Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Conroe Motherboards: Native vs. Non-Native?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 6, 2006 7:04:22 AM

Hello my friends,

I frequently traverse these forums, especially when requiring up-to-the-second information regarding this new magic processor that Intel has managed to pull out of the proverbial hat.

I find this forum the most informative regarding computer hardware. It also seems to be extremely active, which is great for computer enthusiasts everywhere.

Now, after doing quite a bit of research and finding no solid answers, I am hoping that someone can forgive my ignorance and kindly enlighten me as to what the big difference between these new "native" 965 and the old "non-native" 975 motherboards are.

From the prelim. benchmarks, I see that the native ones are a little slower, perhaps just due to early revision in combination with premature drivers, but the difference is still there, and visible in practically every benchmark. Not only this, but they will seem to debut at a higher price too, with probable low availability and perhaps even restrictive choice, as some manufacturers will probably miss the deadline... as some users mentioned in their conjecture that the they (the makers) seem to be having manufacturing problems, hence the puched back launch dates.

So what is "the big deal"? are the new motherboards meant to provide better performance? better overclockability? or is intel once again claiming "it will make the internet go faster"? :) 

Im after real diferences here. I dont care about theoretical bandwidths, how big the ALU is, or how many instructions it can handle simultaneously. I want to know if a native motherboard will realistically give me better fps in games, or will the difference be a mere +/-5%... something which admitedly looks massive on a graph, thanks in part to our logarithmic preception (damn evolution) - but in reality does not make any difference what so ever... who actually sees a difference in 23fps and 25fps?

What I am after is intelligent information such as "It will run games using the BlahBlah engine faster because native support enables such and such features, which would probably give an X% fps increase compared to non-native boards under suh and such conditions."

Or...

"It just has some finely tuned capacitors which manage the core voltages better, meaning better overclockability by X%, but it will really cost too much - If you are not planning on overclocking to absulute maximums, then I would recomend that you save your money and just buy a non-native board."

What I DONT want:

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU ARE GH3Y!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111 INTEL IS GOD NATIVE WILL KILL AMD HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA"

I know its hard for some people on here to to refrain from this... I won't mention names.

I am trying to cover all angles here to minimise flaming... which seems to run rampant on these boards, so...

For the record, I only upgrade when I preceive a real difference in games, ie my purchace will increase the fps in games at a particular detail level atlease 2 fold.

That means that thanks to the painfully slow increments of amd's athlon64 processor, and extreme overpricing of its decent products, im still running a 2200+ with 1GB RAM and a 6800GT, with which I CAN play all if not most of the latest and greatest games on medium-highest level of detail at over 23fps (very playable) contrary to what many would have you believe. So please no treating me like a n00b with a crappy computer.

Ofcourse intel is no better, but they have always been overpriced, which is an excuse within itself :) 

Lets just say I dont like any company - as we all know, the primary goal of ANY company in the world is to rip you off the maximum amount they can overall get away with.

To avoid flaming and general fanboi commenting, this is where I stand:

I buy nVidia but im not an nVidiot.
I buy ATi but im no finATic.
I am british but do see a dentist regularly; thank you very much.

-- Zash
Cambridge
UK
July 6, 2006 10:24:05 AM

I don't know about anyone else but I find it immensely patronising when someone starts censoring the information I am allowed to reply with.

You are not going to be able to tell the performance difference between a native and non-native boards. You'd be lucky if you saw a 1% difference. There are multiple factors to consider:

Intel 975x chipset is established and already has many revisions under its belt. The 975x is a high end board designed with snazzy features like dual gigabit etc but the 965 is a next generation board. Thus some of the features that were high end before are carried through and new ones built in. for example, the ASUS P5B has a wi-fi antenae (sp?), external sata and HD audio.

Don't count on the 965 board being late, after all, they can be used for current intel processors. You should also remember that earlier revisions of the 975x board will not work with conroe and you could be taking a gamble buying those boards. Thus, I'd recommend a 965x based board... to be safe.

As a final note, you say that you already can play games just fine, in which case, I wouldn't recommend you upgrade at all. You should only really upgrade once you become unhappy with your build. The longer you can wait, the more money you'll save - I estimate that high value electronics depreciate about 30% each year.
July 6, 2006 1:35:33 PM

Thank You for the quick reply.

You are right, the tech will just not be mature enough at the point of release.

Perhaps the better thing to do would be to wait a while after all. For Kentsfield perhaps.

1% difference hardly seems enough to warrant a redical new change in motherboard chipsets. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that Intel was piggy-backing an un-needed chipset onto a winner processor to maximise proffit?

But Alas, im not a conspiracy theorest :) 

Thanks again,
-- Zash
July 6, 2006 1:38:04 PM

Quote:
I am British but do see a dentist regularly


The consensus agrees with you on that one... :roll:
!