Asus PC-DL Deluxe: 875 with Dual Xeons
by Wesley Fink on September 6, 2003 12:06 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Asus PC-DL: Stress Testing
We performed stress tests on the PC-DL in these areas and configurations:1. Chipset and motherboard stress testing, which was conducted by running the FSB at 144 MHz with 2x512MB double-bank Mushkin PC3500 Level II at the fastest 2-2-2-5 timings.
2. Memory stress testing, which was conducted by running Corsair 3200LL RAM at 333MHz with all 4 DIMM slots filled. Two pairs of Corsair TwinX ver.1.2 was used for this test at the lowest memory timings (2-2-2-5) possible.
Front Side Bus Stress Test Results:
We ran a full range of stress tests and benchmarks to ensure the PC-DL was absolutely stable at each overclocked FSB speed. These stress tests included Prime95 torture tests, which were run in the background for a total of 24 hours. We also ran several other tasks — data compression, various DX8 and DX9 games, and apps like Word and Excel — while Prime95 was running in the background. Finally, we ran our benchmark suite, which includes ZD Winstone suite, Unreal Tournament 2003, SPECviewperf 7.0, and Gun Metal Benchmark 2.The Asus PC-DL was completely stable at the 144 or 3.3GHz setting.
Memory Stress Test Results:
The memory stress test is very simple, as it tests the ability of the Asus PC-DL to operate at its officially supported memory frequency (333MHz DDR) at the lowest supported memory timings our Corsair TwinX LL ver. 1.2 can achieve:| Stable DDR333 Timings (2 Dimms in 1 Dual-Channel Bank) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 333MHz |
| CAS Latency: | 2.0 |
| Bank Interleave: | N/A |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 2T |
| RAS Precharge: | 5T |
| Precharge Delay: | 2T |
| Command Rate: | N/A |
We had no problems at all running 2 Corsair dimms at the fastest timings available at DDR333. Since the Canterwood chipset was designed for DDR400 operation, it is hardly a surprise that it breezes though DDR333 performance. As new options become available for Dual-Xeon boards it will be interesting to see if DDR400 will present any problem. If Intel intends the 875P to be targeted to any true server markets, there will also have to be the option for much more memory than 4 dimm slots. However, we suspect the 875 will be the workstation, gamer, performance enthusiast, and SOHO server solution.
Filling all 4 available dimm slots with 2 banks of dual-channel memory is more strenuous on the memory subsystem than testing 2 dimms. However, the Asus PC-DL had no trouble running 4 dimms at the fastest DDR333 timings available.
| Stable DDR333 Timings (4 Dimms in 2 Dual-Channel Banks) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 133MHz |
| CAS Latency: | 2.0 |
| Bank Interleave: | N/A |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 2T |
| RAS Precharge: | 5T |
| Precharge Delay: | 2T |
| Command Rate: | N/A |
We really didn’t expect any problems running our DDR400 memory at the most aggressive DDR333 timings available. Most of the memory currently available in the marketplace will run at fast timings on this DDR333 motherboard.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
29 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Monday, September 8, 2003 - link
Xeon DPs are still at the 533 right now. Xeon MPs are worse off at just 400. Faster Xeons are just around the corner though.sprockkets - Monday, September 8, 2003 - link
Aren't the Xenons at 667FSB? But as usual, they share the bandwidth, which is really bad since they crave bandwidth, but good for memory access. But clearly the HT idea is faster.Running though at 800 maybe really too hard to do, or not ?
Anonymous User - Monday, September 8, 2003 - link
Remember Xeons were built for the server market where stability is king. Intel knew this and this is why the 533MHz FSB has stuck around so long. As Intel rolls out more 800Mhz FSB chipsets and P4 chips the 800Mhz FSB Xeon should follow several months later. The same process could be seen back when the 400Mhz FSB Xeons were around.Anonymous User - Monday, September 8, 2003 - link
Well don't take my word for it, wait for the results yourself and then you can admit you are a fool! Clueless kids looking to argue... What a waste of time.Anonymous User - Sunday, September 7, 2003 - link
Is HyperThreading enabled for those Dual Xeons?Anonymous User - Sunday, September 7, 2003 - link
@13 "it would not improve performance enough to even be competitive"lol... what reviews have you been reading? the extra fsb makes a huge difference! THG overclocked the Xeons by 7 mhz and averaged somewhere around 4-4.5% performance increase! That's pretty damn significant. Even bringing the Xeons up to 667 FSB would make it a very good performer!
Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
Don't believe everything you read... ESPECIALLY from Intel. Go read THG's review and *maybe* you'll have a better appreciation for why Intel ain't likely to release a 800 MHS FSB Xeon any time soon and it would not improve performance enough to even be competitive when a 2.0 Gig. Opteron/A64 blows the doors off a dual 3.06 Gig. Xeon. If you wanna feel bad... look at how the dual Opteron beats up on a dual Xeon.Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
Read the news -- Intel has said it WILL produce 800Mhz FSB Xeons (when is a bit of a question: the last report I read over a month ago said Q1 '04 but they may have moved it up -- that's what this article seems to imply).Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
There are technical reasons why the Xeon can't do 800 MHz FSB. Tom's Hardware went into some of the reasons in their dual Xeon test where Opteron also smoked the Xeon even with the new L3 cache. The reality is that Intels current processors have just become obsolete with Opteron and A64. The benches for A64 will show equal or better performance for a single CPU than Opteron. For multi-processor systems above (4) CPUs the Opteron has an advantage over the A64. As the benches show Intel simply has nothing to compete in either the desktop or server segments and soon the A64 will be available in laptop to so Intel needs to get it in gear. Needless to say all Opteron/A64 CPUs will run both 32-bit and 64-bit O/S's. Linux has been available and Windoze will be available soon. AMD has definitety made a qunatum performance leap over Intel this time, no doubt.Anonymous User - Saturday, September 6, 2003 - link
Remember that server boards have to go through more stringent evaluation then desktop boards. I don't think Intel even considers 800Mhz FSB stable enough for their Xeons yet, and it's a shame. There is only so much increasing your L2 cache size can do for you. I don't think you can use 2.4Cs on this board even if you could find a socket adapter -- remember the 'overclocking settings' were limited to 133->165 (that's almost the 667Mhz FSB that Intel might move the Xeon to soon). So you'd be underclocking it by at least 17%, and at that point why bother? That's if you can find some video card that will take a 79Mhz AGP speed -- good luck with that.