Intel P965: Mid-Range Performance Sector Roundup
by Gary Key on October 20, 2006 9:00 PM 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 system memory with timings of 3-3-3-9 and set our RAM disk to 450MB with system memory at 1550MB. 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 42% faster than a drive connected to the more common Firewire 400, and about 11% faster than the fastest USB 2.0 solution.
We see our Intel ICH8 chipset finally overtake perennial champion NVIDIA in USB 2.0 performance. We see the USB performance on the ATI SB600 still trailing the other solutions but it has vastly improved compared to the SB450. The Firewire soltuion from VIA is still slightly faster than the TI solutions normally used.
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:
The CPU utilization performance favors the Marvell Gigabit controllers with the Realtek solutions having the highest utilization numbers. The throughput numbers also favor the Marvell Gigabit controllers with the Realtek options close behind. ASUS recently switched to the Attansic L1 PCI Express based controller chip with it posting decent results in each test. We do not understand ASUS's decision to utilize a PCI based Gigabit controller on the 570SLI when the NVIDIA chipset has native support for Gigabit operations. This decision results in the worse throughput and average CPU utilization numbers. However, even with throughput at 646Mb/s it still exceeds what most home networks are capable of and certainly any DSL or Cable based Internet connection.
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 system memory with timings of 3-3-3-9 and set our RAM disk to 450MB with system memory at 1550MB. 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 42% faster than a drive connected to the more common Firewire 400, and about 11% faster than the fastest USB 2.0 solution.
We see our Intel ICH8 chipset finally overtake perennial champion NVIDIA in USB 2.0 performance. We see the USB performance on the ATI SB600 still trailing the other solutions but it has vastly improved compared to the SB450. The Firewire soltuion from VIA is still slightly faster than the TI solutions normally used.
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
On the client side (the motherboard under test), we used the following Command Line:Ntttcps -m 4,0,‹client IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
At the conclusion of the test, we captured the throughput and CPU utilization figures from the client screen.The CPU utilization performance favors the Marvell Gigabit controllers with the Realtek solutions having the highest utilization numbers. The throughput numbers also favor the Marvell Gigabit controllers with the Realtek options close behind. ASUS recently switched to the Attansic L1 PCI Express based controller chip with it posting decent results in each test. We do not understand ASUS's decision to utilize a PCI based Gigabit controller on the 570SLI when the NVIDIA chipset has native support for Gigabit operations. This decision results in the worse throughput and average CPU utilization numbers. However, even with throughput at 646Mb/s it still exceeds what most home networks are capable of and certainly any DSL or Cable based Internet connection.
62 Comments
View All Comments
zjohnr - Tuesday, November 7, 2006 - link
In all the features tables for the motherboards in this article the PCI slots are listed as being PCI v2.3. However, looking at the pictures for the boards, the slots have PCI v2.2 keying. I think the entry in the features tables is wrong. (Is it?)Patsoe - Saturday, October 28, 2006 - link
Seeing all the trouble with the P965 - especially with the non-intel p-ata controller and with the ich8r - I'd be inclined to get a Core2-ready i945P board with ICH7R instead. Would that be a sane idea?BadThad - Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - link
Is the v1.02G Asus P5B-E using all solid capacitors? I read a press release stating that Asus was releasing the "P4B-E Plus" version with all solid caps. Rumor says the "Plus" version will not be sold in the USA.....arrgggggg. Tell me that's not true. I want the solid caps for long-term reliability. I'm wondering if our "Plus" is actually the v1.02G?Thanks
Gary Key - Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - link
The 1.01G and 1.02G boards are exactly the same except for a PLL controller. Asus stills states the P5B-Plus will not be imported into the States but you never know.keithke - Monday, October 23, 2006 - link
I was interested to hear you used this Scythe Infinity Air Cooler as I was going to do the same. Were there any issues with the Northbridge heatsink sitting so close? Or did it just plop right in with no spacing issues?Thx
Keith
Gary Key - Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - link
No issues with the Inifinity on all four corners. It is a close fit but it works fine with the enclosed fan.SniperWulf - Monday, October 23, 2006 - link
Hey guys,Did you have any strange anomolies with the X-fi on the DS3 while overclocked? When I was using that board with the F6 bios, I'd have to reboot like 3-4 times before windows would properly detect it. I eventually grew tired of it and bought a P5B-D so I haven't had a chance to try F7 with it.
Gary Key - Monday, October 23, 2006 - link
I did not have any issues with the X-FI on the DS3 when it was overclocked. The F5 and F6 BIOS releases were not X-FI friendly where F4 was perfect. F7 is working for some and not others, I did not have an issue with it. F8 will fix it for good.schlumpfi106 - Monday, October 23, 2006 - link
Im a little bit disappointed that there are so few informations about the cooling/silencing-related capabilitites of the boards. I would like to know how many fans can be connected, if the connectors are 3- or 4-pin, and if there is a way to control the fan speeds (preferably via SpeedFan). I don't care about a one-percent performance difference. My first priority is a reasonably silent system.goinginstyle - Monday, October 23, 2006 - link
He mentioned the number of fan headers on each board and even added a couple of comments on the ones that did not work right. In the features section there was a statement about whether the included utility worked or not. Sure he did not say anything about SpeedFan but how far do you want a guy to go after 26 pages? Also, if you click on the Enlarge picture on the boards you can clearly make out whether the fan headers are 3 or 4 pin.