DFI CFX3200-DR: ATI RD580 Tweak Attack
by Wesley Fink on May 8, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
General Performance
With the Memory Controller on the Athlon 64 Processor, Winstones benchmarks are no longer very revealing of motherboard performance. With the same CPU (and the same memory controller on that CPU), Winstones scores - both Business and Multimedia Content Creation - are tightly clustered. The only deviation from that is that boards that are tweaked for best gaming performance are often near the bottom of a tight range of benchmark performance numbers. The Winstones tests themselves are rapidly becoming dated, and are no longer supported by PC Magazine. While Winstones are still useful in providing real world performance data we will soon be dropping them from our motherboard test suite.
PCMark 2005 results with the DFI CFX3200 were average. Performance of the CFX3200 was in the middle of a tightly clustered group that only ranged from 4464 to 4511. Since all tested boards use ATI chipsets running X1900XT video the performance clustering is expected.
Despite the close results in these tests, PCMark05 is proving to be a useful overall performance benchmark. It is generally more sensitive than the older Winstones and PCMark04 to recent improvements in PC architecture. PCMark05 results in general relate well to the other performance results we find in our board tests, providing a quick and reliable snapshot of board performance compared to other motherboards.
3D Graphics & Encoding
The 3DMark benchmarks, published by Futuremark, are probably the most widely quoted gaming performance benchmarks available. While the benchmarks are based on game sequences written by Futuremark to reveal subtle differences in gaming performance, they still have to be considered synthetic benchmarks. They are useful for broad graphics comparisons, but they are no substitute for benchmarks with real gaming engines that are currently being played.SLI and CrossFire are also generally supported in 3DMarks, so tests were run with both single and dual video cards on all five tested boards. 3DMark06 was recently introduced and you can find more in-depth information about this new 3DMark at in the AnandTech article Futuremark's Latest Attempt: 3DMark06 Tested.
The CFX3200 holds a wide performance lead in CrossFire on 3DMark06 compared to other Rx480 and RD580 motherboards running X1900XT CrossFire. The DFI board does not hold a similar advantage in 3DMark06 when tested with a single X1900XT. 3DMark03 really gains huge performance increases with CrossFire, but results with the DFI are similar to other ATI chipset motherboards in both single and CrossFire modes. The same can be said for 3DMark05, except that CrossFire gains are in the neighborhood of 20% compared to the 70%+ CrossFire gains in 3DM03.
The 03, 05, and 06 are all based on DirectX 9, where 3DMark2001SE is based on DX8. While 3DMark01SE is somewhat dated in DX support it is still widely used by enthusiasts because it is more sensitive to increases in memory bandwidth and CPU speed than later 3DMarks. You can also see that the CrossFire gains in 01SE are very small compared to the DX9 based 3DMarks..
Encoding results should not be affected by the graphics card used during the encoding benchmarks. This is demonstrated again by the archive test results for AutoGK using an AMD 4000+ processor with a wide assortment of video cards. The performance range of those encoding tests is just 48.1 to 49.1 - a difference form high to low of just 1.0 FPS. Clearly the biggest influence on this encoding benchmark is the CPU used for testing. Because encoding test results vary so little on the same standardized motherboard test platform, they will be dropped from future motherboard reviews. Encoding tests are useful in CPU testing, but they have been shown to be poor motherboard tests - particularly on the AMD platform with the memory controller on the CPU.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
poohbear - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
nice mobo and all, but is it really worth $240 usd?! i think that money would be better spent on a decent mobo and the savings on a better vid card.:/cornfedone - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
WAY too expensive and no tangible performance increase over RD480 mobos.The mobo companies are out to pork consumers with sky high prices for commodity mobos. The RD480/RD580 chipsets are pretty low cost chipsets and the mobo designs less than stellar to say the least. For that Asus, DFI, Sapphire et al are asking outrageous prices for mobos with long lists of problems. None of these mobo companies has delivered a properly functioning mobo, they provide no tech support and they don't listen to their customers. All they do is use the hardware review sites as PIMPS to SHILL products that aren't ready for Prime Time.
With no serial port, only one usable PCI slot, a $200+ price tag, Mickey Mouse board layout design, too many BIOS adjustments that have little or no benefit, lack of quality tech and customer support, etc. the DFI mobo can sit on the shelf until Hell freezes over as far as I am concerned. Anyone willing to pay $200 for a malfunctioning mobo deserves exactly what they get or don't get.
PT Barnum is still alive and flourishing in the mobo industry.
Marlowe - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
I think the Sapphire PURE Crossfire A9RD580 suffers from the same problems as you mention. Just too many settings in bios to master. I expect you don't have the time to test this motherboard as well? I've actively worked with it to or from in three weeks now.. without even getting the HTT over 290 and get my ram to work at 2,5-3-3 settings :P Also in contrast to DFI, Sapphire has very poor bios and software support :)I might just be a n00b tho! But one should think almost a month of focus should be enough to get a computer working..
Peter - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
And yet again, we are seeing RAM performance attributed to the chipset - on an AMD64 chipset. Page 5 says:"Optimum tRAS
In past reviews, memory bandwidth tests established that a tRAS setting of 11 or 12 was generally best for nForce2, a tRAS of 10 was optimal for the nForce3 chipset, a tRAS of 7 was optimal for the nForce4/ATI RD480/ULi M1697 chipsets, and a tRAS of 10 produced the best bandwidth on the ULi 1695. The ASUS A8R32-MVP review established that a tRAS setting of 8 produced the highest bandwidth on the RD580 chipset."
Hello? As has been pointed out numerous times with those articles (every time, in fact), and as you certainly know, chipsets on AMD64 platforms do not even connect to the RAM. The CPU does that. Paragraphs like the above quoted are just plain nonsense.
Dear reviewers, are we being thick or are we just stuck too deeply in cut&paste land? You've been dragging this silly mistake along for three years now.
regards,
Peter
JarredWalton - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
The CPU does indeed house the memory controller, but that doesn't mean the chipset doesn't have an impact on memory timings. The point is that tRAS was tested at varying levels to determine an optimal settings. While nF4, Rx480, and M1697 got best results with tRAS set to 7, M1695 liked 10 and RD580 appears to do best with ~8. Realistically, the difference between tRAS 5 and tRAS 10 in actual applications (i.e. not memory benchmarks) is going to be less than 1 or 2%. However, it's good to be clear that we're using 2-2-2-8-1T timings because those appear to be better overall than 2-2-2-5-1T.Calin - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
While the memory controller is on the processor (and have very little in common with the chipset), one must note that the chipset will access the memory with different purposes, like DMA (Direct Memory) access from hard drive controllers, or integrated video chipsets needs a lot of bandwidth to the memory. In this, the processor is "left outside" the transfer, and the memory controller on the processor does the copy job.I don't know why different chipsets will favour different tRAS values, but the chipset needs to access the memory controller without intervention from processor
Visual - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
so this board has drive strength settings for everything and their mother... but is that needed? is it ever useful?if they all default to max anyway, what good is the ability to set it at 31 lower settings?
and its porbably the same with many other options - if they're set to the right value already and have a warning "do not change or your system will puke" in the comments, why do we even have those options?
Calin - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
Maybe when set at the max value, they create "echo" in other nearby lines (disrupting other signals)JarredWalton - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
Reaching maximum overclocks - just like fine tuning a typical BIOS - requires a lot of tweaks. Getting top performance from every memory type available using "Auto" settings is not likely to happen. You can discover through trial and error where the "sweet spot" is for your particular RAM, and you might find that it gives you and extra 100-200 MHz.For example, memory skew is mostly (as I understand it) a way of increasing stability. You tweak the memory so that signals are read/sent slightly out of phase with "default", and that can be used to compensate for higher clock speeds. You would end up adjusting skew at various overclock levels to maximize stability. Drive strength is another option for tuning the system to work optimally with your RAM and CPU at various speeds; higher voltages and clock speeds would respond differently to varying drive strengths.
The problem is, finding the optimal values for even one configuration is a trial and error process that can literally take weeks or even months. Do most people need that or even want that? Probably not. For the few that do, they'll probably love this board. That's why Wes says it would be nice to hide the less frequently used options and give them reasonable "Auto" settings. In the extreme, choosing even drive strength and DQS skew while leaving all other settings the same represents 16,744,448 potential settings (three separate drive strengths with 32 potential settings, and 511 skew settings).
The good news is that there are people out there with a better understanding of the low level details that are writing guides to help others optimize performance without testing every setting.
Clauzii - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
It looks like CrossFire is becoming a potent and competitive subject, despite what a lot of people said a year ago, and with this board from DFI, it looks like the future is indeed bright for people who want´s ATI Crossfire or thought they didn´t.It also looks that DFI has indeed become a star in the motherboard market - especially when the outdated SATA chips get a trip to the eternal outer space silicon fields - and gets an 600 injection.
To me it also seems that these boards must be near rocksolid, since I don´t see any mentions of strange behavior - nice.
Crossfire software (CCC and the horror that belongs to it!) needs to be solved by ATI as soon as possible!! as it looks to be the only thing holding back on more people getting it.
Thanks for a Nice and pretty well written article :)