Intel 975XBX
Basic Features


Intel 975XBX
Market Segment High-End/Enthusiast
CPU Interface Socket T (Socket 775)
Chipset Intel 975X + ICH7R
CPU Support Core 2 Duo, Pentium D, Celeron D, Pentium XE, LGA-775 based Pentium 4
Thermal Design 8-phase power
Fan-less (Passive) Cooling
Front Side Bus 1333 / 1067 / 800 / 533 MHz
Host Burn-In Mode 0 - 50% (in 1 percent increments)
Memory Speeds Default, DDR2 333, 400, 533, 667, and 800MHz
PCI Bus Speeds Default, 40.00MHz
PCIe Speeds Default, 101.32, 102.64, 103.96, 105.28, 106.6, 107.92, 109.24MHz
Set Processor Multiplier 6 to 40 (Depends on CPU) in 1X increments
Core Voltage Default, 1.2750V to 1.6000V (in 0.0125V increments)
DRAM Voltage Default, 1.80V, 1.90V, 2.00V, 2.10V, 2.20V
MCH Chipset Voltage Default, 1.525V, 1.600V, 1.650V, 1.725V
FSB Termination Voltage Default, 1.271V, 1.333V, 1.395V
Multi-GPU Option CrossFire (2 X8 PCIe)
Memory Slots Four 240-pin DDR2 DIMM Slots
Dual-Channel Configuration
Unbuffered ECC/non ECC Memory to 8GB Total
Expansion Slots 2 PCIe X16 (operates in 1X16 and 1X8 or 2X8 mode)
1 PCIe X16 (operates in X4 mode)
2 PCI 2.3
Onboard SATA 4 SATA 3Gb/s by ICH7R
Onboard IDE 1 UltraDMA 100/66/33 (2 Drives) by ICH7R
SATA/IDE RAID Intel ICH7R:
(4) x SATA 3Gb/s
RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, RAID 10, and Intel Matrix Storage technology
Silicon Image SiI3114:
(4) x SATA 1.5Gb/s
RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 0+1 (operates on PCI bus)
Onboard USB 2.0/IEEE-1394 8 USB2.0 ports by ICH7R
2 IEEE 1394a FireWire Ports by TI TSB43AB23
Onboard LAN Intel 82573L PCIe X1 Gb LAN
Onboard Audio Sigmatel STAC9221D, 8-channel capable HD Audio Codec featuring Dolby Master Studio technology
Power Connectors 24-pin ATX
8-pin EATX 12V
4-pin Molex Plug
Back Panel I/O Ports 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
1 x PS/2 Mouse
1 x Parallel
1 x Serial
1 x Audio I/O Panel
1 x Optical S/PDIF Out Port
1 x Coaxial S/PDIF Out Port
1 x RJ45
4 x USB
BIOS Revision Intel 6/20/2006

The Intel 975XBX, known by most as the BadAxe, was the first motherboard to officially support Core 2 Duo. AnandTech reviewed the board in January 2006 at Intel D975XBX: Intel brings their BadAxe to Market, but that early board was not really compatible with the just-launched Core 2 Duo processors. For Conroe compatibility the BadAxe must be Revision 0304 or later.

Click to enlarge

Since BadAxe was the only Conroe choice during much of the developmental testing, it quickly gained a list of user modifications that seems almost endless. The 975XBX is an Intel board that is actually capable of being overclocked and that actually has some decent adjustment options in the BIOS. This is not something you expect from Intel boards in the past, but it has definitely been an increasing part of Intel's top-end offerings.

The current BadAxe board has a few improved options in the BIOS, like overclock options to 50% instead of 30%, but it is otherwise still the exact same board AT reviewed this past January. For more information on the board please go to the AnandTech BadAxe review.

Basic Performance

While Intel does provide options that enable overclocking BadAxe, they still have a lot to learn about producing a motherboard for the Enthusiast. If you set a bad overclock on the BadAxe the board will NOT recover gracefully as ASUS, Gigabyte, DFI, and other Enthusiast boards normally manage. If you try to do some serious overclocking on this board you will quickly learn where the clear CMOS jumper is located and how to pop out the battery. In a failed OC on BadAxe, clearing CMOS and removing the battery are the only way to recover and reboot. This makes overclocking with BadAxe a very frustrating experience.

It is perhaps best to view the Intel 975Xbx as an incredibly stable motherboard built to last a very long time, as Intel motherboards normally are. It also allows overclocking, but the Intel BadAxe is not really set up for the kind of overclocking serious overclockers demand. It's is a difficult board to bring back from a failed OC.

Intel motherboards remain the standard against which others are measured in stock performance, and BadAxe is a fast and stable board running Core 2 Duo. It is not, though, a speed demon compared to the ASUS or other solid 975X motherboards as we have sometimes seen from Intel in the past.

Those who could care less about overclocking, or who only want to overclock modestly will likely be very pleased with BadAxe performance. So will overclockers who only want to overclock with multipliers since BadAxe supports the unlocked X6800 processor with multipliers both up and down from the stock 11x.

Overclocking

Intel 975XBX
Overclocking Testbed
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6700
Dual Core, 2.67GHz, 4MB Unified Cache
1066FSB, 10x Multiplier
CPU Voltage: 1.395v (default 1.2V)
Cooling: Tuniq Tower 120 Air Cooling
Power Supply: OCZ GameXstream 700W
Memory: Corsair Twin2X2048-PC2-8500C5 (2x1GB)
(Micron Memory Chips)
Hard Drive Hitachi 250GB 7200RPM SATA2 16MB Cache
Maximum OC:
(Standard Ratio)
325x10
3250MHz (+22%)

Perhaps because overclocking was so difficult compared to other boards in this Buyers Guide we only managed to reach a 22% overclock with the E6700, or 3.25GHz. We reached a similar 21% OC with the 2.93GHz X6800, reaching a stable 3.55GHz.

Others who have modified the BadAxe board, or who have a much greater tolerance to OC pain than we do, have reached much higher overclocks than we reached in our tests. However, two editors, with different boards and processors, reached almost the same results with BadAxe.

If you want to run your 2.93 or E6600 at 4GHz without a huge hassle then choose another motherboard, like the ASUS P5W-DH Deluxe. If you want to run almost forever with no problems then choose BadAxe. You can even take BadAxe to stratospheric overclocks, but that requires hardware modifications.

ASUS P5W-DH Deluxe ASUS P5B Deluxe
Comments Locked

123 Comments

View All Comments

  • Beaner - Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - link

    Very well-written article guys!
    Thanks for taking the time to enlighten us all.

    Just wanted to point out that the Mushkin Redline sticks can be had right now for $355 AR. At that price, I may just have to grab 'em myself!
  • ChronoReverse - Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - link

    It was pretty much shown that the effect of using memory dividers for Athlon64's was rather minimal while most dividers were more adverse for Netburst.

    How large of an effect does using memory dividers have on the Conroe?
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - link

    The effect of memory dividers is much smaller on Conroe than we saw on Netburst. In fact memory dividers on Conroe behave more like AM2 - probably the result of the "apparent" reduction in latency with the intelligent look-ahead in memory. Core 2 Duo is not Hyper-Transport, so 1:1 (533) tis still theoretically the highest performing setting, but we were hard pressed to find any measurable advantage of 1:1 in most situations.

    We had tested a number of high-performance dimms on Conroe before we wrote the Buyers Guide, but there just wasn't the time - or room - to include full memory performance data in the Guide. We do have memory reviews in process that will provide specifics to your questions.

    We can summarize what we have learned about memory on Conroe so far. DDR2-667 is quite a bit higher in real perfomance than DDR2-400 or DDR2-533 (1:1). We would consider DDR2 to be the minimum memory that should be used with Conroe. Going up from DDR2-667 we found the following - from fastest to DDR2-667. DDR2-1067 4-4-4 is a bit faster than DDR2-800 3-3-3 is a bit faster than DDR2-667 3-2-3. Timings are very important above DDR2-667 and you can give up any performance advantage with slower timings. DDR2-667 is a good match to COnroe bandwidth, and is better perfoming than 533 or 400 by a wider marging than you find above DDR2-667. It also appears Conroe responds better (performs better with increases) to DDR2 bandwidth increases than either Netburst or AM2.
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - link

    We would consider DDR2-667 the minimum memory to use with Conroe, and faster timings do generally improve performance.
  • Sunrise089 - Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - link

    I would like to know this as well.
  • txt2000 - Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - link

    Just wondering, if your going to spend ~$400 on memory if you would be better off with 4GB value DDR or 2GB high performance.
  • Patsoe - Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - link

    I suppose that completely depends on your usage pattern. Almost all of my activities fit within 512MB, and probably anything I do fits within 768MB. So getting faster RAM would do more for me than more of it.

    If you could fill 3GB, then a setup with 2GB will see a lot hard-disk swapping... even a very slow 4GB of RAM will do better in that case.
  • Andy4504 - Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - link

    Anything over 1GB results in the OS addressing your memory differently. Never did the reasearch on how that different addressing affected system performance however.
  • supremelaw - Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2797&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2797&am...

    Timing and content were perfect for this article.

    And, your earlier article on the nVidia 590 chipset
    for Intel also dovetails perfectly: nice photos too.

    August+ should be VERY interesting.

    Many thanks!


    Sincerely yours,
    /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
    Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
    http://www.supremelaw.org/">http://www.supremelaw.org/
  • mobutu - Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - link

    "The board was very stable with our X6800 and X6600 Core 2 Duo processors ..."
    It should have been E6700 (or maybe E6700)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now