Comments Locked

58 Comments

Back to Article

  • drewintheav - Sunday, May 27, 2007 - link

    When you tested the P5K Deluxe Wifi mainboard and OCZ Reaper 9200 ddr2 memory were you able to boot up with with both modules of the reaper memory installed or did you have to boot up with a different memory and then adjust the ddr2 voltage to 2.3?

    I can not boot with all settings on the Asus P5K Deluxe Wifi set to default. The motherboard starts up but the screen stays black and there is no beep or POST information displayed.

    Were you able to boot up no problem? I was able to boot no problem at default settings on my Asus Commando with the same OCZ Reaper 9200. Do you think I need to replace my motherboard? I also have had the pc spontaneously restart twice now.

    Thanks in advance for any info or suggestions that you can provide.
  • Stele - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Most sites seem to list Asus's high-end boards as having 8-phase power, as per the spec sheet provided by Asus. However, I've a funny feeling that it might not be so, despite the number of MOSFET "sets" and inductors. When I was working on P5B Deluxe boards, which also supposedly sports 8-phase power, I noticed that they used the Analog Devices ADP3198 synchronous buck controller. This controller supports up to 4 phases max, which suggests that the 8 apparent phases are actually arranged in two sets of 4-phase circuitry running in parallel. If this is true, it's an unfortunate bit of misleading marketing, though it was probably due to the pressure in keeping up with gimmicky competitors touting quantity (6-phase, 12-phase, xx-phase) over quality (component/circuitry design/implementation).

    The presence of a 'voltage damper' setting in BIOS for the P5Ks seem to hint at the possibility of something new, however: either the presence a new PWM controller or some additional droop compensation circuitry. I'm guessing it's still an ADP3198, and hence the latter scenario. Would it be possible to find out what controller's being used on the P5K, pretty please? :P

    IMHO, while the Analog PWM controllers have generally been stellar performers in their own right, they ought to start improving their products so that manufacturers would have to worry less about breaking relationships with them and jump ship - especially with, for example, Intersil having excellent analog (up to 6 phases) and digital PWM controllers.
  • Stele - Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - link

    Now that I recall, Gigabyte too is in the habit of being rather liberal with how they count phases... in fact they're arguably one of the first to do so, along with their DPS gimmick in the 875 days. The DQ6 is listed and marketed has having 12 phases, but if I remember correctly, Gigabyte uses an Intersil ISL6327 for their 12-phase products (at least the GA-965P-DQ6 did so). This is a 6-phase controller, which means that, as in the case of the Asus designs mentioned above, the "12-phase" power claimed by Gigabyte is little more than two sets of 6 phases in parallel. Is this still the case in the P35-DQ6?

    If so, it'd be good to point out the reality under misleading hype, so that if nothing else, readers and potential buyers are better informed - and to underscore the fact that there are hardware sites who do know their stuff and who don't simply swallow and parrot whatever the manufacturers throw at them.

    Just my 2 cents'!
  • shabby - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    The loop-de-loop kicks ass on the msi board :D
  • TA152H - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    I agree, I don't know why, but I need it!
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    It actually works also, a lot less aluminum than the Gigabyte and ASUS solutions, yet the MCH/PWM area seemed to be within 1C of the other boards in our early testing with the Quad. Still not a big fan of the "designs" coming out but to each his own. I think the new abit P35 board as the best looking heatpipe system but then I like it old school... :)
  • TA152H - Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - link

    I don't like you any more. I'm just not sure I can relate to someone that didn't like that rollercoaster :P .

    I expect it probably should work pretty well. With windmills, one of the biggest considerations for the power it produces is how tall the tower is; the further from the Earth, the more wind energy it will get. So, by extension, by creating this roller coast they elevate it to a higher point, and of course by convection the hottest air will hit that spot. So, it should work out pretty well (by now you're probably scratching your head thinking "what is this idiot talking about". It's because I have no clue, but I want it, and I'm making stuff up to validate the decision like this windmill nonsense).

    Old school heat pipe systems? Hmmmm, I don't remember even seeing a heatsink on anything earlier than a 486 processor, so I just think we can categorize your heatsink taste, at best as prosaic, and maybe even boring! I think this roller coaster only portends of things to come, I expect bigger ones soon, as well a hot dog stand. Motherboards seem to have become amusement parks, we have carousels (spinning fans), water equipment, towers, and now a roller coaster. Good grief.
  • yyrkoon - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Oh, and . . . .

    http://www2.abit.com.tw/page/en/motherboard/mother...">http://www2.abit.com.tw/page/en/motherb...pMODEL_N...
  • yyrkoon - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    I agree with Gary, these 'windmill' and butt ugly other heatpipes from other OEMs can not touch ABITs OTES in looks. I guess that is what hapens when you pioneer a technology, and everyone copies . . .
  • Stele - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Compared to P965 the ICH9 extends SATA to a total of six native SATA ports, expands USB 2.0 to twelve ports, and adds an eSATA port with port multiplier and port disable

    While the addition of 2 more USB 2.0 ports is certainly one of ICH9's new features, doesn't ICH8 already offer 6 SATA ports? That was one of the latter's welcome improvements over the ICH7.

    There also doesn't seem to be anything in the block diagrams that indicate the presence of an eSATA port. I'm guessing here, but could it be that the mention of a "port multiplier" led to some confusion? After all, the 6 SATA ports in ICH8 and 9 are actually controlled by two host controllers, with internal port multipliers that connect them to 4 and 2 ports respectively (that's why, for example, some board manufacturers label two of the SATA ports as 'secondary' and state that it is generally not advisable to connect the boot drive to them).

    However, I'm guessing that the port multiplier issue came up in the context of ICH9 because apparently Intel would be using only command-based switching in ICH9's port multipliers, removing FIS (Frame Information Structure)-based switching apparently used in ICH8 (most port multipliers use both command-based and FIS-based). While FIS-based switching offers higher performance under multiple-drive loads than command-based switching, FIS-based switching is more complex and hence expensive to implement; besides that, it uses slightly more CPU resources to manage the increased command and data flow rate. As such, Intel might have chosen to use the simpler, cheaper command-based switching for ICH9. If this is true, it might be to keep costs down and because many hardware sites probably over-emphasised on CPU-utilisation when comparing SATA performance with other chipsets. Argh. Again, this was something that came up on the grapevine but I've not been able to find official sources that verify or deny this... perhaps Anandtech could shed some light?

    In the event that it's true, exactly how much performance would suffer under multiple-drive read/write loads is unclear, and this is where an extensive non-RAID and RAID performance test with perhaps a full six drives (or even 3/4/5) might give some hint. On the other hand, it may be that performance would not differ much in scenarios short of an array larger than a two-drive RAID 0/1 (as demonstrated in this review), so Intel decided to dispense with what they may consider a needless luxury.
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    quote:

    While the addition of 2 more USB 2.0 ports is certainly one of ICH9's new features, doesn't ICH8 already offer 6 SATA ports? That was one of the latter's welcome improvements over the ICH7.


    The ICH8 only offered 4 SATA ports, ICH8R, DO, DH offered six. ICH9/R/DO/DH will offer six across the board. Once again, only the R/DO/DH will offer RAID. We should have some new Intel drivers this week to test that are suppose to increase performance a little more than what we noticed in testing.
  • Stele - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Ah yes, forgot about the li'l ICH8 Base :P Thank you!

    Based on recent findings mentioned in my post in response to yyrkoon above, there may not be any drastic changes to performance as the apparent implementation of command-based switching topology seems to apply only to ICH9's newly-added external port multiplier support. However, Intel might have tweaked the controller in ICH9 as they did to the DDR2 controller in the P35 MCH... and any performance increase is always welcome, all other things being equal :)

    On a side note, I couldn't help but noticing on the Asus P5Ks the solderpads for a small IC and other discrete components just between ICH9 and the SATA ports. In fact, there are some interesting clues in the form of silkscreened labels on the PCB outlines near that area of the motherboard: "EZRAID_SET" on what looks like the PCB pads for a 3x3 jumper block, as well as "SATA_E2" on what looks like the pads for another SATA port, next to "SATA6/SATA_E1", the bottom left-most SATA port.

    I'm guessing here, but that might be for a SATA to 2-port SATA port multiplier with software RAID functionality, or a SATA to 2-Port SATA storage controller with hardware RAID. We have encountered once such example of the latter before: the Asus P5W-DH's Silicon Image 4723 hardware RAID controller, aka ASUS EZ-Backup. The mode of operation is the same: take one SATA line from the ICH9 (SATA6 on the P5K) and split it into two, adding RAID features as well. That's why SATA6 was labelled as "SATA6/SATA_E1" on the motherboard - with the controller installed the SATA6 channel from the ICH9 would be rerouted to the controller which would then output to SATA_E1 and SATA_E2. The difference, I suspect, is that with ICH9's port-multiplier support, other devices can be used, including simple port multipliers rather than full-blown host-and-branch solutions.

    Going one step further, I'm guessing that the mystery chip might be a http://www.siliconimage.com/products/product.aspx?...">Silicon Image SiI5723 storage processor. It's originally designed for eSATA, but that just means that its signal drive is sufficiently strong to span the 2m eSATA cables, and has hot-plug support; certainly can be used for internal SATA as well.

    I made this guess based on several clues:

    1. the PCB footprint for the mystery chip on the P5K seems to fit the package of the SiI5723 (QFN or Quad Flat No-lead)

    2. the P5K's jumper block's complexity - a normal "Enable/Disable" block would only require a 3-pin jumper. Instead, a 3x3 block is seen here, which may be used for the "mode jumpers" referred to in the SiI5723's block diagram on its product page.

    3. there seems to be a small SO-8 footprint between the jumper pads and the mystery chip, which would be just right for the "serial flash" firmware chip also referred to in the SiI5723's product page

    4. Asus has a strong relationship with Silicon Image, having used their storage processors for a long time now, including the SiI3114 way back on the A7N8X Deluxe, the SiI4723 on their Digital Home series and currently the SiI3132 PCIe-to-2-port SATA for eSATA functionality on the high-end boards.

    IMHO, Asus probably designed the option to have that controller in so that some RAID functionality can still be offered on a lower-end version of the board using the vanilla ICH9 (non-R) (the more likely scenario) and/or to allow for a Digital Home edition that provides for one more SATA port and one more RAID subsystem (instead of depending wholly on the Intel Storage Matrix). Just a thought!
  • yyrkoon - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Anyhow, the Asus boards, and the Gigabyte board all seem to use a secondary JMicron disk controller for the eSATA ports. My understanding is that all port multipliers need a SIL 3124, and in order to provide RAID need a SIL 3132 or greater chipset.

    According to the JMicron website, the JMicron JMB363 only supports command based switching.
    http://www.jmicron.com/JMB363.html">http://www.jmicron.com/JMB363.html

    Here is a link to SATA-IO's take on Port Multipliers:
    http://www.sata-io.org/portmultiplier.asp">http://www.sata-io.org/portmultiplier.asp

    If you NEED RAID using a Port Mulitplier, and you want a P35 based motherboard, perhaps ABIT will include a SIL 3132 secondary controller on one of their boards, as they have in the past. The only other company that uses SIL 3132 chips that I am aware of has been Asus, but it seems they've ditched it on these boards.

    All that being said, it would probably be wiser to use a SAS controller with SATA drives anyhow. The expandability is much greater, and the flexability (depending on hardware) is also much better. Granted, hardware options right now are not all that great . . .
  • Stele - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Well no, a port multiplier is simply a mechanism for one active host connection to communicate with multiple devices. It therefore can be discrete, such as an SiI3726, or integrated into the host silicon - just as how network switch controller ICs can be discrete or integrated into, say, a gateway controller IC.

    Using a port multiplier does not mean you cannot use RAID - indeed, more often than not SATA controllers access an array through port multipliers (integreate on-silicon but sometimes discrete) for convenience - the IP blocks for a 2-channel host and a SATA-to-multiple-SATA multiplier can be separated or combined into various products.

    Command-based switching is just a topology for the switching method, which allows commands to one drive at a time rather than arbitrated, aggregated access to any drive that is ready to perform I/O. However, it also doesn't mean that command-based switching thus cannot handle RAID, though it does mean that performance would suffer in a large array as the host would issue commands to only one drive at a time.

    The Asus and Gigabyte boards continue their relationship with JMicron and the JMB363 for eSATA and PATA. Specifically, the JMB363 was there primarily for the PATA port missing from the 965 - the SATA ports are convenient extras that the manufacturers wisely chose to use as eSATA ports. Therefore there was no need for a further SiI3132 to provide the eSATA capability. On the other hand, the Asus Nvidia 6xx-based boards did not need the JMB363 thanks to Nvidia's retention of native PATA functionality; hence a separate, SATA-only solution was required for eSATA functionality - the SiI3132. On the P5K, we're back to the same situation as in the case of the 965 - no native PATA. Hence the JMB363 reappears to provide PATA and eSATA, negating any need for the SiI3132 once more.

    What I was really referring to in my first post were changes (if any) to the internal design of the ICH9/9R based on the aforementioned news reports. After studying the ICH8 family's datasheet - which should not be too different from that of the ICH9 in this area - it appears that the ICH8 family did not support discrete port multipliers (which forms part of the AHCI 1.0 specs). What the news article would have meant, therefore, is that ICH9 now does support port multipliers - but only command-based switching types.

    As for SAS...it is rather more complex and hence expensive to implement - design and manufacture - compared to SATA, and there really isn't a need for it in desktop systems now... as it is, Intel doesn't even want to implement FIS-based switching, so as to lower costs and complexity, let alone go to SAS. Coupled with this is the fact that most if not all SAS drives currently available are expensive enterprise-level products which, although fast, would most unlikely be found in the overwhelming majority of systems using this chipset. In the end, therefore, the SAS controller would end up having SATA drives plugged into it (provided board manufacturers remembered to use SFF 8482 connectors) in the majority of cases - further underscoring the waste of effort and resources in implementing an SAS controller into a desktop ICH now. There may be potential for SAS growth into the mainstream market in the future - especially when drives are more affordable and SAS scales up to its targetted 12Gb/s - but with new chipsets coming out every year or two, there's plenty of time to drop in SAS support later.
  • yyrkoon - Thursday, May 24, 2007 - link

    Where you got 'using a port multiplier means you can not use RAID' I have no idea, that is not even close to what I said. Read again- more closely.

    Yes, you can use a discrete controller, capable of handling FIS based switching, and they are even fairly in-expencive. However, what does that have to do with these motherboards ? Nothing (other than MAYBE the boards bandwidth capabilities, which in this case is actually tied to the PCIe bus). That being said, you would not be loosing any bandwidth using a PCIe controller, because these JMicron controllers only use one 2.5Mbit PCIe lane.

    quote:

    Command-based switching is just a topology for the switching method, which allows commands to one drive at a time rather than arbitrated, aggregated access to any drive that is ready to perform I/O. However, it also doesn't mean that command-based switching thus cannot handle RAID, though it does mean that performance would suffer in a large array as the host would issue commands to only one drive at a time.


    Heh, and just because your hair may be on fire does not mean you need to put the flames out . . . Performance would be terrible.

    quote:

    As for SAS...it is rather more complex and hence expensive to implement - design and manufacture - compared to SATA, and there really isn't a need for it in desktop systems now... as it is, Intel doesn't even want to implement FIS-based switching, so as to lower costs and complexity, let alone go to SAS. Coupled with this is the fact that most if not all SAS drives currently available are expensive enterprise-level products which, although fast, would most unlikely be found in the overwhelming majority of systems using this chipset. In the end, therefore, the SAS controller would end up having SATA drives plugged into it (provided board manufacturers remembered to use SFF 8482 connectors) in the majority of cases - further underscoring the waste of effort and resources in implementing an SAS controller into a desktop ICH now. There may be potential for SAS growth into the mainstream market in the future - especially when drives are more affordable and SAS scales up to its targetted 12Gb/s - but with new chipsets coming out every year or two, there's plenty of time to drop in SAS support later.


    Here, I see your lips moving, but I am not hearing one word. I think you kind of missed the point that SAS controllers not only are capable of controlling SAS drives, but are also capable of controlling SATA as well. AH, wait, I see now, but now you seem to think OEMs do not include a way to hook SATA drives up to a SAS controller ? And your counter point is what ? hooking up a Port multiplier in command based switching mode(for RAID) ? Yikes . . .

    I have been following port multiplier technology now for a long time (since it started), and I have to say it is a very interresting technology. The only problem here is, that no one implements this technology the way it should be. Well, that is until the SAS specification came around, and then it is being driven by enterprise market, which is hell for desktop system users. In all seriousness, I can see using a port multiplier, even in command switching mode, but to claim you can RAID in command mode is rediculous. Can you do it? Sure, and you can even RAID USB keychains. Would you do it and expect to get decent performance ? No, not unless you had no clue. That being said, even is FIS command mode, you are still running fake RAID (software based RAID).

    SAS now, with expanders, you can 'address' up to ~255 drives on a single controller, and with the right hardware, make Large arrays, that can litterally saturate two 3Gbit/s (768MB/s) ports. Now, you would need PCI-X, and you would most likely need server/heavey duty workstation hardware to get there. Do most of us need 255 HDDs ? No. DO most of us *need* more than ~100MB/s disk throuput ? No. DO most of us need Port Multipliers? No.The point however, is this: You *can* get a decent PCIe SAS controller for ~$300 usd, that supports large amount of disks if you need it, which means, instead of having to buy a new PM for each 5 drives, you only need to buy a expander for every 8(which by the way, you would have a hard time finding JUST an expander right now without a rack, or removable drive rack). Does the average user at home need 8 HDDs ? I do not know, but I personally have 2.1TB of storage im my home PC spanning 7 HDDs, and things are starting to seem crowded . . .

    There are lots of ways of looking at this given situation, but the plain simple fact is : Most people do not need either a Port multiplier or an external SAS controller, but if I personally were to need more storage, you can bet I wouldnt be picking port multipliers over SAS, just because I thought I would be saving money (which, really is not as much savings as you may think).
  • yyrkoon - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Eh? Port Multipliers wont do any form of RAID without FIS based switching, perhaps I misunderstood your post ? According to the 'specification' only one drive at a time can be accessed, without FIS based switching.
  • DigitalFreak - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    There's no mention of the ICH9R on Intel's website (nor the P35 for that matter), so I doubt you'll get an answer until June.
  • avaughan - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    Good to see people starting to benchmark on Vista.

    Now that drivers are (hopefully) starting to mature, any chance of benchmarks of Winxp v Vista 32bit v Vista 64bit (all on the same hardware)?
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    I lost what little hair I had testing under Vista 64, however, we are going with it from here on out. ;-) We will do a OS comparison in a month or so, waiting on ATI to get the performance drivers out for the R600 this week. The release candidate betas already have some significant improvements in OpenGL, CrossFire, and overall compatibility.
  • bnathuat - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    What is the bracket for Q3? I'm looking to build a new PC after July 22nd. Will the X38 chipset be ready by then? Sorry for the noobish question
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    X38 is basically ready, going through some fine tuning now... I understand it will be held until after the 1333CPUs are launched and DDR3 availability is a little more widespread/cost effective. I expect late August right now, but you never know with Intel. ;-)
  • JarredWalton - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    Technically Q3 is any time between July 1 and September 30, but if they're saying Q3 right now it probably means some time in August at best.
  • gigahertz20 - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    I applaud ASUS for only including 1 legacy connection on their P5K series, and not 4 like Gigabyte has chosen to do for their P35 board. Death to legacy connections!

    I mean really, why even include those damn legacy ports. The enthusiast that buys one of these boards will not be using them, they are a waste of space. Instead of having them, they should replace them with more USB ports or something useful.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    I still have a parallel based laser printer that works fine for what I need, and I'm quite happy using it until it dies. There are also people that use serial devices that cost a lot of money. I don't think every board needs legacy support, but it's good that there are still options for people that *need* certain legacy devices. I've got several KVM switches that won't be useful if PS/2 ports disappear. :(
  • yacoub - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    Don't they offer USB or eSATA to serial/parallel convertors for those sort of situations? :)
  • JarredWalton - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    Sure, but I haven't had the need to try one yet. :)

    Truth be told, my printer has a USB port, but it behaves very poorly using a USB connection. It's a Brother HL-1240, and if the printer isn't powered on when you boot, Windows won't see it unless you unplug it and plug it back into a different USB port. It just works better with LPT, and as I said for my needs it's sufficient. The way I figure it, having the ports there isn't hurting most people. I've never seen anything to indicate they hamper performance, and how many extra transistors are "wasted" on these ports? Maybe a few thousand? Heheh. 45M transistors on the P35 is a bit crazy....

    For what it's worth, between mouse, keyboard, and my LCD (which actually has four USB ports and flash memory readers), I haven't had any need for more than four USB ports on a motherboard. But then, I've got too many PCs around anyway.
  • TA152H - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    I agree with you, but for another reason.

    I don't like USB at all, because a few years ago I ran some tests, on motherboards ranging from MVP3 based to a KT880, and USB seems to have a negative impact on performance, particularly on memory, in many cases.

    It doesn't make my keyboard work any better, or my mouse, and I'm not sure why I need it for those functions at all. PS/2 ports don't do it well enough? I'm not crazy about this one size fits all approach, especially when it comes with overhead. The current ports work fine.

    USB is a crappy, bloated technology. I'm not sure the "S" should stand for "serial" at all, I think there is a better word that begins with S for it.
  • strikeback03 - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Wake me up when Bluetooth works over PS/2.

    Though one reason to still include PS/2 keyboard/mouse is that it is hard to screw up support for those in Linux kernels. Same can't be said about USB.
  • TA152H - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Wake me up when I need Bluetooth.

    You could implement Bluetooth easily if USB didn't exist, but you're missing the point anyway. When you have to use USB for stuff that is handled more efficiently by PS/2 ports, it's a bad thing. Or other ports. It adds no function for these devices, and comes with overhead. It's a bad idea, but of course Intel was in the mode of making as many things as possible use CPU power so they could keep selling their latest and greatest.

    It's just a rehash of some dorky Apple stuff that most people here don't remember. The original MacIntoy didn't have any slots, and you'd attach stuff to some serial bus for expansion. Naturally, it didn't work out, and they had to add slots. At least they didn't get rid of slots for USB, they just made it bloated.
  • DigitalFreak - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    Man, if the P35 boards are going to be around the $250 mark, I'm not looking forward to see the price on the X38 boards.... :-(
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    Early boards will be expensive, just like always. The prices will likely drop to the same levels as current P965 boards they replace, with a broad range for P35 boards from basic to "Asus Commando" level gaming boards. It is too early to be discouraged.
  • Comdrpopnfresh - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    I'm willing to bet we'll see them replacing the older boards quickly too. If intel and other manufacturers really want DDR3 to go through, you'll see DDR2 boards disappearing quickly. Its like what happened to s939. Basically the same chips were used for AM2, but the boards and chips quickly dried up and disappeared. The same can be said or PCI-e. In the beginning there wasn't much of a real world benefit, just the theoretical bandwidth increase. Because developments in AGP ceased, we might never know if the switch was necessary.
  • Comdrpopnfresh - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    If something other than NAND flash could be used, it would be very interesting to see a pci-e 1x board that can house DDR2 memory for use in turbo memory. That way, when people upgrade their ~35 boards to DDR3 when performance and price changes, the DDR2 can be used further. This would make a lot of sense too, because unlike Gigabyte's i-RAM device and logical ramdrives, the high speed, low latency properties of RAM could be used for turbo memory as a way around the 8gb limit of RAM on these cards. And since they are not used for storage, merely access, no redundancy on power supply is needed as with the i-RAM. Someone should start development on this...
  • Comdrpopnfresh - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    Why would the TDP on the P35 higher if it has no integrated video? Will third-party manufactures implement their own SLI into the P35 given that the reference model only had on x16 pci-e slot? Also, when can we expect to see pci-e2 and more than 4 dimm slots on intel mobos?
  • yacoub - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    Including a jumper to change the strap setting for the fsb is a nice feature on the MSi board. A little disappointed in the memory comparison test that that board had the lowest bandwidth and most latency. Is that something BIOS updates can improve or is that generally hardware (i.e. board design related)?
  • Gary Key - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    It is all BIOS tuning in regards to the MSI board. Our first results with the board had the memory performance being equal to the 945P boards. Two BIOS releases later and the improvements have been remarkable. I think MSI is about two BIOS spins behind ASUS and Gigabyte now. Gigabyte finally caught up but ASUS still has the better feature set and options in my opinion.
  • michal1980 - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    hardocp, seems to take a 180 different outlook on these boards. so werid.
  • skaterdude - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    quote:

    hardocp, seems to take a 180 different outlook on these boards. so werid.


    What's so weird? Kyle is an extension of AMD's marketing department. He has not cared for Intel in a very long time, at least since he was caught cheating on some Intel benchmarks and was hung out to dry for it. Personally, it is alright to have a favorite company to root for but to do so in such an open and bias way is wrong if you are not running a company specific website. I would not have an issue at all if it was called HardAMD, at least you know what you are viewing is not tainted by free trips, booze, products, and general hostility against a company.

    Back on subject....The P35 is a nice upgrade and it may not set the world on fire but it appears Intel listened and improved on a chipset they could have let ride for a lot longer. DDR3 will be interesting and at least the kinks will be worked out by the time X38 and the new processors get here. If I had not already bought a 965 board then P35 would have been the one. I am still miffed about not having a native IDE port as JMicron just plain sucks most of the time.
  • strikeback03 - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    the P35 does not have native IDE either, and why use an IDE drive anyway?
  • Spoelie - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    ahum, AMD biased? After reading some of their recent gpu reviews, I thought it was the other way around... Check yourself

    anyway, not a worthy upgrade, but a worthy new board. Which is what you could reasonably expect.
  • yacoub - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    I think HardOCP's conclusion is pretty honest. These boards are a first gen DDR3 setup that has to transition well from DDR2. Performance will be similar, they will offer a few new decent hardware features, but beyond that for most folks they should stick with their P965 or 650i/680i boards and their speedy DDR2 and wait until around a year from now when DDR3 will start to appear that legitimately outperforms DDR2 in a noticeable way and hopefully by then is cost competitive with DDR2.

    Right now we can get 2x1GB matched pairs of decent PC6400 DDR2 for around (and under) $100. When DDR3 reaches prices like that they'll see more converts from the enthusiast crowd. Or when they start showing performance gains on the order of 15-25% over DDR2.
  • tomoyo - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    I don't think anyone should be thinking about an upgrade from a p965 in the first place, you've already gotten a core 2 duo and are waiting for the next gen of penryn! Obviously the point of this motherboard chipset is for new buyers, especially people who do not have a core 2 duo in the first place. That is exactly what my situation is, I'm sitting on an amd platform still and looking into when a good chipset/cpu combo is out. The P35 is it for myself, I like the higher fsb overclock and full set of features, hopefully the price will come down quickly as well. Also it's finally gotten to a point where we can get a full set of sata devices with no ide involved...which eliminates the jmicron issue.
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    If we were buying a new board today it would be P35 - based on our test results and not our untested opinions. Gaming is faster, memory performance is faster (even with DDR2), and the 1333 processor bus gives current C2D owners a "free" 25% overclcok in most cases.

    We would likely buy a P35 that supports DDR2 memory, because there is a large price difference in DDR2 and DDR3 right now, and DDR2 is just as fast as DDR3 on the P35 at the same speed and timings - and DDR2 is faster on P35 than P965.

    However, we already have our first samples of low-latency DDR3 in for testing. Recommending DDR3 will be about how fast we see price parity with DDR2 as it is definitely the memory of the future.
  • suryad - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Any ideas on when an SLI based P35 setup would be released? That is about the only thing that is holding me back from purhcasing a P35 mobo. I want SLI.
  • yacoub - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    "If we were buying a new board today "
    Right. And the HardOCP editorial was writing more for those of us who already own a fairly recent board and are wondering if the performance is significant enough to warrant another upgrade. Conclusion: it isn't.

    You're both right, in other words. If you're buying a new board today, no major reasons NOT to buy a P35 unless it's a DDR3 one in which case DDR3 is cost prohibitive and offers little to no real performance benefit. If you already have a P965, 650i, 680i, etc, no reason to upgrade.
  • tomoyo - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Actually that's not true, according to Kyle, he's endorsing the P965 for all users, new or old. I think he's gotten far too distrustful for new products, especially when this one looks pretty promising. Since the P35 is more of an evolution than anything else, it's a good possibility that we'll get some pretty stable products right off the bat. And I'm of the opinion that a cheap 5% performance upgrade and mobo with full penryn voltage support is worthwhile at the right price for any new user. I do think it'll be a good idea to wait about a month and see if there is any fallout before diving in.
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    That was an editorial, not a review. There was not a single test result in that article.

    On the other hand, we are late to NDA because we got 3 new P35 boards on Friday, and we wanted to bring you real test results based on four motherboards. Our comments and conclusions are based on testing a large number of P35 motherboards, and both DDR2 and DDR3 memory on these boards.
  • michal1980 - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    I know, but his conculsion was to get a mature p965, yours a p35. uggh.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    With the testing results provided here (and in our previous articles), we're comfortable in saying that P35 is already quite mature, particularly the ASUS boards. If you already have a P965 board there's not much reason to upgrade, but if you're buying a new board we would take a serious look at P35 offerings.
  • TA152H - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    I was seriously considering getting one of these boards, but I wouldn't even think about it after your review. What the heck is going on with the power use???? The improvement in performance, to me, is a lot less noticeable than the damn noise you'll have trying to evacuate the heat from the motherboard. What a disappointment. The interesting thing is, another site that ran the power use came in lower than the P965, so I'm really confused which is right. My gut instinct is, they are, because this is a 90nm chip with lower specified power use, but I'm sure you guys knew that and were just as confused and made sure your results were correct. I don't get it at all. It's really disappointing, but maybe with future revisions Intel will get the power down to normal levels.

    I now think supporting DDR2 was a mistake, sure it's good today, but prices for DDR3 will come down, and they would come down fast if Intel made it only DDR3 since memory makers would be very motivated to get their act together. Plus, you'd pay LESS for the chipset, and you'd pay less in electricity for it, and you'd pay less for the motherboards since they wouldn't need as extravagant a cooling solution on it (although, I may buy a MSI just to have that roller coaster. I'm not sure why they felt that design was necessary, but I feel like I need it now. ). So, sure, the cost right now of DDR3 would offset it, but that point will be crossed, and for the rest of the life of the chipset, people will be paying for something that is completely unnecessary and useless, which DDR2 support will be. The P965 would have been fine for legacy support, you don't NEED a P35, and for those folks that wanted it, DDR3 would be fine. Maybe the X38 will drop the dreaded DDR2 support since it's a high-end solution and doesn't need to be shackled with DDR2 support. I hope so.
  • Comdrpopnfresh - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    The power could be attributed to the DDR3. With it not being so mature there may be a lot of signaling going on that isn't necessary. Also- with all the new technologies, these boards simply have more going on on them. With more transistors on a cpu its is expected they will use more power- more connections and circuits on a board would mean the same. Everything is running faster too. The power consumption doesn't make sense given the lack of matching real-world performance enhancements, but as the article makes good sense in pointing out, Bios are a big contributing factor here.
  • TA152H - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Except they ran the power tests with DDR2 on P35 based machines as well, and they were higher than P965 with the same memory. So, obviously, that isn't the cause in this instance.
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    After speaking with the board manufacturers and Intel, our original thoughts (briefings/white paper review) were confirmed that the additional circuitry required on the P35 DDR3 boards and in the MCH result in the increased power consumption on the DDR3 platform compared to the DDR2 platform. This holds true for the P35 DDR2 boards when compared to the DDR2 P965, the additional DDR3 circuity/instruction set is still active even though it is not being used. This is why you will see the DDR2/DDR3 combo boards shortly. However, the BIOS engineers believe that can work a little magic with the SpeedStep and C1E wait states to reduce power consumption, however we are talking just a few watts at best. More on this subject in the roundup, at least we hope we will have more... ;)
  • TA152H - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link

    Gary,

    Thanks, it's useful to know. Are they going to shackle the x38 with DDR2 support too?

    Just confirms my earlier opinion, they should have gotten rid of DDR2 support. Intel is an interesting company, they can come out with a great product like the Core 2, and then have some monkey decide to include DDR2 and DDR3 on the P35. You never know if they'll have a clue, or not. I guess it's a good thing they make turkeys like this and the P7, otherwise we wouldn't have AMD. Although AMD might be the cause of this.

    The monkey that decided to do this probably thought, "Oh, look what we can do that AMD can't". It seems to me they did that with the P7, a technological marvel way beyond AMD's capability to design, thank goodness, and the groundbreaking Itanium. Except neither one worked great. AMD's pragmatism has paid off nicely, and even though they can't realistically support DDR2 and DDR3 on the same motherboard, I don't think they really care. Of course, I'm just guessing, when a company does something this stupid, it's always difficult to understand why they did it. It would have been so simple to just have DDR3 support for the P35, and let the P965 handle the DDR2 crowd. It's perfectly adequate.

    Thanks again for the information. It's disappointing, but with Intel you get used to it. They can't do everything right after all, and still be Intel.
  • strikeback03 - Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - link

    There might be a more practical reason, such as lack of production capability for DDR3 or HP and Dell threatening to use VIA chipsets instead of P35 in order to keep using DDR2 and keep their prices competitive. I doubt consumers would like their prices increasing by a few hundred dollars for no noticeable performance improvement. And if they only keep the computer 3 or 4 years they will probably spend less on energy than on that DDR3.

    Who knows about X38, I'd guess DDR2 support won't disappear until the chipset revision for Nehalem.
  • TA152H - Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - link

    Well, I agree if P35 were the only choice from Intel, this would be the case, but again, would you buy VIA if you could get a P965? I wouldn't. If the P965 were a lousy, and seriously obsolete chipset, yes, sure, you'd have to come out with something that replaced it. But they could have easily validated it for FSB of 1333, and at the point the only thing really new in the P35 would be the DDR3 support. So, why would you need it?

    I was going to get the P35 rather than the x38 because I figure x38 will be even more of a power hog considering the, to me, useless features it has. I don't plan on getting two high-end video cards, and I don't think I will run anything that requires twice the performance of the current PCI-E, but if they drop the DDR2 support, it might the one to go after. If you ever look at an Athlon 64 CPU, you can see the memory controller is simply enormous, so dropping it on the x38 could be significant. With it being high end, they may decide DDR2 isn't a high end technology so they drop it. I hope so.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, May 21, 2007 - link

    Could be the Vista factor? I dunno what else to think about the power numbers.
  • XcomCheetah - Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - link

    Could you do a little testing on it... why so high power numbers..
    Secondly if i remember correctly the power number difference between 680i and P965 chipsets was greater than 20W.. but in your current tests the difference is pretty small.? So any guess what has caused this positive change.?
    Reference
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipsets/display/...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipsets/display/...

    current power numbers on Anandtech
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now