I will be looking to find out if an i5/p55 is the best choice for me vs. a i7/x85. I will be replacing everything in my current outdated PC... PSU, RAM, burner, case, hard drives. I need a reliable, stable system that will last a few years and this is more important than cost.
In my case it's a quad-core X3350 (aka Q9450) running on water, currently @3.6GHz (no AC in my home office...:D)
Paired with my 4850 X2 2GB and 4 gigs of OC'd RAM it's a pretty darn good config for *any* current game as of today so I am still wandering if, say, if I DO NOT get a new 5800-series Radeon what extra would this P55/i7-870 give me in my apps (audio/video and mostly online FPS or RTS gaming)...?
I kept looking for the option, "The i7 has been out for over six months and outperforms the i5. If/when I upgrade from my Core2Duo, it would be to the i7, NOT the memory-bandwidth-nerfed i5 platform, period."
1. e8400 E0 @ 4230 does a good enough job
2. When it comes to gaming consoles influence the games industry too much. The PS3 and x360 won't suddenly become more powerful and most games are made for console first and then ported over to the PC. For this same reason my heavily overclocked 4770 (900-1200) will last long too...
3. Lack of SATA3 and USB3 support
4. Cost. New RAM (ddr3), motherboard, CPU and cooler
I'm very interested in a comparison between the i5/P55 and the C2Q/P45. They're in the same price range, and the shared video and memory bus restrictions on the P45 and P55 boards means that a comparison of the i5 and C2Q will directly test the difference between the two processor designs.
I'm glad to see that you guys are looking for feedback on what your readers want. I get really frustrated when a new platform comes out and the first reviews are for a $4000 triple SLI configuration of that system. It's hardly the information the consumer needs.
Anyway, it's important to remember that for the crowd who is able and willing to spend a grand or more on a platform, Core i7 has been it for many months. Those users have their systems in LGA1366 form already. People holding out for LGA 1156 did so because triple channel DDR3, X58 and Core i7 920 were just too expensive. Price is going to be a big issue, and what I want to know is which of the least expensive P55 boards works the way it's supposed to. Also, given that many of these boards will offer a BIOS update in the next few months, I want to know which boards offer good BIOS update procedures.)
I’d like to see power consumption tests done at 3 settings:
1. Stock speed
2. Maximum over-clock using stock VCore (check that the board isn’t over-volting)
3. Maximum over-clock using a sane VCore that is suitable for 24/7 usage.
"In your opinion, the primary highlight of a motherboard review should focus on which of the following categories"
Of course price and performance are important, but the option I was looking for was "RELIABILITY AND STABILITY."
In terms of performance, I mostly look for any outliers. Is one significantly faster or slower than the others? It seems to me that motherboard performance is nearly identical in most cases, at least until you get into heavy overclocking.
While I might dabble with some modest ("easy") overclocking, mostly I want to put in good components with good performance, and then just have my system run. I don't want to mess with it when I'm trying to get something done. So I'm more inclined to buy a faster-performing CPU than to overclock a cheaper one, though some of the semi-automated overclocking that's available now is certainly interesting. My general approach is to purchase a CPU that is "one generation old" to avoid paying the price premium of being on the bleeding edge. Anyway, as I said, I don't want a system that's on the edge of stability. I do video editing, and it needs to be able to run at 100% load, sometimes for hours on end.
Another thing I look at right away, after ooh-ing and ahh-ing at the pretty colors, are the expansion slots. I have a number of legacy components, such as a dedicated video capture card, so I would probably want two PCI slots, since one is already spoken for. The other item that catches my eye is the number of SATA ports, since I love my disk drives and have quite a collection of them.
"In terms of performance, I mostly look for any outliers. Is one significantly faster or slower than the others? It seems to me that motherboard performance is nearly identical in most cases, at least until you get into heavy overclocking."
Your absolutely right.
When motherboards run at stock speeds using the same processor, unless there is something wrong with BIOS timings or the circuit design, they all have the same performance.
What is important is reliablity and stability. A well tuned BIOS goes a long way in achieving this.
Gah, I can't really participate in this poll cause I'm still straddling the fence trying to decide if I want to go i5 or i7. Since I don't mind spending a few extra bucks for the i7 platform, I don't see anything tremendously compelling about i5. It seems it's biggest selling point is lower priced mobos.
On the other hand, a serious gaming rig is more defined by it's GPU than it's CPU, right? So maybe I save a few bucks on the mobo and spend it on a better video card? From what I've read, both the i5 and i7 are basically the top dogs and neither is going to leave you hurting for cycles.
Then there's the issue of RAM - i7 is triple channeled so you can put 6GB on a mobo without filling up all the slots. I've heard that if you fill all the slots on a mobo you add some latency to the RAM - I guess that's true since all the sites that do $3000+ ultimate gaming rigs only stick 6GB of ram into their systems when the mobo supports 12 or more. Lloyd Case formerly of Extreme Tech said once that with 64 bit Vista/Win7, 12 GB is this sweet spot where Windows basically stops pecking at the HDD all the time, which sounds really nice, given that my Vista rig never effing stops grinding my HDD away so I don't know what to think. i5 has Dual channel memory which means you can only get up to 4GB of DDR3 without filling up the board - 4GB is probably fine for most games but I've always got Firefox and Winamp and Photoshop and a half dozen other apps open on my other monitor while I'm gaming (then I alt tab out and work in photoshop while I'm waiting to respawn in CoD4) so I'd like to cram as much RAM as possible into my new system.
I'm really curious about the RAM situation. 6-8GB of RAM would work for me, but most i5 mobos only have 4 slots, and given that DDR3 only comes in 2GB sticks (that I can find), I'd be filling the mobo and adding latency. But is it that serious? Would I notice that at all, especially if I go i5 with a cheaper mobo and a better GPU?
Basically I need a really comprehensive bang up review of the new mobos and how a complete i5 system compares to an i7 system. :P
Oh and your poll:
"What primary factor will determine the motherboard you purchase."
How about stability? That's job number 1 for me. That's the other thing that has me concerned. Is this first gen of mobos going to be as solid as the i7 mobos which have had a while to simmer?
So the bottom line is I'm not making any decisions until a few reviews hit.
You're view reflects what I think benchmarks have been showing for years: video cards are the bottleneck in gaming performance. Spending the price difference between X58 and P55 on a better video card will net better gaming performance than getting the X58 with the lesser card. The big issue for me regarding lynnfield is basically this very one, except that I'm on the fence between a much less expensive AM3 platform and a blingy video card and a less blingy card and P55. The impending release of HD 5000 cards weighs heavily on my mind.
I agree with the other poster that suggested they wanted stability testing. I expect most motherboards with identical chipsets to show similar performance, I also expect the features to work as advertised (real features that is, I will accept some marketing gimickry, but if you claim to have 2 working SAS ports, they should work), I also expect a reasonable level of support. I will OC and but not in any extreme sense so most boards I consider function well enough in this area as well. What I would like to know is how stable is it? Is it worth my $ to get a solid workstation board like the ASUS WS series over the more mainstream performance/over-clocking boards? Maybe, as someone suggested, some 24 hour stability testing as well as some high temp. environment testing. Leave the boards at stock but turn up the heat and see which one dies last.
Why is the choice of memory and motherboard vendor choose-only-one? For both of those I would be happy with pretty much any vendor from the list (except Jetway MB) so long as they offer the right features/price/warranty.
I also might not go P55 at all, I am waiting to see the results against X58 and the future direction of each. I may or may not buy within 90 days, it will be sometime around the end of this year or beginning of next.
A major issue with new platforms and motherboards is stability. It is also the most important problem for DIY systems.
I certainly don't care paying 10% more or having 5% less performance, but I want my system to be rock solid. And I want all features (not necessarily numerous) to work as advertised.
I don't know how you could do stability testing, but running some 24/7 stress tests would be a good start, together with following basic variables (temp, voltage).
I think the Multi-GPU performance on this platform would also be something to discuss. I've found it difficult to find any definitive answers as to whether 8x 8x will castrate real world gaming performance compared to the X58's 16x 16x. With the next generation GPUs imminent I think it's something worth looking into.
"My current Intel Core 2 platform does not need replacement."
is not my option.
My current Intel Core 2 platform DOES NEED replacement, but it should be upgraded to the Core i7.
Since Zotac is on the list, is it possible that there will be a mITX board? Or are you only focusing on larger form factors? Now that the southbridge is dead, the mITX boards have to be easier to build.
I am really looking forward to the Lynnwood/P55 release. This upgrade will bring the Nehelem architecture to mainstream and high performance desktop computing at reasonable cost and power consumption. Specifications and limited discussions of these products is very promising. I have not felt so keenly interested in a product release since the Core 2 Duo/P965. I suspect we will not be disappointed with the Lynnfield/P55.
My plans for upgrading to a Lynnwood/P55 system are to wait until July/August 2010 when prices are their lowest and rebates are their sweetest.
Other important advantages for this delay:
1) Allow time for Intel to introduce improved steppings for Lynnwood i5/i7 and P55 chipset
2) Allow time for me to fully assess the P55 motherboards with properly developed test data and reviews.
3) Allow time for motherboard manufacturers to straighten out motherboard BIOS.
4) Allow time for nVidia and ATI to release GPU's based on 40nm parts.
5) Allow time for mainstream DDR3-1600 low latency memory operating at 1.5V to become available.
I do a major upgrade of my PC every 3 years using the following strict rules:
1) Component must have been in use for at least three years before replacement.
2) Replacement must have double the performance, or double the capacity.
3) Replacement must cost the same or less than the original cost of the replaced component.
4) Replacement must have power consumption the same or less than the replaced component.
If a component does not meet the above criteria, it's not worth my money. What I care about is cost and performance in equal measure. And true performance must be normalized to the power required to achieve it. That's why power consumption must be the same or less when double performance is realized in a synthetic benchmark or application.
I upgrade the CPU, motherboard, memory and graphics card following this standard. I do this because double performance of any of the above components is not achievable unless these are replaced simultaneously.
I will be upgrading a rig with a Intel E6600 CPU, a Intel DG965WH ATX mobo, 2GB DDR2-800 memory and a nVidia 9600GT graphics card. I comtemplate upgrading to a rig with a Quad Core i5 ($200), a P55 motherboard ($130), 4GB of DDR3-1600 1.5V low latency memory ($120), and a 40nm nVidia Video Card with 1GB of memory requiring 55W-65W of power ($140). Very nice mainstream upgrade for $600.
I will be using legacy items such as my CPU heatsink, two 640GB SATA 3G Harddrives, 500W power supply, Lian Li case, Plextor DVD burner, Plextor CD burner, Iomega Zip Drive, Altech XM-28U card reader and 32-bit Windows XP Home.
I like the i5 with four cores at 2.66 GHz. I am not interested in hyperthreading because this technology only amounts to ~10% performance gain for double the memory burden.
Features I will consider important on the P55 motherboard: an IDE port for legacy optical drives, eight USB ports, six SATA internal ports, a high quality onboard audio CODEC, and a simple, efficient four phase power supply. I do not overclock.
With memory sizes pushing 16 GB using memory with smaller memory cells, lower voltages, higher operating frequencies, I expect memory parity errors will eventually become an emergent problem with desktop systems. DDR3 memory is probably more susceptable to parity errors than DDR and DDR2 memory. Memory parity errors arise from memory cells loosing their charges from alpha particle interactions from radioactive decay of uranium or thorium impurities within the silicon, or cosmic ray interactions. This lost bit causes data corruption that ECC can detect and fix. Don’t be surprised in ECC memory becoming more popular with desktop systems in the not-so-distant future.
One of the pet peeves I have with synthetic benchmarks at Anandtech and other sites is the difficulty of comparing three year old components and recently released components with the same benchmark. How can I ascertain with certainty double the performance when there is not a single PCVantage benchmark for my existing PC components?
I prefer PCMark2005 as a reliable indicator of performance between past and current PC components for most applications people use. Even for Vista OS. Use 3DMark2006 for DX9/DX10 performance benchmark.
Wow. I think you're going to stand to be disappointed. All quad core processors are going to use up more power than your dual core E6600. Any Video card you buy today to net you ~2x the performance of your 9600GT is going to use up quite a bit more power.
Though I more or less agree with your points 1-3, however. I do, however, swap out video cards a little bit more often than 1 every 3 years (about 1 every other year now). However, my driver for that upgrade is "the system can't handle the particular game I'm currently interested in", and not much else.
Also, everything (with the possible exception of the move from the P4 to Core2 architecture) has increased the power consumption of the CPU over time.
And finally, doubling the performance is a bit of a misnomer - it's very hard to show double the performance of a particular part, at least when it comes to CPU limited cases.
I also like your insistence on respectable ("a high quality onboard audio CODEC") onboard audio chip. I haven't seen much recent analysis on that sort of thing in a long time. Does that mean that the state of onboard audio hasn't appreciably changed in the last couple of years? Heck, there's no "Audio" tab at the top of AnandTech...
Your comments about my disappointment going from an E6600 (65W) to i5 Quad (95W) is certainly a valid one. I am hoping that by July 2010 Intel introduces 65W versions like was done with the Quad Penrym.
If that does not happen, I may bend this rule in this case if the performace justifies it. The processor I had prior to the E6600/DG965WH was an Athlon XP-M 3000+ aboard an EPOX 8RDA6+ Pro overclocked to 2.4 Ghz. It had a 80W power draw at those frequencies ;).
What I would really like to see is the chipset / other areas to be cooled with alternative systems including water. It has been my experiance that many chipsets are poorly placed for aftermarket water coolers.
You are missing one important option there - I won't upgrade to P55 from 975 because I plan to upgrade to X58. Yes it is not that new but better than P55 definitely.
Have you seen benchmarks that back that up? I thought the big deal about p55 boards was moving more circuitry into the CPU. I'm waiting to see the i7 820 numbers before I decide which way I'm going to go.
The support questions bring up an interesting point, though I don't know if a core i5 article is the right place to bring it up.
In general, I'd be interested in knowing how support compares between brands/models. How helpful is tech support? Do they release bios updates to correct issues even after the board is out of production? How much of a pain is the board to set up the first time? Does it have a wide range of useful adjustable bios features, like a full range of voltages both up and down? (perhaps that's more of a feature thing) If there's a problem/incompatiblity, do they help fix it, or just pass the buck? Will the board support new cpu models?
In the past, I had a pretty bad experience with a Gigabyte motherboard, and they would have lost me as a customer if not for their fantastic tech support. On the other hand, Foxconn and evga have been big losers for me.
Asus is almost like the Apple Computers of motherboard makers, providing extra, often not related to the core functionality of the product, but worthwhile if it's something you need/want.
MSI is the exact opposite, cost cutting to all extremes and keeping only the core product, perhaps with an upgraded heat sink.
And Zotac right now is, imo, in the position that Shuttle Computers and DFI were in when they first started their rise.
well hopefully any company that sees the data from this review is smart enough to realize that it's not that we don't care about support/warranty, it's that we:
A: Assume the product will be of high enough quality that we won't need to make use of the warranty or tech support
B: Realize those other choices are more important to the review than support/warranty, but that doesn't mean support/warranty isn't important
C: If product quality falls, support/warranty will immediately become a hot-button issue, but they (manufacturers) should be taking steps to ensure that doesn't happen.
same here...
I am waiting for 1366 board with USB3.0, SATA3 and proper network controller. Preferably with water-cooling-ready pipes plugins solution and PCI-e slots only, without IDE ports. As for CPU... 32nm sequel of i7 920. Don't think there would be any other solution for long lasting PC to fit in my needs.
Some of the questions are still kind of annoying... like which RAM and which CPU you should test with.
Clearly you should be testing this new chipset with both 1333 and 1600 and with the i5 and i7 CPUs. Else, we won't know how the chipset scales from top to bottom.
Actually, in internal testing we use everything from 1066 to 2200 on the DDR3 side along with the i5-750/i7-870 cpus. I am trying to gauge public opinion on which numbers to show in the benchmark results. We will have commentary on each board in regards to their top OC with both CPUs and top memory speeds.
However, I have to say as easy as it is reach DDR3-2500 on a few of these boards, running at 1333/C5 or 1600/C6 is just as fast in everything but SuperPI if you have the right memory. ;)
didn't happen to see ddr3-1333-cl5 sets yet. what kinda "stock" specs shall i use to achieve timings like these? can every cl6 set be thightened to cl5?
if you'll write a dual-channel ddr3 roundup article (which is probably only a matter of time), you can perhaps try to OC/loosen and UC/tighten each set and check the real world performance.
in light of the hitherto modest impact of mem clk observed on core ix systems, such tests may flatten the performance/price charts (or raise the price/performance curve. or am i looking at it the wrong way?)
To clarify: The best chipset review will be one that shows how much difference in real world performance variation is actually present from the lowest to the highest CPU and lowest to highest RAM options available. This allows the reader to make a more informed decision as to whether or not it's truly worthwhile to spend the extra $$$ for the faster CPU/RAM.
I'd like to know how the onboard storage controllers handle a bunch of SSDs in RAID. Questions like: Is it stable? What is the throughput limit? How many SSDs does that limit me to? What kind of heat does this produce? And how does that affect overclocking?
I am testing RAID with the VRaptors. I am trying to get a couple of additional SSDs to test the RAID capabilities also. At this point, there is not any real difference between the P55 and ICH10R in regards to performance.
It's good that we can vote in all four of the polls on the 3rd page, because even though I might find Functionality to be the most important of the choices on the poll item on page 1, I also still have an opinion on which selection is best for a General Performance review, Support/Warranty, and the other area.
What would be really helpful for any reviews of uATX boards would be to place them in a SFF enclosure and measure temps (nbridge, cpu, gpu, etc) at idle and load, and noise levels as well.
Temps and noise are important factors regardless, but particularly when moving to a uATX system.
I will be testing the uATX boards in the Lian Li PC-V351 and Silverstone SG04B cases. I have a SG01-F on order. Power supplies range from a 330W to 520W. ;)
None of those mATX Cases (IMHO) are suitable for the function over form crowd.
Throw in a cheap Apevia X-QPack or Antec Aria/NSK1380 and if you really want to go ghetto, Google this: MM3800
That last one is actually the case I use at home for my desktop machine. Why? Its a total sleeper and I don't see the need anymore to have a $150 case when a crappy leftover does the same job.
The Lian-Li V351 is quite similar to the X-Qpack in terms of size and layout. Yes it has a higher price tag to go with the fancy looks, but the functionality is still there IMO.
I'm looking at switching from a Qpack to the V351, look forward to seeing the Core i5 results with that case.
I can swing some testing time in the Antec case as they just sent one for another project. I have that Powmax case as foot rest, it fell off the rack and let's just say the front of the case is no longer under warranty. LOL...
Since its questionable anyone outside the US or Canada is permitted to participate in such a contest (its usually that way...), the answer would be: everyone outside the US or Canada.
hmmm, I would be thoroughly disappointed if that was the case! What about all the readers from the rest of the world? I'm sure Anand(tech) will think about them as well...
I would no enter because my name and address and such would be asked, and I'm picky as to where and to whom I give hat out, and advertising companies are on the 'no thanks' list, regardless of vague promises of prizes.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
60 Comments
Back to Article
kranky - Monday, September 7, 2009 - link
I will be looking to find out if an i5/p55 is the best choice for me vs. a i7/x85. I will be replacing everything in my current outdated PC... PSU, RAM, burner, case, hard drives. I need a reliable, stable system that will last a few years and this is more important than cost.T2k - Friday, August 28, 2009 - link
That's the basic question.In my case it's a quad-core X3350 (aka Q9450) running on water, currently @3.6GHz (no AC in my home office...:D)
Paired with my 4850 X2 2GB and 4 gigs of OC'd RAM it's a pretty darn good config for *any* current game as of today so I am still wandering if, say, if I DO NOT get a new 5800-series Radeon what extra would this P55/i7-870 give me in my apps (audio/video and mostly online FPS or RTS gaming)...?
As Lenin said once: OC, OC and OC.
chromal - Friday, August 28, 2009 - link
I kept looking for the option, "The i7 has been out for over six months and outperforms the i5. If/when I upgrade from my Core2Duo, it would be to the i7, NOT the memory-bandwidth-nerfed i5 platform, period."Kaleid - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link
1. e8400 E0 @ 4230 does a good enough job2. When it comes to gaming consoles influence the games industry too much. The PS3 and x360 won't suddenly become more powerful and most games are made for console first and then ported over to the PC. For this same reason my heavily overclocked 4770 (900-1200) will last long too...
3. Lack of SATA3 and USB3 support
4. Cost. New RAM (ddr3), motherboard, CPU and cooler
baldheadeddork - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link
I'm very interested in a comparison between the i5/P55 and the C2Q/P45. They're in the same price range, and the shared video and memory bus restrictions on the P45 and P55 boards means that a comparison of the i5 and C2Q will directly test the difference between the two processor designs.ClagMaster - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link
Me too. Problem is the benchmarks often change and its difficult to compare three year old hardware without some scalings and extrapolations.philosofool - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
I'm glad to see that you guys are looking for feedback on what your readers want. I get really frustrated when a new platform comes out and the first reviews are for a $4000 triple SLI configuration of that system. It's hardly the information the consumer needs.Anyway, it's important to remember that for the crowd who is able and willing to spend a grand or more on a platform, Core i7 has been it for many months. Those users have their systems in LGA1366 form already. People holding out for LGA 1156 did so because triple channel DDR3, X58 and Core i7 920 were just too expensive. Price is going to be a big issue, and what I want to know is which of the least expensive P55 boards works the way it's supposed to. Also, given that many of these boards will offer a BIOS update in the next few months, I want to know which boards offer good BIOS update procedures.)
oldscotch - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Where's the "I can't answer these questions because I have no idea how it compares to my existing system" answer?smilingcrow - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
I’d like to see power consumption tests done at 3 settings:1. Stock speed
2. Maximum over-clock using stock VCore (check that the board isn’t over-volting)
3. Maximum over-clock using a sane VCore that is suitable for 24/7 usage.
justaviking - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
"In your opinion, the primary highlight of a motherboard review should focus on which of the following categories"Of course price and performance are important, but the option I was looking for was "RELIABILITY AND STABILITY."
In terms of performance, I mostly look for any outliers. Is one significantly faster or slower than the others? It seems to me that motherboard performance is nearly identical in most cases, at least until you get into heavy overclocking.
While I might dabble with some modest ("easy") overclocking, mostly I want to put in good components with good performance, and then just have my system run. I don't want to mess with it when I'm trying to get something done. So I'm more inclined to buy a faster-performing CPU than to overclock a cheaper one, though some of the semi-automated overclocking that's available now is certainly interesting. My general approach is to purchase a CPU that is "one generation old" to avoid paying the price premium of being on the bleeding edge. Anyway, as I said, I don't want a system that's on the edge of stability. I do video editing, and it needs to be able to run at 100% load, sometimes for hours on end.
Another thing I look at right away, after ooh-ing and ahh-ing at the pretty colors, are the expansion slots. I have a number of legacy components, such as a dedicated video capture card, so I would probably want two PCI slots, since one is already spoken for. The other item that catches my eye is the number of SATA ports, since I love my disk drives and have quite a collection of them.
ClagMaster - Saturday, August 29, 2009 - link
"In terms of performance, I mostly look for any outliers. Is one significantly faster or slower than the others? It seems to me that motherboard performance is nearly identical in most cases, at least until you get into heavy overclocking."Your absolutely right.
When motherboards run at stock speeds using the same processor, unless there is something wrong with BIOS timings or the circuit design, they all have the same performance.
What is important is reliablity and stability. A well tuned BIOS goes a long way in achieving this.
Dynotaku - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Gah, I can't really participate in this poll cause I'm still straddling the fence trying to decide if I want to go i5 or i7. Since I don't mind spending a few extra bucks for the i7 platform, I don't see anything tremendously compelling about i5. It seems it's biggest selling point is lower priced mobos.On the other hand, a serious gaming rig is more defined by it's GPU than it's CPU, right? So maybe I save a few bucks on the mobo and spend it on a better video card? From what I've read, both the i5 and i7 are basically the top dogs and neither is going to leave you hurting for cycles.
Then there's the issue of RAM - i7 is triple channeled so you can put 6GB on a mobo without filling up all the slots. I've heard that if you fill all the slots on a mobo you add some latency to the RAM - I guess that's true since all the sites that do $3000+ ultimate gaming rigs only stick 6GB of ram into their systems when the mobo supports 12 or more. Lloyd Case formerly of Extreme Tech said once that with 64 bit Vista/Win7, 12 GB is this sweet spot where Windows basically stops pecking at the HDD all the time, which sounds really nice, given that my Vista rig never effing stops grinding my HDD away so I don't know what to think. i5 has Dual channel memory which means you can only get up to 4GB of DDR3 without filling up the board - 4GB is probably fine for most games but I've always got Firefox and Winamp and Photoshop and a half dozen other apps open on my other monitor while I'm gaming (then I alt tab out and work in photoshop while I'm waiting to respawn in CoD4) so I'd like to cram as much RAM as possible into my new system.
I'm really curious about the RAM situation. 6-8GB of RAM would work for me, but most i5 mobos only have 4 slots, and given that DDR3 only comes in 2GB sticks (that I can find), I'd be filling the mobo and adding latency. But is it that serious? Would I notice that at all, especially if I go i5 with a cheaper mobo and a better GPU?
Basically I need a really comprehensive bang up review of the new mobos and how a complete i5 system compares to an i7 system. :P
Oh and your poll:
"What primary factor will determine the motherboard you purchase."
How about stability? That's job number 1 for me. That's the other thing that has me concerned. Is this first gen of mobos going to be as solid as the i7 mobos which have had a while to simmer?
So the bottom line is I'm not making any decisions until a few reviews hit.
philosofool - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
You're view reflects what I think benchmarks have been showing for years: video cards are the bottleneck in gaming performance. Spending the price difference between X58 and P55 on a better video card will net better gaming performance than getting the X58 with the lesser card. The big issue for me regarding lynnfield is basically this very one, except that I'm on the fence between a much less expensive AM3 platform and a blingy video card and a less blingy card and P55. The impending release of HD 5000 cards weighs heavily on my mind.zero2dash - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Between X58 and P55, I'd rather have X58.My Core 2's (one Q9450, one E8400, one E2200) still hold up for my needs though.
Tentatively I'm skipping this cycle and waiting for Sandy Bridge in 2010/2011. By then, DDR3 should be where DDR2 is now ($)
makdaddy626 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
I agree with the other poster that suggested they wanted stability testing. I expect most motherboards with identical chipsets to show similar performance, I also expect the features to work as advertised (real features that is, I will accept some marketing gimickry, but if you claim to have 2 working SAS ports, they should work), I also expect a reasonable level of support. I will OC and but not in any extreme sense so most boards I consider function well enough in this area as well. What I would like to know is how stable is it? Is it worth my $ to get a solid workstation board like the ASUS WS series over the more mainstream performance/over-clocking boards? Maybe, as someone suggested, some 24 hour stability testing as well as some high temp. environment testing. Leave the boards at stock but turn up the heat and see which one dies last.strikeback03 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Why is the choice of memory and motherboard vendor choose-only-one? For both of those I would be happy with pretty much any vendor from the list (except Jetway MB) so long as they offer the right features/price/warranty.I also might not go P55 at all, I am waiting to see the results against X58 and the future direction of each. I may or may not buy within 90 days, it will be sometime around the end of this year or beginning of next.
FriendlyUser - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
A major issue with new platforms and motherboards is stability. It is also the most important problem for DIY systems.I certainly don't care paying 10% more or having 5% less performance, but I want my system to be rock solid. And I want all features (not necessarily numerous) to work as advertised.
I don't know how you could do stability testing, but running some 24/7 stress tests would be a good start, together with following basic variables (temp, voltage).
Roch - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
I think the Multi-GPU performance on this platform would also be something to discuss. I've found it difficult to find any definitive answers as to whether 8x 8x will castrate real world gaming performance compared to the X58's 16x 16x. With the next generation GPUs imminent I think it's something worth looking into.KonradK - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
"My current Intel Core 2 platform does not need replacement."is not my option.
My current Intel Core 2 platform DOES NEED replacement, but it should be upgraded to the Core i7.
Mr Perfect - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
Since Zotac is on the list, is it possible that there will be a mITX board? Or are you only focusing on larger form factors? Now that the southbridge is dead, the mITX boards have to be easier to build.ClagMaster - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
I am really looking forward to the Lynnwood/P55 release. This upgrade will bring the Nehelem architecture to mainstream and high performance desktop computing at reasonable cost and power consumption. Specifications and limited discussions of these products is very promising. I have not felt so keenly interested in a product release since the Core 2 Duo/P965. I suspect we will not be disappointed with the Lynnfield/P55.My plans for upgrading to a Lynnwood/P55 system are to wait until July/August 2010 when prices are their lowest and rebates are their sweetest.
Other important advantages for this delay:
1) Allow time for Intel to introduce improved steppings for Lynnwood i5/i7 and P55 chipset
2) Allow time for me to fully assess the P55 motherboards with properly developed test data and reviews.
3) Allow time for motherboard manufacturers to straighten out motherboard BIOS.
4) Allow time for nVidia and ATI to release GPU's based on 40nm parts.
5) Allow time for mainstream DDR3-1600 low latency memory operating at 1.5V to become available.
I do a major upgrade of my PC every 3 years using the following strict rules:
1) Component must have been in use for at least three years before replacement.
2) Replacement must have double the performance, or double the capacity.
3) Replacement must cost the same or less than the original cost of the replaced component.
4) Replacement must have power consumption the same or less than the replaced component.
If a component does not meet the above criteria, it's not worth my money. What I care about is cost and performance in equal measure. And true performance must be normalized to the power required to achieve it. That's why power consumption must be the same or less when double performance is realized in a synthetic benchmark or application.
I upgrade the CPU, motherboard, memory and graphics card following this standard. I do this because double performance of any of the above components is not achievable unless these are replaced simultaneously.
I will be upgrading a rig with a Intel E6600 CPU, a Intel DG965WH ATX mobo, 2GB DDR2-800 memory and a nVidia 9600GT graphics card. I comtemplate upgrading to a rig with a Quad Core i5 ($200), a P55 motherboard ($130), 4GB of DDR3-1600 1.5V low latency memory ($120), and a 40nm nVidia Video Card with 1GB of memory requiring 55W-65W of power ($140). Very nice mainstream upgrade for $600.
I will be using legacy items such as my CPU heatsink, two 640GB SATA 3G Harddrives, 500W power supply, Lian Li case, Plextor DVD burner, Plextor CD burner, Iomega Zip Drive, Altech XM-28U card reader and 32-bit Windows XP Home.
I like the i5 with four cores at 2.66 GHz. I am not interested in hyperthreading because this technology only amounts to ~10% performance gain for double the memory burden.
Features I will consider important on the P55 motherboard: an IDE port for legacy optical drives, eight USB ports, six SATA internal ports, a high quality onboard audio CODEC, and a simple, efficient four phase power supply. I do not overclock.
With memory sizes pushing 16 GB using memory with smaller memory cells, lower voltages, higher operating frequencies, I expect memory parity errors will eventually become an emergent problem with desktop systems. DDR3 memory is probably more susceptable to parity errors than DDR and DDR2 memory. Memory parity errors arise from memory cells loosing their charges from alpha particle interactions from radioactive decay of uranium or thorium impurities within the silicon, or cosmic ray interactions. This lost bit causes data corruption that ECC can detect and fix. Don’t be surprised in ECC memory becoming more popular with desktop systems in the not-so-distant future.
One of the pet peeves I have with synthetic benchmarks at Anandtech and other sites is the difficulty of comparing three year old components and recently released components with the same benchmark. How can I ascertain with certainty double the performance when there is not a single PCVantage benchmark for my existing PC components?
I prefer PCMark2005 as a reliable indicator of performance between past and current PC components for most applications people use. Even for Vista OS. Use 3DMark2006 for DX9/DX10 performance benchmark.
erple2 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Wow. I think you're going to stand to be disappointed. All quad core processors are going to use up more power than your dual core E6600. Any Video card you buy today to net you ~2x the performance of your 9600GT is going to use up quite a bit more power.Though I more or less agree with your points 1-3, however. I do, however, swap out video cards a little bit more often than 1 every 3 years (about 1 every other year now). However, my driver for that upgrade is "the system can't handle the particular game I'm currently interested in", and not much else.
Also, everything (with the possible exception of the move from the P4 to Core2 architecture) has increased the power consumption of the CPU over time.
And finally, doubling the performance is a bit of a misnomer - it's very hard to show double the performance of a particular part, at least when it comes to CPU limited cases.
I also like your insistence on respectable ("a high quality onboard audio CODEC") onboard audio chip. I haven't seen much recent analysis on that sort of thing in a long time. Does that mean that the state of onboard audio hasn't appreciably changed in the last couple of years? Heck, there's no "Audio" tab at the top of AnandTech...
ClagMaster - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Your comments about my disappointment going from an E6600 (65W) to i5 Quad (95W) is certainly a valid one. I am hoping that by July 2010 Intel introduces 65W versions like was done with the Quad Penrym.If that does not happen, I may bend this rule in this case if the performace justifies it. The processor I had prior to the E6600/DG965WH was an Athlon XP-M 3000+ aboard an EPOX 8RDA6+ Pro overclocked to 2.4 Ghz. It had a 80W power draw at those frequencies ;).
strikeback03 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
A Zip Drive? Wow, that is a very legacy component.ClagMaster - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Yes a ZIP drive is legacy. But it is also very private and secure too.gmyx - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
What I would really like to see is the chipset / other areas to be cooled with alternative systems including water. It has been my experiance that many chipsets are poorly placed for aftermarket water coolers.plamengv - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
You are missing one important option there - I won't upgrade to P55 from 975 because I plan to upgrade to X58. Yes it is not that new but better than P55 definitely.anandreader - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
Have you seen benchmarks that back that up? I thought the big deal about p55 boards was moving more circuitry into the CPU. I'm waiting to see the i7 820 numbers before I decide which way I'm going to go.Fox5 - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
The support questions bring up an interesting point, though I don't know if a core i5 article is the right place to bring it up.In general, I'd be interested in knowing how support compares between brands/models. How helpful is tech support? Do they release bios updates to correct issues even after the board is out of production? How much of a pain is the board to set up the first time? Does it have a wide range of useful adjustable bios features, like a full range of voltages both up and down? (perhaps that's more of a feature thing) If there's a problem/incompatiblity, do they help fix it, or just pass the buck? Will the board support new cpu models?
In the past, I had a pretty bad experience with a Gigabyte motherboard, and they would have lost me as a customer if not for their fantastic tech support. On the other hand, Foxconn and evga have been big losers for me.
Asus is almost like the Apple Computers of motherboard makers, providing extra, often not related to the core functionality of the product, but worthwhile if it's something you need/want.
MSI is the exact opposite, cost cutting to all extremes and keeping only the core product, perhaps with an upgraded heat sink.
And Zotac right now is, imo, in the position that Shuttle Computers and DFI were in when they first started their rise.
yacoub - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
well hopefully any company that sees the data from this review is smart enough to realize that it's not that we don't care about support/warranty, it's that we:A: Assume the product will be of high enough quality that we won't need to make use of the warranty or tech support
B: Realize those other choices are more important to the review than support/warranty, but that doesn't mean support/warranty isn't important
C: If product quality falls, support/warranty will immediately become a hot-button issue, but they (manufacturers) should be taking steps to ensure that doesn't happen.
sxr7171 - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
I answered "no" and my answer to the next question would be "I want a 1366 board instead".HollyDOL - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link
same here...I am waiting for 1366 board with USB3.0, SATA3 and proper network controller. Preferably with water-cooling-ready pipes plugins solution and PCI-e slots only, without IDE ports. As for CPU... 32nm sequel of i7 920. Don't think there would be any other solution for long lasting PC to fit in my needs.
Soac - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
I just really wanted to see USB 3.0 and SATA 3 (6Gb's).Dobs - Friday, August 28, 2009 - link
Ditto that and PCIe 3.0 FTW. P55 = missOSJF - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
I'd like to see ICH support for SATA 3 that's the only reason why I'm waiting.....snakeoil - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
real men have a real northbridgewhat a crippled processor at the same price of core i7 fantastic.
Spoogie - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
Sounds like someone has buyer's remorse, and is trying to convince themselves that their purchase wasn't foolish.strikeback03 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Nope, just a common troll. Don't feed the trolls.plonk420 - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
athlon: wed june 23p4: mon nov 20
athlon xp: tues oct 9
athlon 64: tues sept 23
core 2: thur july 27
phenom: mon nov 19
phenom ii: mon feb 9
plonk420 - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
however: piii: fri feb 26anandreader - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
I know I'm a broken record on this issue but I'd like to hear how the Bios is protected against rootkit attacks.The ideal protection is one that requires a switch that you have to flip before the Bios can be flashed.
jay401 - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
Some of the questions are still kind of annoying... like which RAM and which CPU you should test with.Clearly you should be testing this new chipset with both 1333 and 1600 and with the i5 and i7 CPUs. Else, we won't know how the chipset scales from top to bottom.
Gary Key - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
Actually, in internal testing we use everything from 1066 to 2200 on the DDR3 side along with the i5-750/i7-870 cpus. I am trying to gauge public opinion on which numbers to show in the benchmark results. We will have commentary on each board in regards to their top OC with both CPUs and top memory speeds.However, I have to say as easy as it is reach DDR3-2500 on a few of these boards, running at 1333/C5 or 1600/C6 is just as fast in everything but SuperPI if you have the right memory. ;)
StrayGator - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
didn't happen to see ddr3-1333-cl5 sets yet. what kinda "stock" specs shall i use to achieve timings like these? can every cl6 set be thightened to cl5?if you'll write a dual-channel ddr3 roundup article (which is probably only a matter of time), you can perhaps try to OC/loosen and UC/tighten each set and check the real world performance.
in light of the hitherto modest impact of mem clk observed on core ix systems, such tests may flatten the performance/price charts (or raise the price/performance curve. or am i looking at it the wrong way?)
jay401 - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
ah ok cooljay401 - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
To clarify: The best chipset review will be one that shows how much difference in real world performance variation is actually present from the lowest to the highest CPU and lowest to highest RAM options available. This allows the reader to make a more informed decision as to whether or not it's truly worthwhile to spend the extra $$$ for the faster CPU/RAM.Mr Alpha - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
I'd like to know how the onboard storage controllers handle a bunch of SSDs in RAID. Questions like: Is it stable? What is the throughput limit? How many SSDs does that limit me to? What kind of heat does this produce? And how does that affect overclocking?Gary Key - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
I am testing RAID with the VRaptors. I am trying to get a couple of additional SSDs to test the RAID capabilities also. At this point, there is not any real difference between the P55 and ICH10R in regards to performance.yacoub - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
It's good that we can vote in all four of the polls on the 3rd page, because even though I might find Functionality to be the most important of the choices on the poll item on page 1, I also still have an opinion on which selection is best for a General Performance review, Support/Warranty, and the other area.yacoub - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
What would be really helpful for any reviews of uATX boards would be to place them in a SFF enclosure and measure temps (nbridge, cpu, gpu, etc) at idle and load, and noise levels as well.Temps and noise are important factors regardless, but particularly when moving to a uATX system.
elivebuy - Tuesday, December 8, 2009 - link
http://www.elivebuy.com">http://www.elivebuy.comAir jordan(1-24)shoes $33
UGG BOOT $50
Jewerly $20
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
FREE sHIPPING
http://www.elivebuy.com">http://www.elivebuy.com
Gary Key - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
I will be testing the uATX boards in the Lian Li PC-V351 and Silverstone SG04B cases. I have a SG01-F on order. Power supplies range from a 330W to 520W. ;)Casper42 - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
None of those mATX Cases (IMHO) are suitable for the function over form crowd.Throw in a cheap Apevia X-QPack or Antec Aria/NSK1380 and if you really want to go ghetto, Google this: MM3800
That last one is actually the case I use at home for my desktop machine. Why? Its a total sleeper and I don't see the need anymore to have a $150 case when a crappy leftover does the same job.
CrimsonFury - Friday, August 28, 2009 - link
The Lian-Li V351 is quite similar to the X-Qpack in terms of size and layout. Yes it has a higher price tag to go with the fancy looks, but the functionality is still there IMO.I'm looking at switching from a Qpack to the V351, look forward to seeing the Core i5 results with that case.
Gary Key - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
I can swing some testing time in the Antec case as they just sent one for another project. I have that Powmax case as foot rest, it fell off the rack and let's just say the front of the case is no longer under warranty. LOL...ipay - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
Who answered "No" to that question???Griswold - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - link
Since its questionable anyone outside the US or Canada is permitted to participate in such a contest (its usually that way...), the answer would be: everyone outside the US or Canada.daftie - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link
hmmm, I would be thoroughly disappointed if that was the case! What about all the readers from the rest of the world? I'm sure Anand(tech) will think about them as well...Wwhat - Saturday, September 5, 2009 - link
I would no enter because my name and address and such would be asked, and I'm picky as to where and to whom I give hat out, and advertising companies are on the 'no thanks' list, regardless of vague promises of prizes.strikeback03 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
I live in NY, so I am not eligible for NewEgg contests. Doesn't mean I am not interested, just that I might not be able to participate.