nForce4 Ultra Roundup: Charting the Mainstream
by Wesley Fink on July 5, 2005 10:28 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
The Motherboard Test Suite
One of the ongoing concerns at AnandTech has been the tight clustering of performance results in our recent motherboard tests. In general, it is rare to see really wide variations in stock performance with motherboards these days. This has been made even clearer by the AMD Athlon 64 CPU, which has the memory controller on the CPU itself, removing another variable from the chipset equation. This is not bad news for buyers, since more consistent performance at stock speeds makes choosing a motherboard an easier task. Readers have pointed out that we need to do more tests that really differentiate boards, and we have been working on updates to our tests.First and foremost, we have been including overclocking tests and memory stress testing for some time - simply because motherboards can vary a great deal in these capabilities. This tells you which motherboards overclock well and which ones are poor, and even if you don't ever plan to overclock, the ability of a motherboard to run at much higher than stock speeds tells you something about the quality of components used in a motherboard. Good overclockers generally use better components and are able to regulate power on the board better, so the good overclocking boards often make sense to buy even if you will never overclock. You can reasonably expect better stability and a longer service life.
As you will see in the overclocking tests on these nF4 Ultra motherboards, there is a huge variation in overclocking performance among the seven boards. Some of the boards did very well, others claimed to be aimed at the enthusiast, and then fell short in providing the controls that the enthusiasts demand for overclocking. One well-known overclocking brand turned in a dismal performance, raising questions about the directions of that company. The overclocking tests are revealing, and in this roundup in particular, they truly differentiate the boards.
Features are increasingly important in motherboards these days as well. With USB, Firewire, IDE, SATA controllers, RAID, LAN, and audio commonly found on top-line motherboards, you are buying much more than sockets for a processor and memory. There are potentially great variations in performance of these features, which could be very important for certain uses of the board. AnandTech has done a good job of detailing these features in past motherboard reviews, but we actually began testing and comparing those features in our nForce4 SLI roundup in February. When we have already tested a particular chip or specific feature in past reviews, we do not repeat the tests. There are really very few options being used with nForce4 chipsets, so most of the feature chips seen in this review have already been tested.
We also added iPeak storage tests to the motherboard suite in February. The SiS 180 was the only new chip in this roundup, so we added the results to our previous test data. If you are interested in how storage performance compares, please refer to the SLI review storage section and recent storage tests on SATA II drives.
USB 2.0 and Firewire 400/800 throughput was also measured with a new test developed for motherboard testing beginning in February. Basically, we create a RAM disk in Windows XP, write a standard test file to the RAM disk, then copy the file from the RAM disk to a USB 2.0, Firewire 400 or Firewire 800 connected hard drive. We time the copy from RAM disk to the connected drive with a timer program developed by our IT Manager. USB 2.0 is integrated in the NVIDIA chipset, and the Agere was the only new Firewire chips found in these reviews. You should refer to the Firewire and USB tests results to see how the various chips compare in performance.
We first compared Ethernet in the nForce4 SLI roundup using the Windows 2000 DDK to connect two computers with a CAT 6 crossover cable. We then use a standard host computer as the server and measure the transmission rate and CPU overhead at the client side, which was our test motherboard. We clearly demonstrated the advantages of PCIe over PCI gigabit Ethernet in those benchmarks, and we suggest that you look for PCIe LAN if LAN speed is an important feature to you. Frankly, most users will not come close to taxing regular PCI LAN with broadband internet, but if large file transfers over a gigabit LAN are part of your work routine, then PCIe LAN will be faster. If your LAN is slower than Gigabit, you will see no performance difference between PCI and PCIe LAN.
Audio is an area that is still under development and we will be including additional tests in future motherboard testing. We had one new configuration in this roundup - the Abit audio card - and we ran the industry standard RightMark benchmark suite for CPU utilization or overhead to compare to other solutions.
FutureMark 3DMark 2005 and 3DMark 2003 are useful for testing SLI and will be continued in SLI motherboard testing, but they provided little additional information in single video testing with the same video card. Therefore, we have not included these mostly GPU dependent benchmarks in these motherboard tests. We continued Winstones 2004 for Business and Multimedia, PCMark04, and AutoGK for media encoding. Games are now more heavily weighted toward the most current games with Half Life 2, Far Cry, Doom 3, and Unreal Tournament 2004. Aquamark 3, which is better known as a benchmark than the game on which it is based, is also continued. Return to Castle Wolfenstein-Enemy Territory and Quake 3 have been retained primarily because of their sensitivity to memory performance. It is also a useful reference to include Open GL-based games with so many new game offerings based on Direct X or sporting DX9 front ends.
Memory tRAS Recommendations
In past reviews, memory bandwidth tests established that a tRAS of 10 was optimal for the nForce3 chipset and a tRAS setting of 11 or 12 was generally best for nForce2. In the first memory stress test of a production nForce4 board, tRAS timings were first tested with memtest86, a free diagnostic program with its own boot OS that will boot from either a floppy disk or optical disk. Bandwidth of OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2, based on Samsung TCCD chips, was measured from tRas 5 to tRAS 11 to determine the best setting.| Memtest86 Bandwidth DFI nForce4 with Athlon 64 4000+ |
|
| 5 tRAS | 2191 |
| 6 tRAS | 2242 |
| 7 tRAS | 2242 |
| 8 tRAS | 2242 |
| 9 tRAS | 2141 |
| 10 tRAS | 2141 |
| 11 tRAS | 2092 |
The best bandwidth was achieved with this combination of nForce4/4000+/TCCD in the 6 to 8 range, so a mid-value tRAS of 7 was chosen for all tests. It appears that optimal tRAS timings may also be memory dependent on the nForce4, so we recommend a quick series of memtest86 to establish the optimum tRAS timings for other memories.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
75 Comments
View All Comments
ChineseDemocracyGNR - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link
"If you looking to save even more money, the 9NPA, based on the nForce4 x4 chipset, has a street price of around $90. You give up the SATA 2 support and 1000 bus, but most of the performance features are still available in the same basic motherboard. "I think you're talking about the 9NPAJ motherboard, which uses the nForce4 chipset and supports "2.0 GTs HT FSB".
truteck - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Regarding the post from ChineseDemocracyGNR on: Jul 9, 2005 3:19 PMQuoting statement from Anandtech's reviewer:
"If you looking to save even more money, the 9NPA, based on the nForce4 x4 chipset, has a street price of around $90. You give up the SATA 2 support and 1000 bus, but most of the performance features are still available in the same basic motherboard. "
-------------------
ChineseDemocracyGNR:
I think you're talking about the 9NPAJ motherboard, which uses the nForce4 chipset and supports "2.0 GTs HT FSB".
-------------------
I agree with ChineseDemocracyGNR! To AnandTech:
No disrespect intended!
"Sorry to say, but i believe your statement is wrong".
The Epox Model # EP-9NPA+Ultra MoBo does support Sata-2 drives.
I don't know where you got that incorrect info.
Also, i'm not sure what you are refering too about your other statement about "giving up 1000 bus"? It supports 2000 bus.
T_T
TheGlassman - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link
HTT's multi's were listed in the review.I have confirmed that the Chaintech's 6-03 bios overclocks just fine with single core cpu's.
Phiro, I understand your point, and it is a good one.
For me Anandtech reviews are one of my primary tools for deciding what hardware to buy. I think it is the same for a lot of people. Anandtech has earned this trust. That is why this review is disturbing. The results do not match my experience. You might notice in my previous posts, that I have followed false trails trying to figure out why. I cannot explain why the Chaintech board (and others with experience with other boards) performed so poorly in overclocking.
The reason this is imoportant is that the final ratings follow the philosophy stated in the beginning, that a better overclocker is a better board, because the actual performance at stock speeds is equal.The application testing bore this out.
Us 'bleeding edge" guys are well aware of how very small changes can make a big difference in performance. The fact that the award winners were using bios's not available to the public ( I have just now rechecked) that are dated a few days after their most recent bios, (for dfi, a beta which carries no warrantee support, their last release bios (the one that will be on the board you buy) is dated in March), throws the final results into doubt. In other words they appear to be special bioses for this test.
In the past, Anandtech has been very forthcoming when using a beta bios, explaining why, and stating that the board maker will make it available, or the included features available in a release bios. This was not done, they were not even labeled as beta's.
When Anandtech labels a board as an award winner, it is giving it's seal of approval, that people such as your self and myself will factor in when making a buying decision. The truth is under your criteria, any of these boards will serve you very well. From the application tests, your decision should be based on a) a good match to your programs, b)features you need or think you may need, and c) price. Anandtech's recommendation is irrelevant.
Anandtech's "forum-bleeding edge" audience is larger than you assume in your estimate. The fact that you are looking at an nVidia board at all says you are very involved in you purchasing decisions, other wise you would let some one else handle it for you. "gimme something that works" would be your involvement.
Anand awards have been given to 2 boards that you cannot buy, or so far even upgrade, to "as tested".
Speaking for myself, computer hardware is hard to keep up with, and losing a rock like Anandtech will be a great loss. I hope that will not happen, but excellent sites do fall by the wayside if they slip too far.
Phiro - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link
I think Anandtech has their audience nailed down about 80% of the time - their one flaw is listening to their forums a little too much IMO.Too many people have posted "oh what a dumb review we already bought our motherboards blah blah blah" - a GOOD example of not listening to the forums. If you're posting on the forums, you've probably been here for some time and you're in that 1% of computer users who qualify as "bleeding edge". Anandtech doesn't want to constantly address just the bleeding edge audience - as fun as you can be, you're 1% of the market, and for every right decision you make, you make wrong decisions.
To rip on Anandtech a little bit though, they do listen too much to the forum overclockers. The vast majority of users have NO interest in overclocking. 4% higher framerates isn't worth goofing around with voltages and installing a water cooling system.
arswihart - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link
I think its funny that so many people are now like, "Epox is the best" "they OC the best" "I'm gonna get one of those Epox NF4 boards that Anandtech reviewed". I have told you for months that Epox is nice, and to get the 9npa+, and great reviews have been floating around for a long while now. someof you take Anandtech's word as the word of GOD. That is hilarious and I guess its to be expected out of the mainstream audience that reads Anandtech.About the 9npa+ and 9npa SLI, OFFICIAL dual-core BIOS's were just released today by Epox. Enjoy.
TheGlassman - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link
Good question. It could explain the problems experienced with most of the boards. The chipset will run well over 1000 with no problem, but 1200ish will cause the boards various problems, usually a reset to a safe mode.Peanya - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Hmm I wonder if they tried a 3x LDT multiplier on some of those boards. I'm thinking that's why the Abit wouldn't get past 250MHz. I've not only seen reviewers get well past there, but many users. Some brands automatically lower the LDT for you, whereas some do not. Was this taken into consideration?AtaStrumf - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
MOBOs have always been messy things to test, debug etc. The thing I hate most is changing the MOBO, because there are so many possible problems associated with it.I do have one HUGE gripe with this roundup. You chose to test DFI's non SLI board as a control for SLI/Ultra boards, but that happens to be the worst possible choice. Why? Because, as you pointed out yourself, that is exactly THE SAME board, with just one pin on the chipset shorted/cut. For control you should have tested the worst case scenario, like a physically different board (just one PCIe 8x/different layout, feature set) possibly a newer revision. This brings us to the biggest problem with this kinds of assumptions and MOBO testing in general. Different versions, REVISIONS, bios', different memories, variable sample-to-sample MOBO quality, and now to top it off, different Athlon CPU revisions. I definately think you should not have made the assumptions that you did and should have tested ASUS, MSI and GIGABYTE NF4 Ultra boards. They are afterall one of the biggest enthusiast MOBO manufacturers.
If you want to keep your reputation you should definately pay more attention to this sort of things. Don't rush so much! You don't have do a roundup, post individual board reviews and take more time with them. Like you did with the DFI! You should even get at least three samples of each MOBO from different sources and compare them in order to really be able to get reliable results. Forum posts from other people can be very misleading, because of all the variables and skills these people have. This would make you THE BEST ;-) As things stand now, you're pretty mediocre I'm afraid.
One typo I found:
Page 19:
Our past tests have shown performance of the AGP-8x and PCIe **688** Ultra to be virtually identical
Probably 6800 ;-)
Viper4185 - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
1) Wesley next time please can you post instructions of how to run memtest to determine the best tRAS rating for your memory. I emailed you in your last article and received no response. Yes, I am a n00b. Perhaps someone else can tell me :P2) I have the same memory as you, how do I check if it is TCCD or TCC5?
3) You don't actually say which ethernet controller is better, the Marvell or the NVIDIA?
4) I think it was a big mistake for you to leave out the Gigabyte boards. For those that are interested in the Gigabyte boards compared to some of the above check out this review.
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=...
Otherwise good review, thanks Wes. Hopefully you can answer Q1-3 or someone else :)
Jotequila - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Hum.... Chaintech VNF4-Ultra can reach 275+ FSb easily, there are so many users here that can say same thing as me....There is something strange on the results, i can bet that other mobos on the round-up can reach high mhz too....
Look this:
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2891/superpi17hi....
Is with my chaintech, i think that you are cheating things here...
Best Regards,
Juan Edaurdo Donoso