tests done at Anandtech.Houdani - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
Well, see, that's where I go out and read sound card reviews -- to see how much system overhead they require. I pick and choose based on individual price/performance for all the components, which gives me an idea of how the completed system will perform.We clearly have different philosophies for how we select our components, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just happen to prefer the "filtered" performance benchmarks which isolate (as much as possible) the individual components because that provides me with the purest data for making my buying choices. It's then up to me to put all the pieces together in my head, knowing the individual contributions for each component based on reviews for each part.
Today I get to enjoy the goodness of putting together a Shuttle SFF, X2 4400+, 7800GT, 2GB RAM, et al. Reading a review of the 7800GT on a DFI motherboard with an X-Fi soundcard isn't nearly as useful to me as reading a review of the vid card in an isolated environment. Why? Because my system isn't the same as the reviewer's benchmarking system. Therefore, the isolated scores of the video card works best for me. The same can be said for the HDD, memory, processor, optical drive, ...
yacoub - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
Funny, when I'm in the market for a new GPU, I don't go read soundcard reviews - I already have a soundcard! What I would want to know, though, is whether or not a -CardA- is going to give me enough performance boost over my current card or if I need to step up to a -CardB-. Your backwards approach is funny, and it supports the status quo, but it still isn't logical.