nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition: NVIDIA prepares an Intel 975X Killer
by Gary Key on June 27, 2006 6:15 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Gaming Performance
The overall gaming performance of both platforms with the Pentium D 805 is actually very good considering the processor speed and heavy reliance upon the video card to generate these scores. As in the synthetic tests, it is a toss up in regards to the performance results. We still believe NVIDIA can extract additional performance from their BIOS that should result in a sweep of these benchmarks provided the Intel 975X performance remains static in the Core 2 Duo friendly boards.
Final Words
Our first tests with the NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition reference board certainly shows promise against one of the better performing Intel 975X boards currently on the market. Based upon the progress NVIDIA has made over the past two weeks with BIOS updates and a new board revision, we are very optimistic about this chipset performing equal to or better than the Intel 975X at this time. Of course, until we are able to fully test a production ready nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition board along with the soon to be released Core 2 Duo ready 975X boards, we cannot conclude with confidence which chipset will cater to the gamer, enthusiast, or hard core overclocker. We do know that if you want to use SLI then NVIDIA is the only game in town for the Intel platform.
Our focus in the next round of testing will be on overclocking and memory performance. The current memory performance of the NVIDIA board is slightly better than our i975X test board; although without further BIOS options it is difficult to really do an apples to apples testing at the higher memory speeds. Overall, the performance of the reference board was stellar in our testing while providing very good overclocking capabilities considering the early nature of the board and BIOS. Hopefully, we will see higher FSB speeds out of this chipset compared to earlier NVIDIA offerings for the Intel market. We already know they have an extensive feature set and excellent memory performance; it is time now to see how well these new chipsets can overclock the front side bus.
We will back shortly with updated benchmarks featuring several Intel dual core processors but unfortunately we cannot provide Core 2 Duo benchmarks for a few more weeks. Until then, all we can say is get ready for a gunfight at the O.K. Corral between these two chipsets.
The overall gaming performance of both platforms with the Pentium D 805 is actually very good considering the processor speed and heavy reliance upon the video card to generate these scores. As in the synthetic tests, it is a toss up in regards to the performance results. We still believe NVIDIA can extract additional performance from their BIOS that should result in a sweep of these benchmarks provided the Intel 975X performance remains static in the Core 2 Duo friendly boards.
Final Words
Our first tests with the NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition reference board certainly shows promise against one of the better performing Intel 975X boards currently on the market. Based upon the progress NVIDIA has made over the past two weeks with BIOS updates and a new board revision, we are very optimistic about this chipset performing equal to or better than the Intel 975X at this time. Of course, until we are able to fully test a production ready nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition board along with the soon to be released Core 2 Duo ready 975X boards, we cannot conclude with confidence which chipset will cater to the gamer, enthusiast, or hard core overclocker. We do know that if you want to use SLI then NVIDIA is the only game in town for the Intel platform.
Our focus in the next round of testing will be on overclocking and memory performance. The current memory performance of the NVIDIA board is slightly better than our i975X test board; although without further BIOS options it is difficult to really do an apples to apples testing at the higher memory speeds. Overall, the performance of the reference board was stellar in our testing while providing very good overclocking capabilities considering the early nature of the board and BIOS. Hopefully, we will see higher FSB speeds out of this chipset compared to earlier NVIDIA offerings for the Intel market. We already know they have an extensive feature set and excellent memory performance; it is time now to see how well these new chipsets can overclock the front side bus.
We will back shortly with updated benchmarks featuring several Intel dual core processors but unfortunately we cannot provide Core 2 Duo benchmarks for a few more weeks. Until then, all we can say is get ready for a gunfight at the O.K. Corral between these two chipsets.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
37 Comments
View All Comments
rallyhard - Friday, June 30, 2006 - link
I, too, would like to see some RAID benchmarks for the motherboards when they're reviewed. Maybe even just reviewing the performance of a particular HD/RAID controller once, when it is tested on the first motherboard that you come across with that controller, would suffice.(I don't know how much HD/RAID performance varies from mobo to mobo with the same controller)
I certainly wouldn't have bought my Gigabyte 7n400 Pro2 socket A board if I had known the performance penalty of running RAID on the ITE 8212 chip as opposed to running a single drive on the nForce2 controller. The IDE raid functionality was the only reason I chose that board over the Abit NF7. The only way I found out that my horrible performance was truly and solely due to that 8212 chip is by doing a search on that chip and reading forums.
Incredibly, some manufacturers are still using that same chip for their IDE.
Anyway, I'm sure IDE performace is now a moot point for most, but yeah, RAID performance testing on future mobo (or controller) testing would, to me, be a useful addition to your excellent reviews.
Keep up the good work!
Crassus - Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - link
Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this: How much of an real-world impact in contemporary games does SLI 8/8 lanes compared to 16/16 lanes have? I remember reading an article about this issue back in the days when PCI-E was introduced, but I haven't really heared anything about it since. So, did anyone do a test on this?DigitalFreak - Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - link
I think X-Bit did a test not so long ago, and concluded there is still no advantage of 16x16 over 8x8.Avalon - Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - link
Sheesh, this is a pre-production board.CrystalBay - Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - link
Sheesh, look at the size NB fan.nullpointerus - Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - link
Just below the big features table on the basic features page, there's a sentence which should read:"Intel didn't officially want their 975X chipset to support 533FSB processors, but [a few] motherboard manufacturers disagreed on this point[, and] the end result is that 975X motherboards are able to run Celeron D chips."
At least I think that's how it's supposed to read.
nullpointerus - Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - link
Further down:"Considering the layout of expansion slots on ATX/BTX motherboards, [this] would be our ideal configuration, and the remaining expansion slots can be filled out with either X1/X2 PCI-E or regular PCI connectors."
...and also:
"There really doesn't see[m to be] much point in including X1 physical slots, particularly on enthusiast level hardware, and ATI at least has already recommended that motherboard manufacturers begin including more X16 physical connectors."
Gary Key - Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - link
Jarred and I got our wires crossed during the edit process this morning, it was easy to do at 5:30am after being up for about 26 hours with this board and another "new" chipset preview that should be finished shortly. ;-> However, no excuse on my part for not noticing the missing/incorrect text. I have corrected our mistakes and sincerely hope the changes are acceptable. Thank you for the comments and taking time to write. :)PedroDaGr8 - Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - link
I noticed on the compression/decompression page, page 7 I think. Both of the graphs are labeled File compresision - WinRAR 3.60b5 602MB Test Folder - Time In Minutes - Lower Is Better. Shouldn't one of them (the bottom one I guess) be labeled File Decompression, or atleast since you mention it first in the article shouldn't it be on top. That led to a quick bout of confusion for me, hey maybe it is just the painpills (I blew out my knee last week, tore my ACL and LCL (Lateral Colateral Ligament) with possible damage to my PCL and MCL as well. Nothing like playing cricket for the first time and injuring yourself.JarredWalton - Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - link
I added a word to the subtitle now. Basically, File Compression is the benchmark category, followed by the benchmark application. The subtitle is for extra information about the particular test. Hopefully that makes sense - I can't say my brain is entirely functional at this hour of the morning. :)