Skip to main content

P67 Motherboard Roundup: Nine $150-200 Boards

Overclocking Results

BIOS Frequency and Voltage settings (for overclocking)
ASRock P67 Extreme4Asus P8P67 ProBiostar TP67XE
CPU Base Clock95-110 MHz (1 MHz)80-300 MHz (0.1MHz)100-300 MHz (0.1MHz)
CPU MultiplierUp to 57xUp to 57xUp to 100x*
DRAM Data Rates1066-2133 (266.6 MHz)800-2400* (266.6 MHz)1066-2133 (266.6 MHz)
CPU Vcore0.86-1.52V (5 mV)0.80-1.99V (5 mV)1.00-1.79V (10 mV)
Sys. Agent Voltage0.66-1.87 (12.5 mV)0.80-1.70V (6.25 mV)0.90-1.61V (12.5 mV)
PCH Voltage0.78-1.65V (9 mV)0.80-1.70V (10 mV)1.00-1.50V (12.5 mV)
DRAM Voltage1.20-1.80V (15 mV)1.20-2.20V (6.25 mV)1.30-2.20V (12.5 mV)
CAS Latency5-15 Cycles3-15 Cycles3-15 Cycles
tRCD4-15 Cycles4-15 Cycles3-15 Cycles
tRP4-15 Cycles4-15 Cycles3-15 Cycles
tRAS10-40 Cycles4-40 Cycles9-63 Cycles
BIOS Frequency and Voltage settings (for overclocking)
ECS P67H2-A2Foxconn P67A-SGigabyte P67A-UD4
CPU Base Clock100-106 MHz (0.16 MHz)100-300 MHz (0.1 MHz)80-200 MHz (0.1 MHz)
CPU MultiplierUp to 50xUp to 50xUp to 57x
DRAM Data Rates1066-2133 (266.6 MHz)1066-2133 (266.6 MHz)1066-2133 (266.6 MHz)
CPU Vcore-0.8 to +0.63V (50 mV)+1.0V (20 mV)0.75-1.70V (50 mV)
Sys. Agent Voltage-0.8 to +0.63V (50 mV)Not Adjustable0.66-1.31V (10 mV)
PCH Voltage1.08-1.23V (50 mV)Not Adjustable0.84-1.94V (20 mV)
DRAM Voltage-0.8 to +0.63V (50 mV)1.50-2.00V (12.5 mV)0.90-2.60V (20 mV)
CAS Latency3-15 Cycles3-15 Cycles5-15 Cycles
tRCD3-15 Cycles3-15 Cycles1-15 Cycles
tRP3-15 Cycles3-15 Cycles1-15 Cycles
tRAS9-63 Cycles9-63 Cycles1-40 Cycles
BIOS Frequency and Voltage settings (for overclocking)
Intel DP67BGJetway HI08MSI P67A-GD65
CPU Base Clock100-120 MHz (1 MHz)100-300 MHz (0.1 MHz)89-282 MHz (0.06 MHz)
CPU MultiplierUp to 57xUp to 50xUp to 60x*
DRAM Data Rates1066-2133 (266.6 MHz)1066-2133 (266.6 MHz)800-2133 (266.6 MHz)
CPU Vcore1.00-2.30V (6.25 mV)+0.255V (1 mV)0.80-1.80V (5 mV)
Sys. Agent Voltage0.85-1.75V (25 mV)1.14-1.25V (35 mV)0.93-1.59V (20 mV)
PCH Voltage1.00-1.50V (6.25 mV)1.08-1.18V (34 mV)Not Adjustable
DRAM Voltage1.20-2.00V (10 mV)1.54-2.20V (50 mV)1.11-2.46V (6.25 mV)
CAS Latency5-16 Cycles5-16 Cycles5-15 Cycles
tRCD5-16 Cycles5-16 Cycles4-15 Cycles
tRP5-16 Cycles5-16 Cycles4-15 Cycles
tRAS15-75 Cycles15-75 Cycles10-40 Cycles

*indicates a setting that exceeds available CPU ratios

We probably don’t need to remind anyone that Intel’s K-series processors are required to get anything greater than a nominal overclock from its LGA 1155 platform, since its base clock is almost stuck. Even then, overclocking is done by manipulating Turbo Boost multipliers. Asus still manages to edge out its competitors in CPU overclocking, while the HI08’s broken Turbo Boost forces it to rely on that narrow BCLK capability.

Intel breaks past BCLK expectations, but only because we tested this capability with the CPU at its stock multiplier. Higher stress that occurs at higher multipliers generally tends to make BCLK increases more difficult, so we’ll leave the combination of BCLK and high multipliers to the world of competitive overclocking.

Before we move on, we must also note that increased BCLK has a habit of corrupting drives, since higher clocks affect PCI Express and DMI. Our tests focused on CPU, GPU, and DRAM stability, since data corruption can take days to rear its ugly head.

The same BCLK limitations that affect CPU overclocking also limit RAM. Jetway’s HI08, for example, had boot issues when using its 21.33x memory multiplier, forcing us to push its BCLK limits to find a memory speed that’s likely short of the motherboard’s actual capability. Intel’s DP67BG was also capable of running beyond DDR3-2133, but we couldn’t force a cold boot at anything above the charted settings.

  • Tamz_msc
    Nice review.That ASUS came up with the highest CPU overclock wasn't surprising.
    Reply
  • reprotected
    I thought that the ECS looked pretty sick, and it did perform alright. But unfortunately, it wasn't the best.
    Reply
  • rantsky
    You guys rock! Thanks for the review!

    I'm just missing benchmarks like SATA/USB speeds etc. Please Tom's get those numbers for us!
    Reply
  • Tamz_msc
    When will we see an overclocking article on these CPUs?
    Reply
  • rmse17
    Thanks for the prompt review of the boards! I would like to see any differences in quality of audio and networking components. For example, what chipsets are used for Audio in each board, how that affects sound quality. Same thing for network, which chipset is used for networking, and bandwidth benchmarks. If you guys make part 2 to the review, it would be nice to see those features, as I think that would be one more way these boards would differentiate themselves.
    Reply
  • VVV850
    Would have been good to know the bios version for the tested motherboards. Sorry if I double posted.
    Reply
  • flabbergasted
    I'm going for the ASrock because I can use my socket 775 aftermarket cooler with it.
    Reply
  • VVV850
    I was wrong. The BIOS version is posted.
    Reply
  • stasdm
    Do not see any board worth spending money on.

    1. SLI "support". Do not understand why end-user has to pay for mythical SLI "sertification" (all latest Intel chips support SLI by definition) and a SLI bridge coming with the board (at least 75% of end users would never need one). The bridge should come with NVIDIA cards (same as with AMD ones). Also, in x8/x8 PCIe configuration nearly all NVIDIA cards (exept for low-end ones) will loose at least 12% productivity - with top cards that is about $100 spent for nothing (AMD cards would not see that difference). So, If those cards are coming as SLI-"sertified" they have to be, in the worst case, equipped by NVIDIA NF200 chip (though, I would not recommend to by cards with this PCIe v.1.1 bridge). As even NVIDIA GF110 cards really need less than 1GB/s bandwidth (all other NVIDIA and AMD - less than 0.8GB/s)and secondary cards in SLI/CrossFire use no more than 1/4 of that, a normal PCIe v.2.0 switch (costing less than thrown away with x8/x8 SLI money) will nicely support three "Graphics only" x16 slots, fully-functional x8 slot and will provide bandwidth enough to support one PCIe v.2.0 x4 (or 4 x x1) slot(s)/device(s).

    2. Do not understand the author euphoria of mass use of Marvell "SATA 6G" chips. The PCIe x1 chip might not be "SATA 6G" by definision, as it woud newer be able to provide more than 470GB/s (which is far from the standard 600GB/s) - so, I'd recommend to denote tham as 3G+ or 6G-. As it is shown in the upper section, there is enough bandwidth for real 6G solution (PCIe x8 LSISAS 2008 or x4 LSISAS 2004). Yes, will be a bit more expensive, but do not see the reason to have a palliative solutions on $200+ mobos.

    Reply
  • I was hoping that the new Asus Sabertooth P67 would be included. Its new design really is leaving people wondering if the change is as good as they claim.
    Reply