SUBZERO BENCHMARKING with the Gigabyte GA-X48T-DQ6

The "official" release of Intel's X48 chipset is on the horizon, which means the major manufacturers are readying their products for release. We already have several X48 boards in-house that we are running through the paces and feel confident enough to start providing a few unique performance previews over the coming days.



The first board up is Gigabyte's GA-X48T-DQ6 that features DDR3 capabilities and a whole host of technology improvements such as Dynamic Power Saver (DPS), improved components and circuitry layout, auto DDR3-1900 overclocking via XMP, and 2-phase power designs for the X48 MCH chipset and memory slots. We will provide an overview into these features, BIOS design, and complete performance results in our next article, but for now, let's see how this board performs when pushed to the limit with our Cascade cooling setup.

Test Setup

Gigabyte GA-X48T-DQ6
Overclocking/Benchmark Testbed
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650
Quad Core, 3.0GHz, 2X6MB Cache, 9x Multiplier, 1333FSB
CPU Voltage 1.80V
Cooling Dual Cascades by LittleDevil & Johann Marais
Power Supply PCP1200W
Memory 2x1GB OCZ DDR3 PC3-14400 (DDR-1800) Platinum Edition
Memory Settings Various
Video Cards ASUS 8800 GTS 640MB
Video Drivers NVIDIA 169.25
Hard Drive Western Digital 7200RPM 250GB SATA 3/Gbps 16MB Buffer
Optical Drives Plextor PX-B900A, Toshiba SD-H802A
Case open Test Bed - Dimastech Benching Station
BIOS F3C
Operating System Windows XP SP2
.


We have been fortunate to spend the last few days benchmarking this board before feeling comfortable enough with the last BIOS release to use our cascade cooling setup. We initially started using an E6850 processor but found FSB limits a little lower than we had anticipated. Gigabyte sent us a number of BIOS revisions that greatly improved overclocking and memory timings, but we found that nothing over 540FSB on our E6850 would hold steady. This CPU managed between 540-570FSB on the Asus Maximus Extreme.

Although extreme benchmarking with our QX9650 Quad core CPU had not been pleasant for us in the past on a variety of different motherboards, we decided to have another run at achieving speeds that had previously eluded us on the X38 boards. Our QX9650 processor has a cold boot issue at -61 Celsius and idle shutdown temperature of -94. So we knew we would be in for a rough time cycling our cascades to remain below this boot-up temperature. Gigabyte's Easy Tune 5 software was very useful in helping us to maintain a steady evaporator temperature (below idle shutoff) by allowing us to adjust CPU Vcore on the fly in Windows. Without this ability, we would not have completed our benchmarks today. Let's take a quick look at our initial results.

Fa-la-la-la-lots of records for this holiday season...
POST A COMMENT

22 Comments

View All Comments

  • Bjenkin - Monday, July 21, 2008 - link

    I bought this mother, did a bios upgrade to ver. F5 and all went ok... but after a reboot entered a power cycling boot.
    Im still looking for a solution
    Reply
  • k3NzO - Friday, January 11, 2008 - link

    support gForce graphic or only ATI? Reply
  • ahron - Saturday, December 29, 2007 - link

    I thought that those screen shots were also of poor quality, they should have cropped them. Reply
  • JKflipflop98 - Saturday, December 29, 2007 - link

    Geez man, people will bitch about anything. I for one thought this lil quick and dirty article was a neat change of pace. It's not everyday anandtech rigs up a cascade cooling solution and breaks every world record out there.

    But. . . OMFG! I had to click an extra time to see the pictures! Whaaaaaa. Motherboards that aren't even relevant to this article don't work on 45nm because my friend says so. Whaaaaa. Douchebags.
    Reply
  • 4Linux - Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - link

    The bigger story is why doesn't 31/33 chipset boards work with 45nM CPU's. It doesn't pass the smell test.
    Didn't anyone notice? Care?

    These boards were made for 45nM CPU's and they don't work. Isn't that a "story"?
    Reply
  • SRoode - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link

    The 3DMark 2006 screen shows two different scores. 15628 and 16128...

    How did this happen?
    Reply
  • wingless - Sunday, December 30, 2007 - link

    6106 + 5881 + 8265 = 20252?!??!

    Those scores are wrong to begin with. WTF?
    Reply
  • Rajinder Gill - Tuesday, January 01, 2008 - link

    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=434375...">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=434375...

    That is the ORB link proving the score to be genuine.

    Secondly, 3D MArk 06 uses an algorithm to work oput the final system score, it is not a direct addition of the 3 scores as one would
    assume.

    Regards
    Raja
    Reply
  • Rajinder Gill - Friday, December 28, 2007 - link

    The score in the £d mark original is form the previous bench. That score will not update until the current score window is closed.

    regards
    Raja
    Reply
  • OccamsAftershave - Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - link

    This stateoftheArt board has a floppy connector? Instead of, say, a second IDE? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now