"What do you think you are gaining by trying to harass Wes."
It is not an attempt to harass anyone, it is pointing out A flaw with the review(emphasis on A).
"Does it make you feel like more of a man to try and point out flaws in his motherboard review?"
Why on Earth would it? If enough people point out the same issue perhaps it will bring home the fact that the higher resolutions are desireable information.
"This was NOT an SLI performance review. This was a motherboard review. In all honesty all that needed to be said of SLI in it is "Yup it works on the board" and BAM he has fulfilled his requirements for a motherboard review."
Not quite. The mobo must be capable of handling the load splitting in terms of the PCI-E lanes properly and there is the risk of issues with particular implementations being less then optimal along with the normal issues of early BIOS headaches that could become apparent for SLI adopters. There are also increased power demands at the highest resolutions.
"It's fine if you disagree with what he wrote but to say that he wrote a pointless review and then troll and try and take pot shots when he responds is just idiotic."
Not clarifying my points would be idiotic. Creating a summation of every particular reason why higher resolutions should be tested would run numerous pages, so I hold back and only point out those which I find to be most relevant. If a counter-point is offered then I rebut that issue.
"There is a reason he gets new hardware first and you well..."
That reason is he works for AT.
"If you think you can do better than please by all means start a website."
I used to handle reviews and other random things for a couple of different sites(mainly GameBasement) but the cost and time put into it wasn't worth it and I certainly wasn't going to go with an ad based site as then your credibility is too frequently in doubt.
When someone pointed out an element they felt I should have included in a review be it either hardware or software I took the time to add it in every time. If you consider authoring for a review site a service to your readers, then you try to do everything honest and accurate that needs to be done to service the readers.
I am going to comment on the article in a moment but first I have to ask Ben a question.
Ben - What do you think you are gaining by trying to harass Wes. Does it make you feel like more of a man to try and point out flaws in his motherboard review? This was NOT an SLI performance review. This was a motherboard review. In all honesty all that needed to be said of SLI in it is "Yup it works on the board" and BAM he has fulfilled his requirements for a motherboard review. It's fine if you disagree with what he wrote but to say that he wrote a pointless review and then troll and try and take pot shots when he responds is just idiotic. There is a reason he gets new hardware first and you well... don't. If you think you can do better than please by all means start a website. Start the www.benskywalkerhardwaretech.com Be careful with the skywalker name I have a feeling there’s a trademark on it. The bottom line to all this is that he did not include 16X12 because this was not about the cards or the processor. It's about the boards performance. If you want to see extreme resolutions then go check out an SLI vid card roundup. Or write one yourself and let us know the results. Please do us all a favor and stop. You reek of "seventeenism".
Ok sorry about that. With that said great review. I was hoping to see the board against the Asus board but I imagine that you all will do one once the retail boards hit the market.
I think we will see plenty of 1600 and 2048 benches in reviews to come. Everyone right now is just going nuts trying to figure out the performance ceiling of SLI with the limited benches run. I'll be waiting patiently for the review of the next NF4 production board :D
"A 19" CRT has a real screen diagonal of about 17". I find 1600x1200 on a 17" display far too small for anyone to really see what 1600X1200 actually adds to the game."
I would have someone set up a double blind test for you, if you honestly can't see the difference then you should set yourself up an appointment with an optometrist. It sounds as if you have some fairly serious issues with your vision.
Wesley- any idea if SATA hard-drives limit overclocking on nForce 4 boards, whether using the integrated controller or sockets connected to an additional onboard controller?
And as the hardware-firewall is one of the features nVidia are pushing in the nForce 4 Pro, it would be nice to have some review coverage of it. All we've had so far is the official nVidia gumf about it.
#51 - A 19" CRT has a real screen diagonal of about 17". I find 1600x1200 on a 17" display far too small for anyone to really see what 1600X1200 actually adds to the game. Playing 1600x1200 on a 17" screen is more about bragging rights, IMHO, that it is about visible performance. 1600x1200 is decent on a 21" to 22" CRT, as it is on a 20" LCD. LCD screen sizes are real, so a 20.3" dsiplay is actually a 20.3" diagonal. That 21" to 22" CRT will actually be about the same screen size as a 19" to 20" LCD.
Hey, Anand, are you planning on reviewing that Tyan dual-Opteron SLI motherboard anytime soon? ( http://xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4... ) The interesting thing about that MB is that both PCIe slots for the graphic cards are 16x, rather than the 8x on regular MBs, hence you would be able to tell if the available bandwidth has any impact on SLI performance.
A couple of questions about the nForce 4 chipset, not specifically the Gigabyte board:
Is overclocking limited if SATA hard-drives are used? If so does this only apply when using the SATA sockets off the nForce 4 chip, or also if SATA drives are connected to sockets from an additional onboard controller?
What are your impressions of the nForce 4 hardware firewall and configuration software? Does it provide all the configuration options you'd find in personal firewalls like ZoneAlarm or Kerio?
Otherwise a good review. Even though I've got a monitor which can do 2048x1536 @ 85hz and I would run it at that in games with a high-end SLI configuration, those sort of benchmarks (along with 8x AA benchmarking) belong in graphics-card reviews rather than motherboard reviews.
With an SLI setup, you may as well test the higher resolutions on the 6600 GT SLI, or 6800 Vanilla SLI it may make sense to limit yourself to 1280x1024, however with the 6800 GT SLI and 6800 Ultra SLI setup's costing 800US/1000US respectively, it won't make sense there.
I don't think that someone spending that amount of cash is gonna skimp on the displaying device, might as well test on the these:
or that Dell 2001 thing that can do 16x12 @ 16ms as well:
a 600US CRT or a 800US LCD to complement the 800US/1000US video card setup seems reasonable to me, and with these kinds of setup, testing at 16x12, 19x14, 20x15 does make sense, though I believe you can't test it with both AA AND AF enabled at those resolutions as 256MB of VRAM is the limiting factor there.
Also might as well throw in the 850US Athlon FX 55 too :P
I have received a question for a bit more info on the on the K8NXP boards. We did not receive a complete retail package on the SLI, but the SLI will also include the wireless LAN card.
Ports are included on two daughter cards which fits in slots on the computer. The first includes standard and mini Firewire plus 2 USB slots (4 total). The 2nd includes 2 USB slots.
One other thing too.... Nice review Wesley. I have a 21" NEC FP2141sb. I think many other users like myself have CRT monitors. I really just do see the benefit besides space and weight to go to a lcd. I had a 19" dell but it had lag. I had a 17" Viewsonic that had no lag but had a price that was too much for the size of the screen. Eventually I might get a lcd. I remember when the rage was having a video card that would do any game at 1600x1200. Now it seems the emphasis is off of that because of the lcd monitors. I think most still have crt monitors.
Can you run 2 different varieties of video cards in this board. For example could someone run a 6600 and then later add a 6800 ultra? It is a valid question for many. For example if I were to upgrade to this board I would need a new processor, motherboard, and video card. Some might have to get a cheaper video card than wanted if they had to buy all of this stuff.
A $400+ 19"+ CRT monitor will do 1600x1200 at minimum 85 Hz and can do 2048x1536 at 60Hz. My nvidia card, however, can't seem to do higher than 60Hz at 2048x1536 so I do not know if the monitor can do better than this.
In any case, if you benchmark a $800-$1000 SLI setup then you target high-end users and not the standard gray mass... Also, if you benchmark at this resolution then people will see if it works, and if it does, they will want to buy better monitors. therefore the market for better monitors will come and we will get better monitors =)
I ment to say Ultra ATA 33 and putting them on an Ultra DMA (ATA) 100 or 133 controller still makes them run in ATA/33 mode/speed. There is no Improvement for older drives.
the truth is that the sata 300 ports would change modes to run in the older 150 mode.
I have some old Ultra ATA drives and putting them on an Ultra DMA (ATA) 100 or 133 still makes them
run in ATA/33 mode/speed. There is no Improvement for older drives.
Jim, Your Hard Drive was not designed from the start to take advantage of newer Technolgical Features.
With all things being the same, no ncq or tcq added and all modes Identical except the added bandwith of sata 3 Gb/s port there would be NO hard drive improvement with your older drive over 1.5 Gb/s. Since the drive you are using was not specified or designed to take advantage of it.
Jim, Your Hard Drive was not designed from the start to take advantage of newer Technolgical Features.
With all things being the same, no ncq or tcq added and all modes Identical except the added bandwith of sata 3 Gb/s port there would be NO hard drive improvement with your older drive over 1.5 Gb/s. Since the drive you are using was not specified or designed to take advantage of it.
If you owned a Yugo that could only go 55mph max on the highway and the Speed limit was 55mph. Would changing the law to make the speed limit 110mph make your Yugo go any faster? NO. Only getting a new car would alow you to go any faster. The new speed limit does not mean that your new Escourt will go any faster than 85mph. :-)
I hope my analogy made some sence and helped to create a clearer understanding of drive interface bandwith. AIM GoogerSmith for any questens.
Just commenting on this great motherboard review, and reminding people that this was not a SLI review, hence the exclusion of 1600x1200 so we can see performance differences between motherboards. I understand many people want to see 1600x1200 benches because I do too, but this was a mobo review. Lets just thank wesley for a great mobo review, and save our SLI discussions for a SLI review.
1) The four ports provided by the nForce4 chipset support NCQ.
2) No. You need a SATA-300 drive to take advantage of the extra bandwidth available. Right now, even a Raptor is not limited by the SATA-150 interface.
I have a question or two about those SATA ports. There are 4 ports capable of 3 Gb/s and 4 capable of 1.5 Gb/s, if I'm reading things correctly.
1) Do any or all of the ports support NCQ?
2) If I had a fairly generic 7200RPM 8MB cache (Seagate or Maxtor or something similar), would I notice any difference at all between the fast port and the slow port? Or would I need some kind of super fancy drive to take advantage of the 3 Gb/s port? (And if so, what kind of drive would it take?)
>#18 - 2x6600GT it $400 total, 2x6800 is $600 total, 2x6800GT is $800, and finally 2x6800 Ultra is $1000
Where can anyone even get one of the 6800 PCIe cards for under $600? Even the GT is impossible to find for less than $550 (actually in stock).
Is there a reason they are so limited? Like a new core to make the 6800 series PCIe native and to 'update' the video processor?
This appears to be a very common question in many forums but there hasn't been an answer from any knowledgable source.
Any information would be especially useful.
Thank you.
>>>
I understand your resolution decision, plus you probably didn't have time to bench it all... but no 8xAA/16xAF. Especially when the 6800Ultra came to a crawl with 8xAA enabled.
>>>
why use 8xAA, and why use 16xAF ?
4xAA and 8xAF is the current "standard" and IMHO a good compromise "image quality -> performance"
How many run 8xAA ? See....then there's no point in covering this.
OK, I think down deep Wesley knows he screwed up and wrote a fairly useless review. Let's give him a chance to stop denying it and make it right.
Who was the Anandtech reviewer a couple months back who redid a review -- during his vacation no less -- after reader feedback? I think it was one of those Opteron vs. Xeon or Itanium reviews, when the mistake was made of using, well, a 3500+ instead of a true Opteron. Darn, I don't remember who it was (was it Kristopher?) but everyone immensely respected him afterward for standing up, acknowledging mistakes, and taking the time to redo things. Wesley has the title of Senior Editor for the web's #1 computer review site, so I'm sure he'll live up to those standards. Everyone knows that SLI users will be running at 16x12 and higher 100% of the time; I think the convincing has been done. Now let's kick back and give Wesley some breathing room and a chance to make the necessary fixes to his review.
"Why is playing a game on a 19" @16x12 difficult at all? If you have a decent 22" Diamondtron try having someone set one input up for you running 1280x1024 4xAA and the other input running 2048x1536 without AA and see what you think is better. I can't even comment about how 2048x1536 with AA would look as the only people that can run that type of setup right now are those with SLI parts in their hands and unfortunately they haven't deemed us worthy of obtaining that type of knowledge."
Absolutely agree.
There is absolutely NO point in any SLI review if there is no testing at 1600x1200, 1840x1440, and 2048x1536.
There are many, many, many people like me who own 22" monitors, have tried FarCry etc at 2048x1536 and can't yet run that resolution because 1 card simply isnt good enough.
i am envious you having the privilege having all this nice hardware to test....you know how many people are eagerly waiting for the nforce 4 boards.
The gigabyte looks absolutely great (except the limited vdimm v which is kinda weird, 2.8V max ???)....but lets not forget that there are more boards coming up on nforce 4...who knows what the others (MSI, ASUS etc. will bring)
I still have a burning question because i *need* to know whether the ThermalRight XP-120 HSF would fit on the Gigabyte board.
This is supposed to be one of the best (if not THE best air cooling solution)...
"I would have to say that many of you are in the minority even when it comes to the visitors of this website, let alone computer games in general. Many gamers such as me don't care about the extreme resolutions. Heck, I don't really care that much about SLI."
You pretty much summed up the issue with your comments right there. Those that aren't interested in extreme resolutions aren't interested in SLI either. Those of us that are interested in extreme resoltution are interested in SLI too.
Some of the resolutions numbers being thrown around here are ridiculous! Anything above 1600x1200 I find extreme, and 1600x1200 should only be used with large CRT/LCDs. This is of course coming from me who runs a 19" CRT at 1024x768 because I don't like the looks of my monitor at any higher resolution.
I would have to say that many of you are in the minority even when it comes to the visitors of this website, let alone computer games in general. Many gamers such as me don't care about the extreme resolutions. Heck, I don't really care that much about SLI.
I am glad to hear that someone is always pushing the envelope, though.
Awesome review. I don't know why everyoine is commenting on his resolution choices. Go read teh other SLI review, or read other SLI reviews from other websites such as the [H] or tomshardware. It looked like a sweet motherboard, and Fink this was a goiod review. There is one change I found though:
Continuing the theme of "more than you might expect", Gigabyte provides eight SATA ports. Four ports are 3Gb/s ports provided by the nForce3 chip, and the other are four 1.5Gb/s ports driven by the PCI bus.
That should say nForce4 chip I believe. Its on the first or second page. Keep up the good work though,
Jason
#20 - As I have already stated, 1024 was for comparison to other motherboard benchmarks so, for example, you could see the base K8NXP-SLI is fast as a motherboard compared to other A64 boards. 1280 was included for SLI. Anand reviewed SLI graphics capability at 1600x1200 for those interested in those results.
#22
i was coming with that point man...yes i do have a 19" that can do 1600x1200,but at 60hz...wich is no way good since i "feel"the refresh rate thing and that is giving me headache,1280x1024 at 75hz is the minimum (75 hz) aaceptable.85 the best.so westley,yur right man...no point in doing it at 1600x1200 and up...
beside..some 19" does more hz at 1600x1200...but they are pricy!
I never played games with monitor higher then 19", but is it really need AA with 1600x1200 or higher resolution? There are so many pixels that I doubt we see them (except maybe TFT).
Why every one says that want to test the SLI at 2048x1536? Which monitor will do that with quality and frequency? Who have of those monitors right now?
1280x1024 75 Hz is not enough, at least 85 Hz is needed, and i think when the resolutions increases you need more Hz or your head will mess up! So where is a 2048x1536 100 Hz monitor? If exists do you really think it cheap?
i can understand the 1280x1024, as many people will have 17-19 inch LCD panels, or otherwise game at that res with their CRT, and for those hoping to get two 6600GT's then it makes a lot of sense, but 1024x768!
i love anandtech motherboard grouptests, they are useful beyond many other sites. i look forward to an SLI grouptest where i would like to see the following resolutions benchmarked.
Wesley- We are still waiting for the 6800NU PCI-E parts to arrive. You may have access to information and when that will be, but everything in the public domain indicates that we will be waiting for the NV41 revision and no firm street date(based on the public information). 6800NU in SLI as of now is something looming on the horizon.
2x6600GT + NF4 SLI Premium is a bit higher then $400. 6600GT in an SLI configuration makes sense for those looking to do an upgrade now with a future viable path for them to take down the road to up performance again. It makes little sense to pay the premium for NF4 SLI w/dual 6600GTs when you can buy a 6800GT for less and avoid having to pay the premium for the SLI capable mobo. Their performance is close enough, and who has the performance edge depends on the settings although it is the 6800GT more frequently then not.
I think you are kidding yourself if you think that there are many people concerned over the performance difference of Halo running 1024x768 on any high end vid card setup. The game is quite limited at that setting by the processor/platform, certainly far more then the vid card(excluding a single 660GT). Those that have either a SLI setup or one of the higher end boards are going to be running at settings considerably higher then 1024x768.
For Aquamark3 I think you will find that pretty much noone cares one way or the other. The game the bench is based on is quite poor and already forgotten by pretty much everyone.
As far as the 6600GT performing close to the 6800U at 10x7 in D3, that is why I said you might as well have tested 320x240. You are processor/platform limiting the benches making the vid card varriable as small of a factor as possible. Most of the varriation we are seeing could easily be driver overhead- without stressing the parts we have no way of knowing how they are going to stack up in real world useage. Talk to some people who play games regularly and know even a little about computer hardware- ask them why they would spend $400(or signficantly more) on a video card. I can assure you that it is not to run 1024x768.
Comparing Doom3, Far Cry, and UT2004 results from the launch review benchmarks, the Gigabyte is significantly faster than the Asus SLI. However, Anand's benches were run at slower memory timings due to issues with the first SLI board - that were corrected with the second board he received. For that reason it was not completely fair to compare the Asus SLI benches to the Gigabyte SLI.
The first thing tested on the Gigabyte was to compare stock 6800U results to other A64 tests we have run. We saw the Gigabyte SLI performing the same as the K8NXP-9 nF4, which is the fastest A64 board we have tested so far. To answer the question, the Gigabyte is a lot faster than the Asus as the Asus was tested. We will run benchmarks on the Asus SLI for comparison as soon as we receive the production board here for testing.
#18 - 2x6600GT it $400 total, 2x6800 is $600 total, 2x6800GT is $800, and finally 2x6800 Ultra is $1000. There are many SLI options other than 2 6800 Ultra and I believe many people do care that 2x6600GT performs faster than a single 6800 Ultra in Aquamrk 3 and Halo at 1024. In fact that $400 combo performs about the same as the more expensive single 6800 Ultra in Doom 3 at 1024.
"To clarify test results, benchmarks are reported in separate graphs for standard results at 1024x768 resolution and enhanced results at 1280x1024. Since 1600x1200 normally requires a 20" or larger flat panel monitor, we did not report 1600x1200 results, since most readers will not run at that resolution."
As pointed out by cnq not having even 1600x1200 makes your review of SLI worthless. Honestly, stopping at 1600x1200 is a bit of a joke, who is going to spend $1K on video cards and have some POS display that can't handle a resolution worthy of that kind of cash? SLI testing should START at 1600x1200 and go up to 2048x1536- anything else is pointless. Anyone who purchases dual 6800GTs to run 1280x1024 certainly lacks the capacity to be reading this site as everyone already knows it is nigh pointless.
You may as well test 320x240, it has about the same level of relevance. 1600x1200(for baseline, low end comparisons), 1920x1440 and 2048x1536 are the settings that people who are honestly thinking about ponying up want to see tested.
"Most any decent 19" CRT can support 1600x1200 as you stated, but have you ever tried to play a game at 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT. I tried it just to see for this review and it was pretty ugly. However 16x12 was OK on the 22" Diamondtron, though I prefer 1280x1024 on the 19" flat panels for most gaming."
Why is playing a game on a 19" @16x12 difficult at all? If you have a decent 22" Diamondtron try having someone set one input up for you running 1280x1024 4xAA and the other input running 2048x1536 without AA and see what you think is better. I can't even comment about how 2048x1536 with AA would look as the only people that can run that type of setup right now are those with SLI parts in their hands and unfortunately they haven't deemed us worthy of obtaining that type of knowledge.
#11 - The K8NXP v1.0 and the K8NXP-SLI both ran perfectly at 5X HT, which was the reported issue with the nF4 "bug". All stock benchmarks were run with 5X enabled.
I'll have to agree with Wesley on the resolutions. Most people don't run 1600x1200. SLI as it stays now
looks limited on lower resolutions but will it when more demanding games are realesed? I think not. So the upgrade option is letting me run future games at max quality without byuing a new top of the line card. Just focusing on 1600x1200 beacuse you own a 2001FP seems rather silly.
There never was an issue with the nF4 chipset silicon. The A02 runs at 800 MHz HTT as the socket 754 was designed to run and the A03 runs at 1000 MHz HTT as the S939 is designed to do.
The original Rev. 1.X A7N8X Mobo was designed to run at 133 MHz FSB as that's what AMD chipsets used for a FSB at the time it was designed. Later when AMD was planning to release the XP 3200 with a 200 MHz FSB, the Rev. 2.0 A7N8X was released. There never was any design defect in the A7N8X it's just a matter of CPU/Mobo evolution.
PCIe is just an evolution also. There is no performance advantage to PCIe over AGP unless you run dual graphics cards in SLI mode.
I understand your resolution decision, plus you probably didn't have time to bench it all... but no 8xAA/16xAF. Especially when the 6800Ultra came to a crawl with 8xAA enabled.
I am wondering, since I have no Interest in running SLI but would like to use an LSI x4 scsi controler in place of the other graphics card. I know you can run a x1 or x2 device (nic?) in slot with a higher number of lanes (x8,x16,x32)and it will function fine.
My questen is because these boards use a semi-proprietary PCI-e setup it possible to use the second (x16 sized) unused PCI-E x16 slot for something else? while running something (i.e. a Graphics Processor) in the main x16 slot. I have a strong suspicion that it is ok; based on the fact that TOMSHADWARE.com Ran both ATI and nVIDIA (x800 and 6800uL) on the same motherboard! Run some Please let me know thanks!
#9 Agreed, they are less informed since they like to know as little as they possibly can. Ignorance is bliss. As for you and I, we are much higher up on the totem pole then they.
I am wondering, since I have no Interest in running SLI but would like to use an LSI x4 scsi controler in place of the other graphics card.I know you can run an x1 or x2 device in slot with a higher number of lanes (x8,x16,x32) Is it possible to use the unused PCI-E x16 slot for something else? while running somethin in the main x16 slot. I have a strong suspicion that it is ok; based on the fact that TOMSHADWARE.com Ran
both ATI and nVIDIA (x800 and 6800uL) on the same board! Please let me know thanks!
it's a good review and it's a good mobo, but what about the reported bug in the NFORCE4 shipset is it fixed yet or no? if no then all this bunch of mobos are going to use the customers and beta tester, i had thsi situation with the ASUS A7N8X deluxe rev 1.3 2 years ago and i still hate asus for that.
Actually, there were quite a few people that asked for resolutions higher than 16x12. I think for SLI benches, high res testing is probably the best. People that didn't read the initial article would get the wrong impression of SLI.
what i'd like to know is when are they going to start phasing out those useless serial ports and maybe the LPT printer ports? I figure if your going to spend money on performance parts might as well get USB printers and game controllers.
Also, any idea on when USB will be fully bootable that way PS2 ports can be phased out? Just wanna save on IRQs and make room for more USB's or Firewires so I don't have to rely on slot taking expansions.
#2 - Read on in the review. I did test at 1280 x1024 also because 1024x768 was limiting in some benches - but not as much as you might expect. The 1024x768 was provided mostly to allow comparison to past motherboard reviews.
I believe most will run 1280x1024 which is doable with most 19" flat panels. The cheapest flat panel I know of that runs 1600x1200 resolution is the 20.1" Dell at about $750. That's 16x12 entry level.
Most any decent 19" CRT can support 1600x1200 as you stated, but have you ever tried to play a game at 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT. I tried it just to see for this review and it was pretty ugly. However 16x12 was OK on the 22" Diamondtron, though I prefer 1280x1024 on the 19" flat panels for most gaming.
Anand got criticized for gearing everything in his SLI launch review to 1600x1200, so it figures I would get criticized for 1280x1024 which was suggested in the comments on his review. Guess we will never please everybody.
Well, this was a Mobo review, so that's one reason why it would make sense to run in resolutions that were CPU limited instead of video card limited. I doubt there would be much of a difference in SLI performance between the ASUS and Gigabyte solutions (although it certainly wouldn't hurt to have more data).
"Since 1600x1200 normally requires a 20" or larger flat panel monitor, we did not report 1600x1200 results, since most readers will not run at that resolution."
Wesley, with all due respect, there is not a single reader who is waiting to buy SLI who says to himself, "Boy I'd really like to see how fast SLI does at middling resolutions. Yeah, that's why I'm splurging thousands for an SLI rig. 1024x768 all the way baby!"
*ALL* SLI buyers will be running EVERYTHING at 16x12 or even 20x15, since current single card solutions can keep up at 10x7 and 12x10. No one would be dumb enough to pair up a couple of 68GT's or 68U's and then limit themselves to resolutions that a single 66GT could handle.
People who buy SLI are going to have money to spend, so don't worry, their monitors WILL be able to handle 16x12. An ordinary $250 19" CRT can do that, much less the kind of monitors that SLI fanatics will have.
Any SLI prospective purchasers out there planning to run their games at 1024x768? Didn't think so.
C'mon Wesley, really. You're doing quite a disservice benchmarking SLI at resolutions that aren't even graphics card limited in the first place.
Looks like Gigabyte has done it this time around. The question is: when can we buy these boards? I assume that the non-SLI version will be available first, since it already hit 1.0.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
58 Comments
Back to Article
instant - Thursday, February 24, 2005 - link
You should play games in 3520x1024 resolution with a SLI setup. :-)Can you do Multi-Monitor with SLI?
BenSkywalker - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
"What do you think you are gaining by trying to harass Wes."It is not an attempt to harass anyone, it is pointing out A flaw with the review(emphasis on A).
"Does it make you feel like more of a man to try and point out flaws in his motherboard review?"
Why on Earth would it? If enough people point out the same issue perhaps it will bring home the fact that the higher resolutions are desireable information.
"This was NOT an SLI performance review. This was a motherboard review. In all honesty all that needed to be said of SLI in it is "Yup it works on the board" and BAM he has fulfilled his requirements for a motherboard review."
Not quite. The mobo must be capable of handling the load splitting in terms of the PCI-E lanes properly and there is the risk of issues with particular implementations being less then optimal along with the normal issues of early BIOS headaches that could become apparent for SLI adopters. There are also increased power demands at the highest resolutions.
"It's fine if you disagree with what he wrote but to say that he wrote a pointless review and then troll and try and take pot shots when he responds is just idiotic."
Not clarifying my points would be idiotic. Creating a summation of every particular reason why higher resolutions should be tested would run numerous pages, so I hold back and only point out those which I find to be most relevant. If a counter-point is offered then I rebut that issue.
"There is a reason he gets new hardware first and you well..."
That reason is he works for AT.
"If you think you can do better than please by all means start a website."
I used to handle reviews and other random things for a couple of different sites(mainly GameBasement) but the cost and time put into it wasn't worth it and I certainly wasn't going to go with an ad based site as then your credibility is too frequently in doubt.
When someone pointed out an element they felt I should have included in a review be it either hardware or software I took the time to add it in every time. If you consider authoring for a review site a service to your readers, then you try to do everything honest and accurate that needs to be done to service the readers.
Akira1224 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I am going to comment on the article in a moment but first I have to ask Ben a question.Ben - What do you think you are gaining by trying to harass Wes. Does it make you feel like more of a man to try and point out flaws in his motherboard review? This was NOT an SLI performance review. This was a motherboard review. In all honesty all that needed to be said of SLI in it is "Yup it works on the board" and BAM he has fulfilled his requirements for a motherboard review. It's fine if you disagree with what he wrote but to say that he wrote a pointless review and then troll and try and take pot shots when he responds is just idiotic. There is a reason he gets new hardware first and you well... don't. If you think you can do better than please by all means start a website. Start the www.benskywalkerhardwaretech.com Be careful with the skywalker name I have a feeling there’s a trademark on it. The bottom line to all this is that he did not include 16X12 because this was not about the cards or the processor. It's about the boards performance. If you want to see extreme resolutions then go check out an SLI vid card roundup. Or write one yourself and let us know the results. Please do us all a favor and stop. You reek of "seventeenism".
Ok sorry about that. With that said great review. I was hoping to see the board against the Asus board but I imagine that you all will do one once the retail boards hit the market.
cryptonomicon - Monday, November 29, 2004 - link
I think we will see plenty of 1600 and 2048 benches in reviews to come. Everyone right now is just going nuts trying to figure out the performance ceiling of SLI with the limited benches run. I'll be waiting patiently for the review of the next NF4 production board :DBenSkywalker - Sunday, November 28, 2004 - link
Wesley-"A 19" CRT has a real screen diagonal of about 17". I find 1600x1200 on a 17" display far too small for anyone to really see what 1600X1200 actually adds to the game."
I would have someone set up a double blind test for you, if you honestly can't see the difference then you should set yourself up an appointment with an optometrist. It sounds as if you have some fairly serious issues with your vision.
PrinceGaz - Sunday, November 28, 2004 - link
Wesley- any idea if SATA hard-drives limit overclocking on nForce 4 boards, whether using the integrated controller or sockets connected to an additional onboard controller?And as the hardware-firewall is one of the features nVidia are pushing in the nForce 4 Pro, it would be nice to have some review coverage of it. All we've had so far is the official nVidia gumf about it.
Wesley Fink - Sunday, November 28, 2004 - link
#51 - A 19" CRT has a real screen diagonal of about 17". I find 1600x1200 on a 17" display far too small for anyone to really see what 1600X1200 actually adds to the game. Playing 1600x1200 on a 17" screen is more about bragging rights, IMHO, that it is about visible performance. 1600x1200 is decent on a 21" to 22" CRT, as it is on a 20" LCD. LCD screen sizes are real, so a 20.3" dsiplay is actually a 20.3" diagonal. That 21" to 22" CRT will actually be about the same screen size as a 19" to 20" LCD.SonicIce - Saturday, November 27, 2004 - link
The best 19" CRT money can buy won't breakmuch more than $300. It would be able to do 1600x1200@85Hz easy. Why would this be uncomfortable or ugly?Executor6 - Saturday, November 27, 2004 - link
Hey, Anand, are you planning on reviewing that Tyan dual-Opteron SLI motherboard anytime soon? ( http://xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4... ) The interesting thing about that MB is that both PCIe slots for the graphic cards are 16x, rather than the 8x on regular MBs, hence you would be able to tell if the available bandwidth has any impact on SLI performance.PrinceGaz - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
A couple of questions about the nForce 4 chipset, not specifically the Gigabyte board:Is overclocking limited if SATA hard-drives are used? If so does this only apply when using the SATA sockets off the nForce 4 chip, or also if SATA drives are connected to sockets from an additional onboard controller?
What are your impressions of the nForce 4 hardware firewall and configuration software? Does it provide all the configuration options you'd find in personal firewalls like ZoneAlarm or Kerio?
Otherwise a good review. Even though I've got a monitor which can do 2048x1536 @ 85hz and I would run it at that in games with a high-end SLI configuration, those sort of benchmarks (along with 8x AA benchmarking) belong in graphics-card reviews rather than motherboard reviews.
coldpower27 - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
With an SLI setup, you may as well test the higher resolutions on the 6600 GT SLI, or 6800 Vanilla SLI it may make sense to limit yourself to 1280x1024, however with the 6800 GT SLI and 6800 Ultra SLI setup's costing 800US/1000US respectively, it won't make sense there.I don't think that someone spending that amount of cash is gonna skimp on the displaying device, might as well test on the these:
NEC/Mitsubishi FP 2141SB
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc...
Viewsonic VP201s
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc...
or that Dell 2001 thing that can do 16x12 @ 16ms as well:
a 600US CRT or a 800US LCD to complement the 800US/1000US video card setup seems reasonable to me, and with these kinds of setup, testing at 16x12, 19x14, 20x15 does make sense, though I believe you can't test it with both AA AND AF enabled at those resolutions as 256MB of VRAM is the limiting factor there.
Also might as well throw in the 850US Athlon FX 55 too :P
nserra - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
#44 YES you can.See it at Toms, 5750 and 6800 or X700 and a X800 or a 6800 and a X800.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041123/...
I think its the best think you can have!! Better than having 2 cards in SLI, at least for me.
Wesley Fink - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
I have received a question for a bit more info on the on the K8NXP boards. We did not receive a complete retail package on the SLI, but the SLI will also include the wireless LAN card.Ports are included on two daughter cards which fits in slots on the computer. The first includes standard and mini Firewire plus 2 USB slots (4 total). The 2nd includes 2 USB slots.
gplracer - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
One other thing too.... Nice review Wesley. I have a 21" NEC FP2141sb. I think many other users like myself have CRT monitors. I really just do see the benefit besides space and weight to go to a lcd. I had a 19" dell but it had lag. I had a 17" Viewsonic that had no lag but had a price that was too much for the size of the screen. Eventually I might get a lcd. I remember when the rage was having a video card that would do any game at 1600x1200. Now it seems the emphasis is off of that because of the lcd monitors. I think most still have crt monitors.gplracer - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
Can you run 2 different varieties of video cards in this board. For example could someone run a 6600 and then later add a 6800 ultra? It is a valid question for many. For example if I were to upgrade to this board I would need a new processor, motherboard, and video card. Some might have to get a cheaper video card than wanted if they had to buy all of this stuff.jcromano - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
ChineseDemocracyGNR and Googer, thank you both for your answers. I guess the 3Gb/s is mostly just preparing for the future.Jim
Googer - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
Gatak, Last I checked Sony's GDM Line could do such Resolutions. But has been replaced by the Artesian Line.Gatak - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
A $400+ 19"+ CRT monitor will do 1600x1200 at minimum 85 Hz and can do 2048x1536 at 60Hz. My nvidia card, however, can't seem to do higher than 60Hz at 2048x1536 so I do not know if the monitor can do better than this.In any case, if you benchmark a $800-$1000 SLI setup then you target high-end users and not the standard gray mass... Also, if you benchmark at this resolution then people will see if it works, and if it does, they will want to buy better monitors. therefore the market for better monitors will come and we will get better monitors =)
Googer - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
I ment to say Ultra ATA 33 and putting them on an Ultra DMA (ATA) 100 or 133 controller still makes them run in ATA/33 mode/speed. There is no Improvement for older drives.Googer - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
EDIT:the truth is that the sata 300 ports would change modes to run in the older 150 mode.
I have some old Ultra ATA drives and putting them on an Ultra DMA (ATA) 100 or 133 still makes them
run in ATA/33 mode/speed. There is no Improvement for older drives.
Jim, Your Hard Drive was not designed from the start to take advantage of newer Technolgical Features.
With all things being the same, no ncq or tcq added and all modes Identical except the added bandwith of sata 3 Gb/s port there would be NO hard drive improvement with your older drive over 1.5 Gb/s. Since the drive you are using was not specified or designed to take advantage of it.
Googer - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
Jim, Your Hard Drive was not designed from the start to take advantage of newer Technolgical Features.With all things being the same, no ncq or tcq added and all modes Identical except the added bandwith of sata 3 Gb/s port there would be NO hard drive improvement with your older drive over 1.5 Gb/s. Since the drive you are using was not specified or designed to take advantage of it.
If you owned a Yugo that could only go 55mph max on the highway and the Speed limit was 55mph. Would changing the law to make the speed limit 110mph make your Yugo go any faster? NO. Only getting a new car would alow you to go any faster. The new speed limit does not mean that your new Escourt will go any faster than 85mph. :-)
I hope my analogy made some sence and helped to create a clearer understanding of drive interface bandwith. AIM GoogerSmith for any questens.
Gnoad - Friday, November 26, 2004 - link
Just commenting on this great motherboard review, and reminding people that this was not a SLI review, hence the exclusion of 1600x1200 so we can see performance differences between motherboards. I understand many people want to see 1600x1200 benches because I do too, but this was a mobo review. Lets just thank wesley for a great mobo review, and save our SLI discussions for a SLI review.ChineseDemocracyGNR - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
1) The four ports provided by the nForce4 chipset support NCQ.2) No. You need a SATA-300 drive to take advantage of the extra bandwidth available. Right now, even a Raptor is not limited by the SATA-150 interface.
jcromano - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
I have a question or two about those SATA ports. There are 4 ports capable of 3 Gb/s and 4 capable of 1.5 Gb/s, if I'm reading things correctly.1) Do any or all of the ports support NCQ?
2) If I had a fairly generic 7200RPM 8MB cache (Seagate or Maxtor or something similar), would I notice any difference at all between the fast port and the slow port? Or would I need some kind of super fancy drive to take advantage of the 3 Gb/s port? (And if so, what kind of drive would it take?)
Cheers,
Jim
Filibuster - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
>#18 - 2x6600GT it $400 total, 2x6800 is $600 total, 2x6800GT is $800, and finally 2x6800 Ultra is $1000Where can anyone even get one of the 6800 PCIe cards for under $600? Even the GT is impossible to find for less than $550 (actually in stock).
Is there a reason they are so limited? Like a new core to make the 6800 series PCIe native and to 'update' the video processor?
This appears to be a very common question in many forums but there hasn't been an answer from any knowledgable source.
Any information would be especially useful.
Thank you.
flexy - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
>>>I understand your resolution decision, plus you probably didn't have time to bench it all... but no 8xAA/16xAF. Especially when the 6800Ultra came to a crawl with 8xAA enabled.
>>>
why use 8xAA, and why use 16xAF ?
4xAA and 8xAF is the current "standard" and IMHO a good compromise "image quality -> performance"
How many run 8xAA ? See....then there's no point in covering this.
cnq - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
OK, I think down deep Wesley knows he screwed up and wrote a fairly useless review. Let's give him a chance to stop denying it and make it right.Who was the Anandtech reviewer a couple months back who redid a review -- during his vacation no less -- after reader feedback? I think it was one of those Opteron vs. Xeon or Itanium reviews, when the mistake was made of using, well, a 3500+ instead of a true Opteron. Darn, I don't remember who it was (was it Kristopher?) but everyone immensely respected him afterward for standing up, acknowledging mistakes, and taking the time to redo things. Wesley has the title of Senior Editor for the web's #1 computer review site, so I'm sure he'll live up to those standards. Everyone knows that SLI users will be running at 16x12 and higher 100% of the time; I think the convincing has been done. Now let's kick back and give Wesley some breathing room and a chance to make the necessary fixes to his review.
Alkali - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
"Why is playing a game on a 19" @16x12 difficult at all? If you have a decent 22" Diamondtron try having someone set one input up for you running 1280x1024 4xAA and the other input running 2048x1536 without AA and see what you think is better. I can't even comment about how 2048x1536 with AA would look as the only people that can run that type of setup right now are those with SLI parts in their hands and unfortunately they haven't deemed us worthy of obtaining that type of knowledge."Absolutely agree.
There is absolutely NO point in any SLI review if there is no testing at 1600x1200, 1840x1440, and 2048x1536.
There are many, many, many people like me who own 22" monitors, have tried FarCry etc at 2048x1536 and can't yet run that resolution because 1 card simply isnt good enough.
flexy - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
wesley,i am envious you having the privilege having all this nice hardware to test....you know how many people are eagerly waiting for the nforce 4 boards.
The gigabyte looks absolutely great (except the limited vdimm v which is kinda weird, 2.8V max ???)....but lets not forget that there are more boards coming up on nforce 4...who knows what the others (MSI, ASUS etc. will bring)
I still have a burning question because i *need* to know whether the ThermalRight XP-120 HSF would fit on the Gigabyte board.
This is supposed to be one of the best (if not THE best air cooling solution)...
Googer - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Does anybody know if you can use that second x16 PCI-E slot for anything else other than Graphics?BenSkywalker - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
"I would have to say that many of you are in the minority even when it comes to the visitors of this website, let alone computer games in general. Many gamers such as me don't care about the extreme resolutions. Heck, I don't really care that much about SLI."You pretty much summed up the issue with your comments right there. Those that aren't interested in extreme resolutions aren't interested in SLI either. Those of us that are interested in extreme resoltution are interested in SLI too.
darklight0tr - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Some of the resolutions numbers being thrown around here are ridiculous! Anything above 1600x1200 I find extreme, and 1600x1200 should only be used with large CRT/LCDs. This is of course coming from me who runs a 19" CRT at 1024x768 because I don't like the looks of my monitor at any higher resolution.I would have to say that many of you are in the minority even when it comes to the visitors of this website, let alone computer games in general. Many gamers such as me don't care about the extreme resolutions. Heck, I don't really care that much about SLI.
I am glad to hear that someone is always pushing the envelope, though.
Myrandex - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Awesome review. I don't know why everyoine is commenting on his resolution choices. Go read teh other SLI review, or read other SLI reviews from other websites such as the [H] or tomshardware. It looked like a sweet motherboard, and Fink this was a goiod review. There is one change I found though:Continuing the theme of "more than you might expect", Gigabyte provides eight SATA ports. Four ports are 3Gb/s ports provided by the nForce3 chip, and the other are four 1.5Gb/s ports driven by the PCI bus.
That should say nForce4 chip I believe. Its on the first or second page. Keep up the good work though,
Jason
Wesley Fink - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
#20 - As I have already stated, 1024 was for comparison to other motherboard benchmarks so, for example, you could see the base K8NXP-SLI is fast as a motherboard compared to other A64 boards. 1280 was included for SLI. Anand reviewed SLI graphics capability at 1600x1200 for those interested in those results.rslayerr - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
#22i was coming with that point man...yes i do have a 19" that can do 1600x1200,but at 60hz...wich is no way good since i "feel"the refresh rate thing and that is giving me headache,1280x1024 at 75hz is the minimum (75 hz) aaceptable.85 the best.so westley,yur right man...no point in doing it at 1600x1200 and up...
beside..some 19" does more hz at 1600x1200...but they are pricy!
R3MF - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
with the advent of HDTV spec panels, SLI is truly useful, and we need to know that SLI can drive modern games at these resolution (1920x1200).nserra - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
I never played games with monitor higher then 19", but is it really need AA with 1600x1200 or higher resolution? There are so many pixels that I doubt we see them (except maybe TFT).Why every one says that want to test the SLI at 2048x1536? Which monitor will do that with quality and frequency? Who have of those monitors right now?
1280x1024 75 Hz is not enough, at least 85 Hz is needed, and i think when the resolutions increases you need more Hz or your head will mess up! So where is a 2048x1536 100 Hz monitor? If exists do you really think it cheap?
Is this card ok for games of just work? http://www.3dlabs.com/products/product.asp?prod=29...
SLI = 5000$ PC
R3MF - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
i can understand the 1280x1024, as many people will have 17-19 inch LCD panels, or otherwise game at that res with their CRT, and for those hoping to get two 6600GT's then it makes a lot of sense, but 1024x768!i love anandtech motherboard grouptests, they are useful beyond many other sites. i look forward to an SLI grouptest where i would like to see the following resolutions benchmarked.
1280x1024 (6[b]6[/b]00GT SLI)
1680x1050 (6[b]6[/b]00GT SLI + 6800GT SLI)
1600x1200 (6800GT SLI + 6800[b]U[/b] SLI)
1920x1200 (6800GT SLI + 6800[b]U[/b] SLI)
2048x1536 (6800[b]U[/b] SLI)
BenSkywalker - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Wesley- We are still waiting for the 6800NU PCI-E parts to arrive. You may have access to information and when that will be, but everything in the public domain indicates that we will be waiting for the NV41 revision and no firm street date(based on the public information). 6800NU in SLI as of now is something looming on the horizon.2x6600GT + NF4 SLI Premium is a bit higher then $400. 6600GT in an SLI configuration makes sense for those looking to do an upgrade now with a future viable path for them to take down the road to up performance again. It makes little sense to pay the premium for NF4 SLI w/dual 6600GTs when you can buy a 6800GT for less and avoid having to pay the premium for the SLI capable mobo. Their performance is close enough, and who has the performance edge depends on the settings although it is the 6800GT more frequently then not.
I think you are kidding yourself if you think that there are many people concerned over the performance difference of Halo running 1024x768 on any high end vid card setup. The game is quite limited at that setting by the processor/platform, certainly far more then the vid card(excluding a single 660GT). Those that have either a SLI setup or one of the higher end boards are going to be running at settings considerably higher then 1024x768.
For Aquamark3 I think you will find that pretty much noone cares one way or the other. The game the bench is based on is quite poor and already forgotten by pretty much everyone.
As far as the 6600GT performing close to the 6800U at 10x7 in D3, that is why I said you might as well have tested 320x240. You are processor/platform limiting the benches making the vid card varriable as small of a factor as possible. Most of the varriation we are seeing could easily be driver overhead- without stressing the parts we have no way of knowing how they are going to stack up in real world useage. Talk to some people who play games regularly and know even a little about computer hardware- ask them why they would spend $400(or signficantly more) on a video card. I can assure you that it is not to run 1024x768.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Comparing Doom3, Far Cry, and UT2004 results from the launch review benchmarks, the Gigabyte is significantly faster than the Asus SLI. However, Anand's benches were run at slower memory timings due to issues with the first SLI board - that were corrected with the second board he received. For that reason it was not completely fair to compare the Asus SLI benches to the Gigabyte SLI.The first thing tested on the Gigabyte was to compare stock 6800U results to other A64 tests we have run. We saw the Gigabyte SLI performing the same as the K8NXP-9 nF4, which is the fastest A64 board we have tested so far. To answer the question, the Gigabyte is a lot faster than the Asus as the Asus was tested. We will run benchmarks on the Asus SLI for comparison as soon as we receive the production board here for testing.
#18 - 2x6600GT it $400 total, 2x6800 is $600 total, 2x6800GT is $800, and finally 2x6800 Ultra is $1000. There are many SLI options other than 2 6800 Ultra and I believe many people do care that 2x6600GT performs faster than a single 6800 Ultra in Aquamrk 3 and Halo at 1024. In fact that $400 combo performs about the same as the more expensive single 6800 Ultra in Doom 3 at 1024.
BenSkywalker - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
"To clarify test results, benchmarks are reported in separate graphs for standard results at 1024x768 resolution and enhanced results at 1280x1024. Since 1600x1200 normally requires a 20" or larger flat panel monitor, we did not report 1600x1200 results, since most readers will not run at that resolution."As pointed out by cnq not having even 1600x1200 makes your review of SLI worthless. Honestly, stopping at 1600x1200 is a bit of a joke, who is going to spend $1K on video cards and have some POS display that can't handle a resolution worthy of that kind of cash? SLI testing should START at 1600x1200 and go up to 2048x1536- anything else is pointless. Anyone who purchases dual 6800GTs to run 1280x1024 certainly lacks the capacity to be reading this site as everyone already knows it is nigh pointless.
You may as well test 320x240, it has about the same level of relevance. 1600x1200(for baseline, low end comparisons), 1920x1440 and 2048x1536 are the settings that people who are honestly thinking about ponying up want to see tested.
"Most any decent 19" CRT can support 1600x1200 as you stated, but have you ever tried to play a game at 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT. I tried it just to see for this review and it was pretty ugly. However 16x12 was OK on the 22" Diamondtron, though I prefer 1280x1024 on the 19" flat panels for most gaming."
Why is playing a game on a 19" @16x12 difficult at all? If you have a decent 22" Diamondtron try having someone set one input up for you running 1280x1024 4xAA and the other input running 2048x1536 without AA and see what you think is better. I can't even comment about how 2048x1536 with AA would look as the only people that can run that type of setup right now are those with SLI parts in their hands and unfortunately they haven't deemed us worthy of obtaining that type of knowledge.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
#11 - The K8NXP v1.0 and the K8NXP-SLI both ran perfectly at 5X HT, which was the reported issue with the nF4 "bug". All stock benchmarks were run with 5X enabled.Live - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
I'll have to agree with Wesley on the resolutions. Most people don't run 1600x1200. SLI as it stays nowlooks limited on lower resolutions but will it when more demanding games are realesed? I think not. So the upgrade option is letting me run future games at max quality without byuing a new top of the line card. Just focusing on 1600x1200 beacuse you own a 2001FP seems rather silly.
Beenthere - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
There never was an issue with the nF4 chipset silicon. The A02 runs at 800 MHz HTT as the socket 754 was designed to run and the A03 runs at 1000 MHz HTT as the S939 is designed to do.The original Rev. 1.X A7N8X Mobo was designed to run at 133 MHz FSB as that's what AMD chipsets used for a FSB at the time it was designed. Later when AMD was planning to release the XP 3200 with a 200 MHz FSB, the Rev. 2.0 A7N8X was released. There never was any design defect in the A7N8X it's just a matter of CPU/Mobo evolution.
PCIe is just an evolution also. There is no performance advantage to PCIe over AGP unless you run dual graphics cards in SLI mode.
VIAN - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Wesley, where is 8xAA/16xAF benching.I understand your resolution decision, plus you probably didn't have time to bench it all... but no 8xAA/16xAF. Especially when the 6800Ultra came to a crawl with 8xAA enabled.
That would've kicked ass.
Googer - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Correction:I am wondering, since I have no Interest in running SLI but would like to use an LSI x4 scsi controler in place of the other graphics card. I know you can run a x1 or x2 device (nic?) in slot with a higher number of lanes (x8,x16,x32)and it will function fine.
My questen is because these boards use a semi-proprietary PCI-e setup it possible to use the second (x16 sized) unused PCI-E x16 slot for something else? while running something (i.e. a Graphics Processor) in the main x16 slot. I have a strong suspicion that it is ok; based on the fact that TOMSHADWARE.com Ran both ATI and nVIDIA (x800 and 6800uL) on the same motherboard! Run some Please let me know thanks!
Googer - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
#9 Agreed, they are less informed since they like to know as little as they possibly can. Ignorance is bliss. As for you and I, we are much higher up on the totem pole then they.I am wondering, since I have no Interest in running SLI but would like to use an LSI x4 scsi controler in place of the other graphics card.I know you can run an x1 or x2 device in slot with a higher number of lanes (x8,x16,x32) Is it possible to use the unused PCI-E x16 slot for something else? while running somethin in the main x16 slot. I have a strong suspicion that it is ok; based on the fact that TOMSHADWARE.com Ran
both ATI and nVIDIA (x800 and 6800uL) on the same board! Please let me know thanks!
madnod - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
it's a good review and it's a good mobo, but what about the reported bug in the NFORCE4 shipset is it fixed yet or no? if no then all this bunch of mobos are going to use the customers and beta tester, i had thsi situation with the ASUS A7N8X deluxe rev 1.3 2 years ago and i still hate asus for that.j@cko - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
I guess that their brain is too small to absorb all those info...j@cko - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
I don't understand why some people would critize Anand for including too much info... Those people are morons, period.bob661 - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Actually, there were quite a few people that asked for resolutions higher than 16x12. I think for SLI benches, high res testing is probably the best. People that didn't read the initial article would get the wrong impression of SLI.Omega215D - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
what i'd like to know is when are they going to start phasing out those useless serial ports and maybe the LPT printer ports? I figure if your going to spend money on performance parts might as well get USB printers and game controllers.Also, any idea on when USB will be fully bootable that way PS2 ports can be phased out? Just wanna save on IRQs and make room for more USB's or Firewires so I don't have to rely on slot taking expansions.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
#2 - Read on in the review. I did test at 1280 x1024 also because 1024x768 was limiting in some benches - but not as much as you might expect. The 1024x768 was provided mostly to allow comparison to past motherboard reviews.I believe most will run 1280x1024 which is doable with most 19" flat panels. The cheapest flat panel I know of that runs 1600x1200 resolution is the 20.1" Dell at about $750. That's 16x12 entry level.
Most any decent 19" CRT can support 1600x1200 as you stated, but have you ever tried to play a game at 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT. I tried it just to see for this review and it was pretty ugly. However 16x12 was OK on the 22" Diamondtron, though I prefer 1280x1024 on the 19" flat panels for most gaming.
Anand got criticized for gearing everything in his SLI launch review to 1600x1200, so it figures I would get criticized for 1280x1024 which was suggested in the comments on his review. Guess we will never please everybody.
AnnoyedGrunt - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Well, this was a Mobo review, so that's one reason why it would make sense to run in resolutions that were CPU limited instead of video card limited. I doubt there would be much of a difference in SLI performance between the ASUS and Gigabyte solutions (although it certainly wouldn't hurt to have more data).-D'oh!
Decoder - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
#2 . I agree with you 100%. I run my Dell 2001FP at 1600x1200 and i will going SLI so that i can play games at 1600x1200 only.Decoder - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
cnq - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
"Since 1600x1200 normally requires a 20" or larger flat panel monitor, we did not report 1600x1200 results, since most readers will not run at that resolution."Wesley, with all due respect, there is not a single reader who is waiting to buy SLI who says to himself, "Boy I'd really like to see how fast SLI does at middling resolutions. Yeah, that's why I'm splurging thousands for an SLI rig. 1024x768 all the way baby!"
*ALL* SLI buyers will be running EVERYTHING at 16x12 or even 20x15, since current single card solutions can keep up at 10x7 and 12x10. No one would be dumb enough to pair up a couple of 68GT's or 68U's and then limit themselves to resolutions that a single 66GT could handle.
People who buy SLI are going to have money to spend, so don't worry, their monitors WILL be able to handle 16x12. An ordinary $250 19" CRT can do that, much less the kind of monitors that SLI fanatics will have.
Any SLI prospective purchasers out there planning to run their games at 1024x768? Didn't think so.
C'mon Wesley, really. You're doing quite a disservice benchmarking SLI at resolutions that aren't even graphics card limited in the first place.
HiroProt - Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - link
Great review, Wesley!Looks like Gigabyte has done it this time around. The question is: when can we buy these boards? I assume that the non-SLI version will be available first, since it already hit 1.0.
Do you have any more availability info, Wesley?