Intel Core Duo: AOpen i975Xa-YDG to the Rescue
by Gary Key on May 4, 2006 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Firewire and USB Performance
After looking at many options for Firewire and USB testing, we finally determined that an external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, and Firewire 800 hard disk would be a sensible way to look at USB and Firewire throughput. We utilize a RAM disk as our "server", since memory removes almost all overhead from the serving end. We turn off disk caching on the USB and Firewire side by setting up the drives for "quick disconnect" so our results are consistent.We use 2GB of fast 3-3-3-8 system memory set up as a 450MB RAM disk and 1550MB of system memory. Our standard file is the SPECviewPerf install file, which measures 432,533,504 bytes (412.4961MB). After copying this file to our RAM disk, we measured the time for writing from the RAM disk to our external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, or Firewire 800 drive utilizing our internal Windows based timing program. The copy times in seconds were then converted into Megabits per second (Mb) to provide a convenient means of comparing throughput. Higher Rates therefore mean better performance in this particular test.
Possibly the most interesting finding in our Firewire and USB throughput tests is the outstanding performance of an external hard drive connected to Firewire 800. Our benchmarks show Firewire 800 is up to 48% faster than a drive connected to the more common Firewire 400, and about 32% faster than the fastest USB 2.0 solution.
The AOpen board offers the Agere based IEEE 1394 Firewire option that provides very competitive performance with the more common TI chipset solutions. The Intel USB 2.0 performance offers 22% better performance than the ULi based controller in throughput.
Ethernet Performance
The current motherboard test suite includes LAN performance measurements. All of these boards utilize PCI or PCI Express based controllers with the only difference being the supplier of the core logic.The Windows 2000 Driver Development Kit (DDK) includes a useful LAN testing utility called NTttcp. We used the NTttcp tool to test Ethernet throughput and the CPU utilization of the various Ethernet Controllers used on the Intel motherboards.
We set up one machine as the server; in this test, an Intel system with an Intel CSA Gigabit LAN connection. Intel CSA has a reputation for providing fast throughput and is a logical choice for our Gigabit LAN server.
On the server side, we used the following Command Line as suggested by the VIA whitepaper on LAN testing:
Ntttcpr -m 4,0,‹server IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
Ntttcps -m 4,0,‹client IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
AOpen's choice of the Marvell 88E8053 10/100/1000Mb/s Ethernet controller is an excellent addition to this board. The performance is basically equal to that of the same Marvell 88E8053 controller utilized on the Asus board. The lower CPU utilization rate on the Marvel 88E8001 PCI controller is directly attributable to the lower throughput numbers generated in our tests.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
SexyK - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
There are many, many differences between the Yonah and Conroe designs that should lead to a significantly higher IPC for Conroe. Macro-ops fusion, memory disambiguation, 4-issue core, etc, etc... Here's a good overview of some of the changes as compared to the X2s and older Intel chips: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...SexyK - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I think these tests are the nail in the coffin for those out there still saying the Conroe benchmarks were 'fixed' by Intel. Clock for clock, Yonah is already beating X2 on a regular basis, sometimes by large margins. Based on those results, plus all the m-arch improvements made in Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom, I'd say there's little doubt that we're in store for a 20-40% performance lead from Intel in the near future, depending on the final outcome of the AM2 lauch...LEKO - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I'm really impressed by the Core Duo performance... But this CPU lacks 64bit support. I know that if you upgrade on a yearly basis, it'S not an issue. But when you want something that will be capable for years, I think that the 64bit capable Athlon X2 and Dual-Core Opteron becomes better alternatives.I think that AMD will get a kick in the butt when Intel will launch their Next-Gen 64bit Desktop CPU! I hope AMD have very good hidden cards.
Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
This issue will be addressed with Conroe/Merom. However, given the almost dearth amount of 64-bit applications on the desktop in the WinTel world at this time we still feel like it is a safe purchase for the next couple of years, or wait for Intel's new products this summer. Of course, AMD's products are still top notch with the X2 series offering a truly long term solution (at least in CPU years) if you are buying today.
IntelUser2000 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I don't know. You are comparing DDR2-667 at 3-3-3-8 timings with 975X compared to DDR2-533 on 4-4-4-12 on this Core Duo review using 945GM: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
Not only being at DDR2-667 being synchronous with FSB give advantage, the lower latency will make enough difference in both. There are other possibility like updated BIOS and mature motherboards.
This is the best comparison benchmark I have seen for Core Duo vs. other CPUs(whether Opteron, X2 or Pentium D's), but 975X beating 945GM because its a newer chipset makes no sense.
There is also a possibility that 945GM chipset used in laptops is performance wise lowered compared to the 945GT(which is 945G just Core Duo support), to save power, and if Asus N4L-VM is using 945GM, it MIGHT be the reason it performs lower.
Viditor - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Agreed...though I should say that while Merom is inspired by Yonah, they really are quite different. Will this mobo also work for Merom?
Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Agreed, was not trying to address the core architecture differences, just stating 64-bit support is on the way for Yonah's successors. :) We hear rumors the board can work with Merom, no official statements from AOpen or Intel yet. We will update the article once we have a statement or if Crestline will be the official requirement for Merom. At one time Merom was going to drop into the 945GM but who knows about i975X support as the directions seem to change every Tuesday. We are still waiting on our i965 samples to ship in order to showcase "eornoc". ;-)
Viditor - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Thanks Gary! I will be very interested in the update once you get confirmation. I'm still a bit murky on the platforms for Merom...Cheers!
stmok - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
From what I hear (Engineers in AOpen R&D as well as enthusiasts who have gotten samples), they have tested this mobo with Merom. You need a BIOS update. Otherwise, it will NOT boot to the operating system!I'm still wondering if it supports Virtualization Technology. This is what I'm really interested in. :)
Questar - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
You plan on running apps that require greater than 4GB of ram in the next couple years?Didn't think so.