Intel X48 - Much Ado about Nothing....

by Gary Key on 11/14/2007 9:00 AM EST
Comments Locked

19 Comments

Back to Article

  • JKing76 - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link

    Instead of an article on a topic the author admits right in the title is pointless, how about posting the AMD 690G and NV7150 roundups?
  • Krogoth255 - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    X48 is just a revision of X38. It is still is a bit of a dissppointment for cost.

    P35 is really the only chipset to consider. P35 can "unoffically" handle 1600Mhz FSB without a problem. Even the older P965 can handle 1600Mhz FSB with a little voltage and active NB cooling.

    X38/X48 are practically pointless and only users with virtually unlimited budgets would consider it. It is 955X 2.0 in terms of features, performance how quicky it becomes obsolete in the time it was released.

  • IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    Another useless chipset development. In essence, so-called chipset performance enhancements should have stopped at P35. These boards offer absolutely nothing in performance or overclocking, unlike the rumors of the fantastic ability that the new chipsets were supposed to bring. Lots of sites show X38 chipset consistently underperforming the P35 chipset.

    Memory controller "performance improvement" is becoming the most wasted aspect of R&D for companies who do it.
  • TA152H - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    One of the problems is that they benchmark using DDR2. I'd like to see more benchmarks of the P35 versus the x38 and x48 using DDR3. On DDR3, the x38 and x48 are supposed to show their teeth. Is it true? Who knows, they always use obsolete memory.

    x38 and x48 also bring PCI-E 2.0, and more lanes, so there is some value to the chipsets. Certainly they are not for everyone, but they are for someone. I think the P35 should address most people's needs the best, and that is what Intel intended for their "mainstream" product. I don't think they ever intended the x48 to be their best seller, just as they never expected their 975 to be.
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link

    quote:

    One of the problems is that they benchmark using DDR2. I'd like to see more benchmarks of the P35 versus the x38 and x48 using DDR3. On DDR3, the x38 and x48 are supposed to show their teeth. Is it true? Who knows, they always use obsolete memory.

    x38 and x48 also bring PCI-E 2.0, and more lanes, so there is some value to the chipsets. Certainly they are not for everyone, but they are for someone. I think the P35 should address most people's needs the best, and that is what Intel intended for their "mainstream" product. I don't think they ever intended the x48 to be their best seller, just as they never expected their 975 to be.


    The problem is that all the theoretical improvements are not bringing any benefit. PCI-E 2.0 with dual 16x slots all do just to equal how much 975X brought. That's not to say 975X is a bad chipset, but its amazing how crap the X38's improvements are, let me correct myself, X38's lack of improvement is after all years of throwing away R&D money at the drain.

    Using that wasted money to put more money into IGP is a much better solution, since they'll throw it away at the chipsets otherwise. I heard Intel's IGP funding is pitiful anyway.

    Anand's review showed that DDR3 on X38 isn't faster than DDR2 on P35. Why waste the money on a useless chipset and a expensive memory??
  • TA152H - Friday, November 16, 2007 - link

    Actually, almost all reviews show DDR3 shows substantial improvements over DDR2, if you use the best of each. If you use lousy DDR3, yes, it has little purpose existing. But, top speed DDR3 is considerably faster than any DDR2. The rate DDR3 is increasing in speed has been pretty startling too, but it has to slow down.

    Sometimes advances don't show immediate results, but do later on. Consider AGP. At first it did not show advantages over PCI, and for that matter neigher did AGP 2x over AGP, or AGP 4x or AGP 2x. But, were it not for forward thinking, we'd be using PCI cards for graphics still.

    I am not sure that the reason for Intel IGP's performance is based on design resources so much as inherent compromises necessary for an IGP. You only have so many transistors, and so much power you can use before it becomes too expensive or hot. It's just not going to happen that IGPs compete with discrete cards, they are inherently inferior, and also not directed at the same market. IGPs share memory with the processor, and share memory access because of it. Until they start giving IGPs their own memory, the performance hit from sharing memory, clearly prevents IGPs from competing with discrete cards.

    I'd like to see Intel give IGPs their own memory, or at least give the option for it. Until then, I doubt you'll see anything but sub-mediocre performance.
  • Kougar - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    quote:

    We see no reason as to why the X48 cannot be marketed into the very top end with the X38 replacing the upper tier P35 boards in the $150~$250 market.


    While ordinarily (as a consumer) I would say the more choices the better, there is a point where to much is to much. For example:

    P31, P35, P45, X38, X48, ignoring G31, G33, G35, G45 and all the other Q boards. Intel does not need to release 5 new chipsetsinside of a year's timeframe (Q2'07-Q2'08), nor a specific chipset per every single pie slice of the market.

    In roughly the timeframe of 975X/965P, Intel is going to have 5 individual performance/enthusiast segment chipset launches, then at minimum 2 more since Nehalem will require its own completely new chipsets. Intel needs to sit back and give everyone a break, this is hurting motherboard companies and consumers alike for absolutely zero benefit except to Intel's bottom line.
  • TA152H - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    How is it hurting consumers? More choices are bad??? Or does it cause emotional pain in making a decision?

    I'll agree, it's probably a bit difficult for motherboard makers though.

    In reality, it's not a big deal anyway. Instead of two choices, we have three. Let's see, for the Pentium III, we had the 820, 810, 840 and 440BX, which was replaced by the 815, plus all the VIA chipsets. Maybe the 810 does not count completely, because that was for video. But then, neither do the new G and Q, unless you bring into the discussion video cards. But then, you'd have to compare that with how many different video cards Nvidia and AMD have.

    At any rate, it's good for the consumer to have choices, since no one is going to make you buy all of them. It's a lot more difficult to make a decision, because the differences aren't that pronounced though. With this review though, you already see performance improvement over the X38, and it's less well known since it's newer. So, I think the x38 is the chipset that needs to go. I don't think the segments are nearly so small that it fits in between the P35 and X48 in a meaningful way. I think people will end up going either mid range or high, not some weird almost-high segment. So, I guess, in the end, I agree with you that there are too many to make sense. But, I still do not agree that it is bad for the consumer. Besides, it gives sites like this something to write about.

    What would make more sense to me is if they killed DDR2 support for the X48. That would give the X38 a reason to live. Show me someone buying the X48 and DDR2, and I'll show you an idiot. But, it would make more sense for an X38 or P35, and would give a more useful price seperation. P35 for good performance and a good price, X38 for PCI-E 2.0, and multiple cards, but with DDR2 support so it's not extraordinarily expensive, and the X48 for ultimate performance with little regards to price. Limit it to DDR3 and it makes sense. If the X48 can use DDR2, the X38 is not going to be popular.

  • Kougar - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    I agree more choices are better, but not when they come at the cost of impacting the quality of said choices. I can't speak for ASUS but Gigabyte seemed to be offering much better after-purchase support during P965 than they are with P31/P35 boards today. Smaller tier motherboard manufacturers with less resources and development/support teams would be having an even harder time of it if true.

    Partly is that many of the chipsets are not needed. They are carbon copies of each other that perform the same or were only given "official" 1600FSB stamps, such as P35-P45, G35-G45, and X38-X48. P35/P965 was capable of those FSB levels, and IIRC X38 actually HAD official 1600FSB ratings until Intel "changed their minds" and removed it to attempt to sell more X48 boards. Why release P45+G45+X48 updates for "only" a 1600FSB bump when 8 months later Nehalem will require completely new chipsets all over again? It stinks to much of Intel enjoying raiding the piggy bank at everyone else's expense.
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Partly is that many of the chipsets are not needed. They are carbon copies of each other that perform the same or were only given "official" 1600FSB stamps, such as P35-P45, G35-G45, and X38-X48. P35/P965 was capable of those FSB levels, and IIRC X38 actually HAD official 1600FSB ratings until Intel "changed their minds" and removed it to attempt to sell more X48 boards. Why release P45+G45+X48 updates for "only" a 1600FSB bump when 8 months later Nehalem will require completely new chipsets all over again? It stinks to much of Intel enjoying raiding the piggy bank at everyone else's expense.


    I heard that G45's IGP is a new design from current G965 and upcoming G35. If Intel is still following their rule(unofficial)of IGP refresh/new architecture/refresh/new architecture, G35 is the refresh and G45 is a new architecture. Some of their presentation slides also point out to that. And since it seems Intel can manage to make new die seperately just for their lower cache CPUs, I think they can do that with their chipsets too: Take a G35 die and add a better IGP. Of course, all other chipsets that doesn't have IGP are just basically same as the previous generations.
  • Kougar - Saturday, November 17, 2007 - link

    Ah, you are correct. G45 will be the GMA X4500 with DX10 and HD playblack offloading support, if the wiki is anything to go by. At least they seem to understand Intel's nomenclature! But that makes two of the three G31, G33, and G35 pretty superfluous, since they supposedly use mostly similar or different variations of the same G965 design that G45 will then supersede? I had thought G35 was released, but you are also correct it has not. G45 is due at the same time as the rest of the 45 chipset launches in 2Q'08, so what is the point of launching G35 just for one quarter except to help push more parts?

    Sadly this does not explain P45 or X48... both of which only offer a higher official FSB rating. Suffice to say if X48 doesn't offer any improvement over X38, then why would P45 offer the same over P35. X38 is nothing more than a P35 with extra PCIe lanes, which is fine, but it makes P45 and X48 rather moot points. The goal of a business is to turn a profit, but forcing a steady stream of superfluous rebadged "new" hardware down the industry's throat is not a good thing.
  • ninjit - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    quote:

    1 x PS/2 Keyboard
    2 x eSATA
    2 x SPDIF - Optical Out, Coaxial Out
    1 x IEEE 1394
    1 x Audio Panel
    2 x RJ45
    6 x USB 2.0/1.1


    Personally I really wish they dropped PS/2 altogether from new motherboards, but I find it a little odd that they included a PS/2 Keyboard port, but no mouse one.

    I thought it might be a typo, but the board picture only seems to show the purple keyboard ps/2 port as well.
  • Gholam - Sunday, November 18, 2007 - link

    Intel DP35DP has a nice little bug where you get locked out of the system after doing a BIOS upgrade. All "USB Root Hub" devices fail to start; you have to delete and redetect them - but since the only way to connect mouse and keyboard is via USB, they don't work, and the only way to resolve it is to use a remote connection via LAN.

    Likewise, on Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R, a Logitech G15 keyboard connected via USB doesn't function with Vista x64 boot loader - the "F8" part. A PS/2 keyboard must be used to access startup options.
  • TA152H - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    I'd rather they drop an additional USB ports and keep the PS/2 ports.

    Why would anyone want to connect their mouse and keyboard to a USB port? It does not function better, and has higher overhead. It's kind of funny how much importance people place into ringing that last cpu cycle out of their machine, and then the nitwits put in a USB keyboard and mouse.

    Guess who invented USB? Intel maybe? Why do you think Intel would want this lousy technology? Because it made people want faster CPUs. Why do we need something other than PS/2 ports for a mouse or keyboard? They don't do the job properly, and efficiently? Or wait, if we have USB ports, we can use them for something else in case we don't need to use a keyboard or mouse. Yes, that must be it! Except, how often don't you need a keyboard or mouse on a desktop machine and desperately need an extra USB port or two? Hmmmm, I'm thinking next to never.

    USB is a bad, inefficient technology. For things that don't matter like cameras, it doesn't matter (naturally). For anything else, you've made a compromise you probably shouldn't have made. It sucks for hard disks, it sucks for mice and keyboards, although it's good for powering portable refrigerators ( http://usb.brando.com.hk/prod_detail.php?prod_id=0...">http://usb.brando.com.hk/prod_detail.php?prod_id=0... ). Maybe that's what it should be used for. Everything else pretty much has a better choice of an existing interface.
  • jonp - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link

    Yes, let's keep the PS/2 keyboard and mouse connections. I have a KVM that I don't want to replace and a mix of systems across time. The latest edition is a MB with PS/2 keyboard but no mouse. The first PS/2 to USB converter was trash. The 2nd one works better but still the mouse hangs up without warning at the darndest times.

    At slightly off the topic, it seems that Intels dropping of IDE/PATA was a bit premature as all the MB manufacturers have to add back a JMicron (or someone elses) chip for IDE hard and CD/DVD drives....
  • takumsawsherman - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link

    Absolutely. There's nothing worse than having the Mobo not like your choice of USB keyboard and refuse to recogize F-Keys or Del upon boot. PS/2 is reliable, and has no disadvantages over USB that I can think of for keyboards. I think I heard something about precision mice that seemed to favor USB, but I've never had an issue with using my PS/2 connector with my USB mouse (till the adapter broke due to leverage issues). My mouse is now plugged in via USB and I don't feel any more precise or that my mousing has improved.

    USB is a hellspawn of a standard, and I wish that Firewire would have taken off instead. Some will blame Apple for the licensing garbage, and maybe that is true, but Apple's first iMac had USB and no Firewire. That is when USB really took off. Meanwhile, much like PS/2, ADB (the bus used for keyboards and mice on old Macs) was a better standard, and many complained about the USB keyboards not keeping up with typing, and of course the old keyboard combinations did not work as well, due to a lack of hardware interrupt, I think. No more rebooting from the keyboard when locked up, force quit didn't always come up. Lots of issues.

    Back to this board, I see they put FW400 on it, but felt that for $230, the customer should pay for their own FW800, even though it has been out for 4 years. Some premium.
  • leexgx - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    rants aside, keeping the PS/2 keyboard connector is an good idea as it allways works as with windows that is an slight chance that the usb kayboard may not not of been detected yet or you mate be stuck with the found new hardware box but unable to press enter heh

    i still use an ps/2 keyboard and an usb mouse so works well as it is
  • PLaYaHaTeD - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    Double paragraph on the first page,

    On Test Setup, memory is "Corsair GARY FIX THIS"
  • Raja Gill - Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - link

    oops sorry was posted during final edit, it's all fixed now...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now