Performance Test Configuration


 Performance Test Configuration
Processor(s): Intel Dual Xeon 3.06 (1 Mb Cache) 533FSB
AMD Opteron Socket 940 at 2.0GHz (9x222) 444FSB
Intel Pentium 4 at 3.0GHz (800FSB)
RAM: 2 x 512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II
4 x 512MB Legacy ECC at 2.5-3-4-5
2 x 256MB Corsair PC3200 TwinX LL
(v1.1 or 1.2) Modules (SPD rated)
Hard Drive(s): Maxtor 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer)
Western Digital 120GB 7200 RPM Special Edition (8MB Buffer)
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: Intel INF Update v5.00.1012
NVIDIA nForce version 2.45 (7/29/2003)
Video Card(s): ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB
(AGP 8X)
Video Drivers: ATI Catalyst 3.6
Operating System(s): Windows XP Professional SP1
Motherboards: Asus PC-DL Dual 3.06 Xeon @200.0 MHz
nVidia Reference nForce3 @ 222.0 MHz FSB
Asus P4C800-E @200.5 MHz
ABIT IS7-G (865PE)
ABIT IC7-G (875P)
Gigabyte 8KNXP (875P)


Recent performance tests on Intel 875/865 boards used 2x512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II Double-bank memory. Previous tests of Intel motherboards used 2x256MB Corsair 3200LL Ver. 1.1.

Performance tests run on nForce3 Reference Board with Opteron at 2.0Ghz used 4x512MB Legacy PC3200 Registered ECC modules set to 2.5-3-4-5 timings in Dual-Channel DDR400 mode at DDR444 speed.

All performance tests were run with the ATI 9800 PRO 128MB video card with AGP Aperture set to 128MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32.

Additions to Performance Tests

We have standardized on ZD Labs Internet Content Creation Winstone 2003 and ZD Labs Business Winstone 2002 for system benchmarking. We are no longer reporting SysMark2002 results as part of our standard benchmark suite.

Game Benchmarks

We have added Gun Metal DirectX Benchmark 2 from Yeti Labs as a standard game benchmark. We are also evaluating the new X2 Benchmark, which includes Transform and Lighting effects as part of the standard benchmarks. Results are reported here for reference. Jedi Knight II has been dropped form our standard Benchmark Suite. We were forced to use different patches for operation on Athlon and Intel Pentium 4, which made cross-platform comparison difficult if not impossible. In addition, Opteron/Athlon64 requires a 3rd patching variation for benchmarking. JK2 uses a Quake engine, and we are continuing Quake3 as a standard benchmark for the time being.

New Hardware

With the release of DirectX 9 late in 2002, the availability of Benchmarks to test DX9, and the availability of DX9-supporting video cards from both nVidia and ATI, we are now using the ATI Radeon 9800 PRO for all hardware reviews.


Asus PC-DL: Tech Support and RMA Gaming and Media Encoding Performance
Comments Locked

29 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    This review makes, me wonder...is it possible to use two P4 2400/800 CPU's on this board, maybe with some kind of adapter. Those P4's would likely outperform this Xeon setup and possibly also the Opteron, with a very interesting price tag, even if these adaptors would cost $50 each.

    And if anyone should see an Intel engineer, just tell him we want a 1000 MHZ FSB for those Xeons, as the i875 would surely pass all validation test at this speed, and the PC4000 memory is already available.
  • Wesley Fink - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    The 3200+ Athlon we use for testing AMD IS a Barton core. The 3.0 is the Intel CPU we have been using for benchmarking Intel.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    Why not just make a dual 800FSB P4 system. With HT activated you'd get 4 virtual processors, something that XP Pro can handle.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    i see commens like like its they use thw 3.2Hz p4 but what performance they all expect? 80% from 3.0 to 3.2Ghz?>
  • Lonyo - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    "we are reviewing the PC-DL, and comparing it to the performance from the current top Pentium 4, Barton, and Opteron/Athlon64 boards that we have tested"

    Performance Test Configuration
    Processor(s): Intel Dual Xeon 3.06 (1 Mb Cache) 533FSB
    AMD Opteron Socket 940 at 2.0GHz (9x222) 444FSB
    Intel Pentium 4 at 3.0GHz (800FSB)

    No Barton in there, the top Opteron (or so I thought) was the 1.8GHz, and the top P4 is the 3.2 as far as I'm aware.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    Dual Xeons is a joke. The P4 is starved for bandwidth in a SINGLE processor configuration at 533Mhz FSB. What makes anyone think TWO processors can handle being that starved? It's like eating spaghetti through a straw -- you can get a few noodles, but it's faster to go buy a fork. And, last I heard, Intel wasn't planning on bring a 800Mhz FSB to the Xeon, just a stopgap 667Mhz FSB. Almost any task can be performed better by a single P4 3.0Ghz processor then dual Xeons of any speed on any platform. Xeons make no sense as a consumer platform all. And, with Opteron here, they make no sense as a server platform, either.

    When can I see my Athlon64 vs. Pentium 4 benchies? I hardly think an overclocked Opteron counts. After all, the 2.0Ghz Athlon64 isn't going to run with dual-channel memory, anyway. Can you say Socket 754? Luckily, AMD is already moving to Socket 940/939 for future releases. Mmm. 64-bit goodness.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    I'm always dissapointed in dual cpu system reviews, as they never show how the systems multitask. I would like to see the FPS in UT3 while encoding a movie at the same time. Can you play games while burning a DVD? I would like to see the performance while performing multiple tasks at the same time.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    Yea, I'll bet Intel thought they could Spin dual Xeons as a viable filler until Prescott arrives some day. Reality shows there is no way the P4 or dual-Xeons are gonna hold a candle to a single Opteron/A64 let alone a dual system. Intel is hurting as their 90 nano stuff is gonna be too little, too late, and the suckers draw a pile of current = a ton of heat. Who wants that in a system thats' too expensive and that under performs??? They should just scrap the Prescott and work on something worth releasing to the market before it's obsolete.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link

    Somehow this review looks eerily familiar. Hrm, wonder why :P.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now