915 Motherboard Roundup: Socket 775 for the Rest of Us
by Wesley Fink on December 7, 2004 12:25 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Foxconn 915A01-P-8EKRS: Features and Layout
| Foxconn 915A01 Motherboard Specifications | |
| CPU Interface | Socket 775 Pentium 4 (Prescott) |
| Chipset | Intel 915P/ICH6R |
| BUS Speeds | 200MHz to 350MHz (in 1MHz increments) |
| DDR2 Speeds | Auto, 400, 533 |
| PCI Speeds | 33.33, 36.36, 40.00, Ref PCIex |
| PCI Express Speeds | 100MHz to 200MHz in 1MHz increments |
| Core Voltage | -0.025V to +0.10V in 0.0125V increments |
| DRAM Voltage | NO Options |
| Memory Slots | Four 240-pin DDR2 Slots Dual-Channel Unbuffered Memory to 4GB |
| Expansion Slots | 1 PCIe x16 Slot 3 PCIe x1 slot 3 PCI Slots |
| Onboard SATA/RAID | 4 SATA 150 drives by ICH6R Can be combined in RAID 0, 1, Intel Matrix |
| Onboard IDE | One Standard ATA100/66 (2 drives) |
| Onboard USB 2.0/IEEE-1394 | 8 USB 2.0 ports 2 IEEE 1394a FireWire Ports by VIA VT6307 |
| Onboard LAN | Gigabit PCI Ethernet by Realtek 8110S-32 |
| Onboard Audio | Realtek ALC880 (HD Audio) 8-Channel with SPDIF |
| Tested BIOS | 915A03G Award 10/28/2004 |
The Foxconn 925A01, tested in the 925X roundup, was the first full-featured Foxconn board that we had tested. The 915A01 continues in that same vein as a full-featured Socket 775 motherboard based on the Intel 915P chipset. Foxconn has earned a reputation of building solid motherboards that represent very good value. The Foxconn 915A01 fits that market segment better than the premium 925X board that we reviewed, since Intel considers the 915 to be the mainstream version of their Socket 775 chipsets. Almost everyone offers a 915 "mainstream" motherboard, so Foxconn can carve out a value niche for their boards in this segment.
When we take a closer look at the 915A01, we see that Foxconn can manufacture it in many flavors. The numbers at the end of the board name represent available options that are on the board. In the case of the test board, it is 8EKRS. A quick check of the Foxconn manual shows that this board adds to the base model: 8-channel HD audio, firewire, 1G LAN, and SATA RAID. With these exact same features, you will find this Foxconn 915 selling for around $150 at online retailers.
While we can attest to the solid and reliable operation of Foxconn boards, we have been very surprised that Foxconn has had so much difficulty building a competitive enthusiast grade board. Every time that we test a Foxconn board, a BIOS seems to come later that adds any overclocking options at all, and the boards always seem to be missing the most important adjustments for memory voltage. It's really a shame that Foxconn can't get this right because when you can buy a DFI for $160, an Albatron 915P Pro for $109, or an Abit AG8 for $128, then the question is, why would you buy a Foxconn for $150 and it doesn't even have any adjustments for memory voltage?
It is good to see Foxconn offering the most important options from the 915 options. High-Definition audio and the ICH6R chipset with Intel Matrix RAID are both a part of the 915A01 board that we are testing. So is Gigabit LAN, but it is (once again) the slow PCI version instead of the faster PCIe LAN chip. Other than the complaint about PCI LAN, the feature set of the 915A01 is just fine, and the feature list will satisfy most users. Foxconn even includes the 6 mini-jacks needed for Intel High Definition audio, and Firewire ports for those who prefer that interface. The only weakness in the audio ports is that only an SPDIF coaxial connector is provided on an accessory bracket. There is no provision at all for an optical connector.
The Foxconn is not quite up to the level of the top 50% of boards in this roundup, but it is close. The 915A01 is rock solid no matter what we threw at it, and it only seems less than capable when we looked at the much abbreviated options for tweaking to get the best performance and overclocking on the board.
Layout of the Foxconn 915A01 is very good - much better than you might expect. Floppy and IDE connectors are located at the preferred upper right board edge. So is the 24/20-pin power connector. The 12V requires fishing the cable around the CPU, but this is an issue with many 915 boards anyway. It would be better if this 4-pin connector was also at a board edge.
There is one annoying item on every Foxconn board that we have reviewed so far, and that is the front panel connections. Foxconn seems to like the connections, which includes a 9-pin USB-like arrangement with no color-coding or other means to identify the panel connector. As a result, every time that we connect a Foxconn board, one of the connectors is usually set up wrong. It is also a fact that every case that we have in the lab has a 3-pin power LED connector, with just one exception. In the Foxconn universe, however, all power LEDs are 2-pin. We have seen a number of boards with a preference for 2-pin power LED connections, but most provided a 3-pin option also. It would be really appreciated if Foxconn would consider the same Power LED option on their boards. For those of you with a 3-pin power LED, the only option on the Foxconn is to modify your cable or leave the power LED disconnected.
Nitpicks aside, the Foxconn really has little to complain about in board layout. We mounted all of the boards in the roundup in a typical mid-tower case just to see how the layout worked and the Foxconn was an easier layout to work with than most.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
26 Comments
View All Comments
Live - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Sorry Didn't see your reply before I posted Wesley.Sure there is some value to be had but not "outstanding". I still don't agree with you but I guess my mind is made up. Intel needs to come out with something new before I go back.
As a roundup it was very good reading tough. I can't wait for the next AMD roundup to hit AnandTech.
Live - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
#12"The P5GD2 is an expensive motherboard, at about $240 on the web, but you can get almost all the same features in the P5GD2 Deluxe for about $50 less."
Thats expensive to me. Compare that to the 134.99 for the 939 Gold Editors Choice winner "MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum"
But thats not the point. If the 915P was substantially cheaper then a 939 system you might call it value for money but is it not. Mind you a 939 board is generally not cheap either but at least it delivers in comparison.
The CPU used in the review that hardly beat the much cheaper 3500+ had a max overclock of 14% and I bet you would find it hard to reach that high without the CPU overheating and start throttling http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=2345...
LGA775 CPUs does not offer great overclocking headroom compared to the much cheaper earlier Intel platforms or AMD for that matter. Sure they still overclock but nothing that we haven't seen before at higher cost and temperature. Again not what I would call outstanding.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
#11 - We just ran the 3500+ benchmarks in the same configuration this morning, and we do agree that the 3500+ is a particularly good value in performance for the dollar. However, the larger picture of prices of AMD CPUs compared to Intel show the Intel processors are a good, if not outstanding, value.Our conclusion was based on Anand's value analysis in the 3.46EE/1066 launch review at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... There he compared the 3800+ at over $600 to a Intel 560 3.6GHz at about $450 and found the 3800+ the winner but probably not a big enough winner to justify the price premium for the 3800+. At that time, there was no 570 (3.8GHz) and the 3.6 was the fastest Intel CPU unless you considered the $1000+ Xeon-based EE processors. Price changes continue, and with them the value relationships do change.
A quick check of prices today shows
Intel 520(2.8GHz)- $160 AMD 2800+(754) - $128
Intel 530(3.0GHz)- $180 AMD A64 3000+ - $152
Intel 540(3.2GHz)- $220 AMD A64 3200+ - $194
Intel 550(3.4GHz)- $282 AMD A64 3400+ - $269
Intel 560(3.6GHz)- $455 AMD A64 3500+ - $270
Intel 570(3.8GHz)- $795 AMD A64 3800+ - $630
AMD A64 4000+ - $716
AMD A64 FX55 - $812
With current prices we would have to agree that there is really no great value advantage to Intel any more. But there is good value in the Intel processors from 2.8GHz (520) to 3.6GHz (560). Certainly the 4000+, at $80 less than the 570 and faster performance, and the FX55 at about the same price as 570 and significantly faster in most benchmarks, are better value at the top. But we still stand by Intel being good value in the middle.
deathwalker - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
"outstanding value and performance for your buying dollar" ?????????? at $240 for a Mobo?..I guess I need to retake Economics 101...Bah...Intel just continues to shot themselves in the foot. A side note not related to this review..Dell must be deep inside of Intel's pocketbook with there contiued refusal to market AMD based products.danidentity - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
#11 - 915P motherboards are not expensive. They are equal or cheaper in price than socket 939 A64 motherboards.LGA775 CPUs offer great overclocking headroom if paired with the right board. Intel CPUs have traditionally have had more OCing headroom than AMD chips. That still holds true, for the most part, today. Especially when talking about the low-end chips, like the 2.8GHz.
Live - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
I'm sorry but I don't see the "outstanding value and performance for your buying dollar"Expensive Motherboards and CPUs with little overclocking headroom compared to the Athlon 64 competition. How does that translate to excellent value and performance? even the much cheaper 3500 comes out on top on most benchmarks.
Sure there are niche markets where the Intel platform excels but for the big majority of us AMD is where its at right now.
I don't think this review is in sync with your conclusion so either list some valid arguments for your point (Since its not there in the benchmarks) or edit the conclusion.
danidentity - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Wesley, thanks for including tests from a more comparable AMD CPU. Listening to your readers is always appreciated.Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
#4,#5,#6 - The Athlon 64 results with the FX55 were included for Reference, and not direct comparison. However you do make a good point.The closest A64 we had in the lab to a 3.6GHz 560 was the 3500+ based on the 90nm process. This should provide an advantage to the Intel 560. Since there are complaints here the FX55 is too high end, these new tests tilted toward Intel should balance the playing field. The 3500+ costs about $265 and the Intel 560 (3.6GHz) is about $455, so the 560 is about 70% more expensive than the 3500+.
The added 3500+ benchmarks were also an opportunity to test with the SAME ATI X800XT PCIe we used in benchmarking the 915 boards. Enjoy!
Color codes have been updated and there are now 3500+ results on the Gigabyte nForce4 with the ATI X800XT PCIe in all benchmarks.
Original plans were to include the Intel 570 in this roundup, but much of the testing was already done when the Intel 3.8GHz CPU was launched. This Intel 3.8 is priced at around $800, which is very close to the FX55. You can see how it compares to the FX55 in performance in Anand's launch article at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
CrystalBay - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
It's a pity that all these 4 dimm slot, dual channelMB's have such a rough time doing it. Imagine trying
to run 4 1GB dimms in DC, this goes for ddr1 as well 2.
Glassmaster - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
Now that Northwood and 865/875 are on the way out, only a fool would buy Intel.Glassmaster.