Elite PC Titan FX: Setting New Standards in Gaming
by Wesley Fink on November 30, 2003 10:57 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Elite PC Titan FX: The Test
The full suite of AnandTech benchmarks was run with the Elite PC Titan FX gaming system. Elite PC shipped the system with an ATI Radeon 9800 XT video card, which was used for all benchmarks. The Elite PC Titan FX is configured almost exactly like the Dell Dimension XPS gaming system that we recently tested, so benchmarks are directly comparable between the Dell XPS and Titan FX systems. The Dell uses the 3.2 Pentium 4, while the Elite PC is using the Athlon64 FX51.Please keep in mind that all of our other comparison benchmarks, except the Elite PC and Dell, were run with the ATI Radeon 9800 PRO, which is slightly slower. The 9800 PRO and XT use essentially the same GPU, but the XT is clocked a bit faster than the 9800 PRO. For a better idea on how the two cards compare, please refer to our benchmarks in AnandTech's ATI 9800 XT review.
Memory timings were run with the memory and setup as provided by Elite PC. We confirmed with CPU-Z 1.20a that the Titan FX runs the installed DDR400 memory at 2-3-2-8 timings. This compares to the 2-2-2-6 timings we normally use in our component reviews at DDR400.
The Titan FX was delivered with a full installation of Windows XP Professional, which is our standard OS, and we made no attempt to reinstall. We test systems as delivered, tweaking just the items to make the fairest comparisons to our archived test results. To provide the best test results under these circumstances, all co-resident applications and special services loading at startup were turned off so they would not load at boot. Benchmarks were installed and run from the nearly empty 75GB SATA RAID array. AnandTech benchmarks are normally run with sound disabled to remove the influence of varying overhead depending on the sound chip used on the board or video card. We therefore disabled all sound on the Elite PC Titan FX to provide the most comparable benchmarks. As we did on the recent test of the Dell XPS, we disabled all Creative Audigy drivers in the Control Panel System profile.
As already stated, the Titan FX and Dell XPS are almost identical in their configuration, except for CPU, and can be directly compared. The Dell uses the top 3.2GHz Pentium 4, while the Titan FX uses the top AMD Athlon64 FX51. We included results from the Asus P4C800-E, a top 875P motherboard, and top Athlon64 FX, Athlon 64, and Athlon XP 3200+ motherboards we have tested in our standard test configuration.
| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD Athlon64 FX51 (2.2GHz) Intel Pentium 4 at 3.2GHz (800FSB) AMD Athlon64 3200+ (2.0GHz) AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz, 400MHz FSB) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB Mushkin ECC Registered PC3200 2 x 512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II |
| Hard Drive(s): | 2 x 36.7 WD Raptor 10000 RPM drives in RAID 0 2 x 250 Dell 7200 drives in RAID 0 Maxtor 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer) |
| Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: | VIA 4in1 Hyperion 4.49 (August 20, 2003) Intel SATA RAID Drivers NVIDIA nForce version 2.45 (7/29/2003) |
| Video Card(s): | ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256MB (AGP 8X) ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB (AGP 8X) |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 3.8 |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 Windows XP Home (Dell Dimension XPS) |
| Motherboards: | MSI K8T Master 2-FAR in Elite PC Titan FX Dell Dimension XPS Gaming System Asus P4C800-E (Intel 875P) 3.2Ghz P4 Abit KV8-MAX3 Gigabyte K8NNXP-940 Athlon64 FX51 Chaintech ZNF3-150 (nForce3) Athlon64 3200+ MSI K8T Neo (VIA K8T800) Athlon64 3200+ DFI NFII Ultra (nForce2 U400) Barton 3200+ |
Recent performance tests on Athlon64, nForce2 Ultra 400 and Intel 875/865 boards used 2 x 512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II Double-bank memory. The Athlon64 FX requires Registered or Registered ECC memory, so tests with the Elite PC Titan FX and Gigabyte K8NNXP-940 were performed with Mushkin High Performance ECC Registered DDR400 memory.
All performance tests were run with the ATI 9800 PRO 128MB video card with AGP Aperture set to 128MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32.
For the fairest comparisons, benchmarks were recompiled for the Asus P4C800-E using a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 processor.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
50 Comments
View All Comments
sprockkets - Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - link
Adding, but how much of the system actually follows industry standards. Like why would I want a D/Hell with a stupid bios that is worse than features included even on uATX boards?sprockkets - Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - link
The power supply is FSP, and unlike the stupid dell is not proprietary. FSP are known for making good PS. Like the ones with the 120mm fans inside them.Of course the p4 systems can be faster with the RAID setup but neverless impressive. You should compare not only the specs and scores.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - link
Doop - While AMD has stated from the beginning that the FX would not be multi-processor capable, MANY reviews have speculated that the shipping FX chips did not, in fact, have the 2nd and 3rd HT links disabled. If links were not disabled, then the chips WOULD work in a dual-processor board. Manufacturers tell us many things, but we still prefer to find out for ourselves, because things often turn out not to be exactly what we have been told by manufacturers.Now that we have tested this for ourselves, the article has been corrected. We have also added the recommendations from Elite PC on multiple CPU selection to the review, and I have just received a written response from AMD. We have done our best to answer the question with hands-on testing in a timely manner, and post the information as soon as it is available.
I also read many other sites, and I don't recall an actual attempt to run 2 FX51 chips being reported. The question has never been AMD's intention with FX, but there have been many questions as to whether the other two HT links were actually being disabled on FX chips. We can now say that on FX chips we have tested, Dual-Processor operation with FX chips did not work, and the Opteron 2 and higher series should be used for dual processors.
Doop - Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - link
tfranzese, not many people think the Athlon FX is dual capable. AMD has clearly stated that they are not. This article was clearly not up Anandtech's usually extremely high level.Now this is purely wild speculation on may part but it could be possible that you get higher yeilds of opteron cores if you accept some with not all the functioning hypertransport links.
Just like Radeons with 4 instead of 8 pipelines.
You could enable the hypertransport links but there is possibility that you've got a chip where the links needed for dual operation will never work.
tfranzese - Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - link
I don't think it's been clear, because I and others were under the assumption that they were not disabled in an effort to get them out asap. Might have just been engineering samples though, because these assumptions came from an article.Shinei - Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - link
Uh, tfraneze, I'm pretty sure it's been clear since the start that the FX-51 has had and always will have two disabled HT links... Turning them on MIGHT be possible, but that depends on how much time and money you're willing to waste (since a mistake can cost you $800).Shinei - Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - link
Uh, tfraneze, I'm pretty sure it's been clear since the start that the FX-51 has had and always will have two disabled HT links... Turning them on MIGHT be possible, but that depends on how much time and money you're willing to waste (since a mistake can cost you $800).tfranzese - Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - link
Locutus, the board is a design that uses only one memory controller to cut down on traces. There's a recent article, I think from GamePC that compares it with an Extended ATX dual board with use of both memory controllers.Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - link
#31 - The board is located on the MSI site under 'server workstation' at http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/server/svr/... As stated in the review the board is the VIA K8T800 chipset.Locutus4657 - Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - link
I couldn't find this motherboard on the MSI web site. But to me it looks like this is a dual system using a via chipset? If so I didn't think this was possible... Or at the very least sane. Could some one confirm this?