Intel DX58SO2 LGA 1366 X58 Motherboard Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,596
Intel DX58SO2 LGA 1366 X58 Motherboard Review - We don’t generally cover Intel branded motherboards because those products do not pop up that often on the enthusiast radar. Intel does have an "extreme" flagship X58 motherboard that may be worth your attention. We fire up Intel's DX58SO2!
 
im confused why are all these new x58 motherboards coming out now?
 
Why are these boards tested at different cpu frequencies especially the x58 boards, the results seem to be biased towards the higher cpu frequencies rather then the capabilities of the boards themselves,results mean nothing at all.
 
roccovw said:
Why are these boards tested at different cpu frequencies especially the x58 boards, the results seem to be biased towards the higher cpu frequencies rather then the capabilities of the boards themselves,results mean nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Benchmark results on motherboards do not mean anything and haven't in years. The performance of one board to another is virtually identical and when it's different, it's only seen in benchmarks. Some of which have enough variance to account for that difference anyway. What differentiates one board from another is features, overclocking and price.
 
Dan_D said:
Benchmark results on motherboards do not mean anything and haven't in years. The performance of one board to another is virtually identical and when it's different, it's only seen in benchmarks. Some of which have enough variance to account for that difference anyway. What differentiates one board from another is features, overclocking and price.
Click to expand...

If that's the case what's the point of testing the motherboards in CPU-limited gaming benchmarks?
 
XacTactX said:
If that's the case what's the point of testing the motherboards in CPU-limited gaming benchmarks?
Click to expand...

There really isn't one. It's simply expected. Removing the benchmarks would actually cause people to freak out and demand them. At one time there was quite a bit of difference in a motherboards performance but as time has gone on the difference from one board to the next has shrunk considerably. Now it's just about quality, features and overclocking. Quality can only be measured by the impression the reviewer gets from the construction of the board itself which isn't really the greatest or most meaningful measurement of a board's quality. Longevity speaks to quality but you can't really test that in the time frame of a review. Stability under stress testing is a good indicator of quality, but again not longevity. Features and overclocking are really what it's all about.

The benchmarks really haven't mattered all that much since they took L2 cache off the boards and integrated it into the processors. It hasn't mattered since really all the chipsets are pretty much from the same vendors. It hasn't mattered since the memory controller went into the processor and so on. Basically it hasn't really mattered that much in years, but readers demand them anyway.
 
When the Sandy Bridge launched, I found a few stores with a wide range of these Intel boards in stock based off the the new Intel chipset. I think there are maybe 4 or 5 different models. I also found a few early reviews and the one thing I saw that Kyle was able to point out is that the Intel board did not OC very well. But I remember the prices being very good and I absolutely loved the skull that was on the board.
 
SixFootDuo said:
When the Sandy Bridge launched, I found a few stores with a wide range of these Intel boards in stock based off the the new Intel chipset. I think there are maybe 4 or 5 different models. I also found a few early reviews and the one thing I saw that Kyle was able to point out is that the Intel board did not OC very well. But I remember the prices being very good and I absolutely loved the skull that was on the board.
Click to expand...

You can get a good overclock out of it with the right processor but it's not the same type of overclocking experience you'd get out of an ASUS, Gigabyte or MSI board.
 
roccovw said:
Why are these boards tested at different cpu frequencies especially the x58 boards, the results seem to be biased towards the higher cpu frequencies rather then the capabilities of the boards themselves,results mean nothing at all.
Click to expand...

To directly answer your question, just think that if every time we changed a CPU to the latest and greatest we had to re-benchmark 8 motherboards. (Now this is something we DO in GPU testing with driver changes and such.) The fact is with motherboards the benchmarks have come to mean NOTHING FOR YEARS. They are all the same minus a margin of error for the most part. We still run benchmarks to find things that are WRONG, not what is right. If I had it my way we would not even publish these, but that would not be a big crowd pleaser. :) If the benchmarks mean nothing to you, skip those pages, the scores are there for those that find that important. And to be true, using the board through these benchmark paces will give you a good feel and understanding of the hardware. After all, to share our opinions, we have to actually USE it. Benchmarking through 20 tests or so give us some good hands on experience with the boards.
 
Kyle and Dan, I thank you both for expressing this idea that testing motherboards for CPU limitation is mostly meaningless. After reading your motherboard reviews and seeing that the framerate differences are inconsequential, I'd have to agree. maybe you guys could think of new tests or activities to judge the motherboard with instead, to put your time to better use. In a way, if you were bold enough to challenge the established ideas, you could be trend-setters rather than allow people to receive what they're used to, and comfortable with. Not that you guys are followers and drones, but I hope you get what I mean. Anyway, thanks again.
 
very interesting ... a Intel motherboard that is in the top of the line... I really want a new board for my X58 system I will have to keep this one in mind.
 
Here is the biggest problem with Intel's own-branded X58 motherboards:

They lack any provision whatsoever to manually set the CPU PLL voltage that would have enhanced the overclocked CPU stability. The ICH voltage also cannot be set manually. Other minor voltage tweaks are MIA, as well. Only the CPU core voltage, the DIMM voltage, the QPI/VTT voltage and the IOH voltage (as well as the CPU and memory clocks) are adjustable. That's not enough adjustability for a so-called "enthusiast" mobo, IMHO.

The DX58SO2 are among those newer Intel-branded mobos that use an all-solid-capacitor design. Unfortunately, the capabilities of the chipset and CPU go largely unused in that board - and it is on the expensive side (judging by MicroCenter's pricing) compared to other companies' X58 mobos that include extensive tweaking capabilities and (often) more robust power designs.

And Intel's reference X58 mobo is not the only Intel-branded mobo to suffer: Their P67 mobos (for Sandy Bridge) also leave out important voltage tweaks.
 
Last edited:
polive said:
X58, really?
Click to expand...

Well they are relevant to some people who either find deals on existing 9xx series Core i7 CPUs, have existing Core i7's and need a new board for whatever reason, or for people looking for the ultimate in performance right now. Which would mean getting one of Intel's six core processors.
 
Monkey God said:
Whats wrong with it? It has USB 3.0, latest SATA, PCI, etc. The 1336 socket is still a great socket.
Click to expand...

Actually, the DX58SO2 does not have an onboard USB 3.0 controller at all. The similar DX58OG does. The DX58SO2, however, does include an onboard Marvell SATA 6.0 Gbps controller with two SATA 6.0 Gbps ports.
 
E4g1e said:
Actually, the DX58SO2 does not have an onboard USB 3.0 controller at all. The similar DX58OG does. The DX58SO2, however, does include an onboard Marvell SATA 6.0 Gbps controller with two SATA 6.0 Gbps ports.
Click to expand...

Its listed in the description...typo?
 
First off, I despise Intel motherboards. Even the mainstream ones tend to be full of quirks. If you ever need a laugh, go read some of the fix lists for BIOS updates on their boards. The progression of fixes can be hilarious.

Intel's views on over-clocking aren't complicated, they are psychotic. They will readily admit that it drives sales, yet they find it personally offensive that they can't charge you out the nose for it (see Extreme pricing the last several years). The 2X00K chips are the first inkling that someone at Intel is starting to get it. Of course in typical Intel fashion, it's turned into childs play and they insist you do it their way. No BCLK for you!!!

The X58SO was a worthless jumble of components designed using Madlibs. Triple channel board with 4 DIMMs? Requires an auxillary Molex for power, and you put it in the middle of the board? Missing basic OC settings, but you can change LED brightness? Hell, they couldn't even mount the chipset fan that is required for it to not melt down. Really?!?

It was obviously a workstation board gussied up to catch an enthusiasts eye.

This one is the same thing, it would seem. Atleast you get 6 DIMM slots now.

Hey Intel!!! You make good chipsets for your CPUs, keep it up. Please leave the motherboards to people who not only know what they are doing, but care enough to do it right. Atleast in the high-end.

FYI, Intels integrated RAID has been a joke for years. Who else makes a RAID controller that insists on wiping both drives to create a mirror? That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Kyle, how much nagging did they have to do to get ya'll to review this turd? And how much whining are you dealing with now that's it's live?
 
Dreknaught said:
First off, I despise Intel motherboards. Even the mainstream ones tend to be full of quirks. If you ever need a laugh, go read some of the fix lists for BIOS updates on their boards. The progression of fixes can be hilarious.

Intel's views on over-clocking aren't complicated, they are psychotic. They will readily admit that it drives sales, yet they find it personally offensive that they can't charge you out the nose for it (see Extreme pricing the last several years). The 2X00K chips are the first inkling that someone at Intel is starting to get it. Of course in typical Intel fashion, it's turned into childs play and they insist you do it their way. No BCLK for you!!!

The X58SO was a worthless jumble of components designed using Madlibs. Triple channel board with 4 DIMMs? Requires an auxillary Molex for power, and you put it in the middle of the board? Missing basic OC settings, but you can change LED brightness? Hell, they couldn't even mount the chipset fan that is required for it to not melt down. Really?!?

It was obviously a workstation board gussied up to catch an enthusiasts eye.

This one is the same thing, it would seem. Atleast you get 6 DIMM slots now.

Hey Intel!!! You make good chipsets for your CPUs, keep it up. Please leave the motherboards to people who not only know what they are doing, but care enough to do it right. Atleast in the high-end.

FYI, Intels integrated RAID has been a joke for years. Who else makes a RAID controller that insists on wiping both drives to create a mirror? That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Kyle, how much nagging did they have to do to get ya'll to review this turd? And how much whining are you dealing with now that's it's live?
Click to expand...

On the other hand, nobody does everything right, for that matter. I have had enthusiast boards that were very overclocking-friendly that did not work properly (or more specifically, were very to extremely unstable) at any speed -- even stock or slower.
 
E4g1e said:
On the other hand, nobody does everything right, for that matter. I have had enthusiast boards that were very overclocking-friendly that did not work properly (or more specifically, were very to extremely unstable) at any speed -- even stock or slower.
Click to expand...

I get that, I really do. Having been in the same boat a few times, it can be quite frustrating. However, I think of it this way. If I'm out buying an OC board, I'm buying it to OC. If it does that well then it shouldn't be a surprise to find it's had to give something up in some other area as a compromise. Whether you sacrifice stability, longevity, or price, at least you were able to accomplish the goal you bought the tool for.

I was trying to make the point that this ( and pretty much every one of Intel's) attempt at producing an Enthusiast Motherboard is at best half-assed, and at worst negligent. Not only did they leave out the enthusiast features that are the raison d'etre for this class of board, but what it does have doesn't work all that well.

The reason behind this rant is that they have been at it for years, and they are still making the same mistakes. They either can't figure out what they need to do, or don't care enough to bother. I'm not sure which would be worse.
 
Dreknaught said:
I get that, I really do. Having been in the same boat a few times, it can be quite frustrating. However, I think of it this way. If I'm out buying an OC board, I'm buying it to OC. If it does that well then it shouldn't be a surprise to find it's had to give something up in some other area as a compromise. Whether you sacrifice stability, longevity, or price, at least you were able to accomplish the goal you bought the tool for.
Click to expand...

I'm in a somewhat different boat: If it doesn't work at stock speed, I don't trust it at all when overclocked. Those particular boards that I experienced with such a problem would not even POST at all at even 1 MHz above stock no matter what I tried. And those boards repeatedly and consistently crashed and/or locked up at even underclocked speeds, let alone stock.
 
I'm not really surprised by this outcome. I've always looked at Intel boards as a solid mainstream product kind of like Gigabyte used to be. When I had my computer store a few years back we would always use Intel boards in our custom builds because we rarely had an issue with them coming back running stock configurations. I know HP, Dell and Gateway used to use them in their OEM builds as well. With that kind of history it's no surprise that Intel isn't pushing the envelope and falls on its face when it tries.
 
Exactly. As I've said before Intel is simply out of touch with the enthusiast market. Their efforts to throw the community a bone when it comes to motherboards just aren't enough.
 
I've had less intel branded motherboards die on me than other brands. Sure, they don't overclock as well and tend to be rather feature free, but they tend to be headache free.

I use intel boards and intel NICs and a proper raid card in systems that just need to work and run forever, never been let down.

When I retired my 975x, x38 systems I pulled the Abit and ASUS OC boards out the system, swapped in a passively cooled Quadro for the Geforce cards, and put them on intel boards, stock clocks and air cooling.

It's nice that intel is trying to provide a high end board, even if it's not the best. But the main point of their branded boards, runs for ever and stable, just isn't something most enthusiasts care about nor can it really be measured, unless you want to come back 4 years later after running the thing 24/7 and see which held up the best.
 
Dan_D said:
Well they are relevant to some people who either find deals on existing 9xx series Core i7 CPUs, have existing Core i7's and need a new board for whatever reason, or for people looking for the ultimate in performance right now. Which would mean getting one of Intel's six core processors.
Click to expand...

No to mention more pci express lanes in the chipset.
 
''The DX58SO2 had me at a disadvantage right out of the box and cost me a couple days of test time since I could not get it to POST.''


this about sums the board up - thnx for the time you all put in, I was considering, only considering, an Intel board for whenever my next build is...not happening!!! Yes, they may eventually run and run reliably if you want a stock standard affair - but :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:if I wanted that I wouldn't be here...I'd just stick to my Ifad:eek::eek::eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top