Budget Micro-ATX P55 Faceoff: Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 and ASRock P55M Pro
by Gary Key on October 5, 2009 12:30 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
There's really no other way to say this: ASRock's P55M-Pro, Gigabyte's GA-PA55M-UD2 and Foxconn's P55MX all perform almost exactly the same in every single benchmark we ran.
Application tests, game tests, LAN tests, even USB, Firewire, and SATA controller performance was virtually identical across the board. We've known for a while now that motherboards of a given generation all perform the same, but there's honestly no more to it than that.
We've included a wealth of application, gaming and peripheral performance data for you to see for yourself, but honestly, it's not what's important when it comes to picking a micro-ATX P55 motherboard. Features, overclocking potential, support, and price point are what matter here.
The biggest difference between the boards, from a performance standpoint, actually surfaces in power consumption:
At
idle the Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 draws the least amount of power while under load, ASRock's P55M-Pro is absolutely stingy. It's not a huge margin, but big
enough to crown the Gigabyte board the least power hungry micro-ATX P55 board we've tested from an overall vantage point. We had to make sure that Enhanced Halt State (C1E) was enabled on the ASRock board along with ACPI Suspend (S3) was set to auto for all power management features to work correctly. If you happen to be using an SSD drive, then the Check Ready Bit option must be disabled on the ASRock BIOS (AMI in general) or the system might not resume correctly from S3. Otherwise, S3 resume worked properly on both boards at stock and overclocked settings.
Application/Gaming Performance
We're presenting all of the application/gaming performance data without commentary because, as we mentioned before - there's no real appreciable performance difference between these three boards. All of the boards were run with the Core i5 750 and we've included the Phenom II X4 965 BE as well as the i7 860, 870 and 920 purely for reference. Please check our Lynnfield launch article to see how well this processor performs against a variety of CPUs.
In many of our tests, the Core i5 750 is the same speed or faster than the Phenom II X4 965 BE. The lack of Hyper Threading prevents it from being a runaway success. In other cases, the Phenom II X4 965 is faster - and by a large degree.
Intel was very careful to disable HT on the 750, without it, there would be no reason to spend the extra money on the Core i7 860. Just as it was with Bloomfield, $284 is the sweet spot for Lynnfield if absolute performance is a requirement. Now for the benchmarks.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
yehuda - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
Slow POST is a minor annoyance, but it adds up as part of the computing experience IMO. I don't get why Gigabyte is so slow compared to other brands like MSI and ASRock. Just getting the video signal online takes about 4 seconds here (commenting on G31 and G41-based boards). It feels like a 486 until the OS takes over.yacoub - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
Much more interested in the MSI uATX board and the higher-level Gigabyte one that actually has all the features on it. These two may be entry-level but they also skip some features most discerning enthusiasts would want.Gary Key - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
The MSI just arrived, they were late to market for that one. The P55M-UD4 is coming up shortly, but it does not clock any better than the UD2. ;) The lack of passive MOSFET cooling was not a problem on either board under full load. The bigger problem is that the 4+1 PWM setup is not going to handle high current draws. The UD4, GD45, and MIII GENE boards are designed for that audience.MadMan007 - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
That's simple enough to understand in a basic way but could you elaborate on what *high* current means, and what the difference in ovreclocking might be? In the context of 24/7 overclocks as you go on about in this article would be best...you seem to imply in the article that the UD2 will be as good as any at 24/7-type settings but it would be nice to clarify when 'high' current is an advantage.yacoub - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
Cool, looking forward to that UD4 review =)I wonder if the extra features will be considered worth the price difference, although it sounds like you do not believe so.
The onboard audio is one area i've heard several complaints for cheapest Gigabyte boards compared to the mid-level and upper-tier boards.
MadMan007 - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
What exactly were the issues or differences in the audio? Features or sound quality?yacoub - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
at the moment i can't find either of the reviews i read a couple weeks ago, but both stated sound quality issues with the onboard solution, which is a lower grade than what is included on the other boards.philosofool - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
I have one of these boards and the sound is great. I'm listening to Little Milton (Grits Ain't Groceries) right now: I can hear every horn, bass string, cymbal crash like I'm sitting on stage. Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, but there's nothing wrong with the audio on this board.yacoub - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
To be more specific, there are reviews on other sites mentioning the particularly crappy onboard audio solution on the UD2 compared to the UD4, and there's also the lack of cooling on the VRMs.On the upside, sure, it uses slightly less operating power, and that can be important to users interested in uATX, but overall I'd rather spend another $20 or whatever to get the UD4 with better cooling and audio (and whatever else it adds).
yacoub - Monday, October 5, 2009 - link
Awesome work with the review, Gary. I do wish the uATX boards would stop carrying legacy ports like others have noted. Floppy is definitely archaic, IDE should be the next item tossed, and PCI could probably go as well. FireWire is also something 99% of us could live without on a uATX board that offers USB and eSATA.