Intel D865GBF - Page 6

..:: Benchmarks ::..

Well, now it is time to take a look at the performance of the Intel i865G chipset, and the D865GBF “Bayfield” motherboard. For our tests, we used a 3.00GHz 800MHz FSB Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading on an Intel D875PBZ, Intel D865PERL, and of course an Intel D865GBF. Each system was tested immediately after a fresh system reformat with the latest system drivers installed. For both systems, all onboard features were disabled during the benchmarking process, and identical test hardware such as graphics card and RAM were used in order to achieve the best results. This will give us an accurate “apples to apples” performance difference between the three chipsets with processors running at identical internal clock speeds and system bus speeds. It is important that I note both systems had Hyper-Threading enabled for the most accurate chipset comparison results. In the graphs, we have shown the performance of both chipsets in Dual Channel mode for optimal performance. I chose not to add the benchmarks of the onboard Intel Extreme Graphics 2 merely because they pale in comparison to any of the marks our RADEON 8500 puts up.

..:: SiSoft SANDRA ::..

To start things off, let’s take a look at the results we achieved. Since the only item that is different between the i865PE and i865G chipsets are the support for the integrated Intel Extreme Graphics 2, the performance between these two chipsets should be nearly identical throughout testing. The first test we ran with SiSoft SANDRA was the Arithmetic test, and here we can see that all three boards put up good numbers with the i865PE and i865G boards running head to head for both ALU and FPU. The same can be said for the Multimedia test, yet once again both chipsets are putting up very similar numbers as they well should. The last SANDRA test is one that any users will be interested in, that being the memory bandwidth. Here we can see where Intel’s PAT comes into play. There isn’t too much of a difference between i875P and i865G / i865PE, but it is enough to make a difference in applications and games.

..:: SuperPI ::..

In the SuperPI tests, we run the program four times, once at one million, once at two million, once at four million, and yes once at eight million. The numbers in the graph above show the time in seconds that it took the system to calculate pi to the set number of digits. In this benchmark, we can clearly see that the i875P chipset holds an advantage over both the i865PE and i865G chipsets, although once again this advantage is quite small in the great scheme of things. Both the i865PE and i865G put up identical numbers in the one million and two million digit calculations, however, i865G starts to fall slightly behind by one second for the remaining four and eight million digit calculations.

..:: Specviewperf 7.0 ::..

So far, the i865G and i865PE chipsets have performed in unison, and held up well when placed against the i875P chipset. Both of these boards put up some very nice numbers, especially when placed against older chipsets such as i845PE. In the SPECviewperf 7.0 benchmarks, we can see that, as expected, the i865PE / i865G and i875P chipsets put up nearly identical numbers in each and every performance benchmark. I suspect that I am quickly approaching the limit of my graphics card as several of these tests *should* have shown a slightly larger performance difference I believe. In the UGS01 test, the i875P holds a maximum lead of 3.5%, while the Proe01, Light05, Dx07, Drv08, and 3dsmax01 tests show performance leads of 1.4%, .7%, .7%, .5%, and .04% respectively.

..:: FutureMark 3DMark2001SE ::..

FutureMark’s 3DMark2001 SE shows us something we have seen throughout our testing so far, the i875P chipset comes out on top and the i865PE / i865G chipsets perform as one in the same. In these tests, and all those following, we ran the benchmarks in 640 x 480 resolutions in order to avoid the graphics card bottleneck that we had been experiencing in high resolutions. Well, for 16-bit performance, the i875P chipset holds a lead over the i865PE and i865G chipsets of 1.5%, while in the 32-bit benchmarks, we see similar results with the i875P coming out on top by roughly 1.0%. As we can see, in the both 16-bit and 32-bit modes, both the i865G and i865PE boards put up, for all intents and purposes, identical numbers.

..:: Quake III Arena ::..

Well, once again we see all three chipsets putting up some nice numbers when placed head to head with i865G and i865PE running toe to toe. In the 16-bit color benchmarks, we are seeing a performance gain over the i865PE chipset of 1.7%, and 1.9% over the i865G chipset, while when the benchmark was run in 32-bit mode, we see a performance lead for the i875P of roughly 1.3% and 1.4% respectively. In case you’re wondering as to the numbers that the integrated Extreme Graphics 2 put up, well for 16-bit operation we recorded a frame rate of approximately 169.9, while in 32-bit operation there was a small drop down to 163.3.

..:: Unreal Tournament 2003 ::..

Last up for today we have yet another benchmark for our motherboard reviews, Unreal Tournament 2003. We are using the built-in benchmarking utility with custom .ini files to make sure all settings are at high quality to allow for optimal benchmarking results for comparison. Each of the UT2003 benchmarks once again shows the i875P chipset coming out on top, albeit by a small margin. In these benchmarks, we are seeing a performance gain of roughly 2.8% in the Flyby and 3.3% for the BotMatch tests over both chipsets. As noted in our D865PERL review, these are the largest performance gains we are seeing over the i865PE and i865G chipsets. As far as the Extreme Graphics 2 goes, we saw scores of 44.726 for FlyBy and 25.795 for BotMatch.

As we have seen, both the i865PE and i865G chipsets hold their own quite nicely against the high end i875P chipset. It seems that as we progress into the more modern benchmarks which are more processor and graphically intensive, we see greater gains from the i875P chipset. As we expected, both the i865PE and i865G chipsets performed in unison throughout all the tests, as they well should. If you took a look at the scores of the Intel Extreme Graphics 2, you’ll know immediately that this isn’t something you’ll want to be doing any real gaming on, especially if it involves the more modern games. An important item to note is that several of the issues we experienced with the older Extreme Graphics generation one have been addressed. When the original Extreme Graphics came about, they were known for being rather plagued with compatibility issues with several of the most popular games of the time. However, given that it was “first generation” technology, it is to be expected, although it doesn’t have to be liked. Only time will tell if this new generation of Extreme Graphics will succeed where the previous generation suffered. Now that we’ve seen everything there is to see with the D865GBF, let’s wrap everything up and get on to the next review!