Final Words

ATI was late to the AMD chipset wars. When they arrived the market was already owned by NVIDIA. The early ATI Rx400 and Rx480 chipsets were promising, but they really didn't grab the attention of manufacturers and consumers. Finally in RD580, for both Socket 939 and AM2, ATI seems to have reached the level of maturity where their chipsets are providing the kind of compelling AMD performance that can't be ignored.

The only real roadblock from the past has been the ATI SB450 Southbridge, which with AM2 is finally replaced with the long-awaited and much improved SB600. It is also good that SB600 is just in time, since the ULi M1575 Southbridge most manufacturers used with 939 RD580 has been in shorter supply since NVIDIA bought ULi. We like the ULi Southbridge, but frankly the SB600 strikes us as better integrated. Everything about the RD580/SB600 combo worked very smoothly. The complete ATI chipset is a nice combination that provides enough features that there is no longer any reason to choose ULi instead.

The puzzle with ATI AM2 then, is why they couldn't capitalize on what appears on the surface to be a very strong position. When RD580 was launched several months ago, ATI told anyone who would listen that RD580 was also for AM2. ATI did not need to develop a new chipset for the new Socket AM2. Why then has it been so difficult for ATI to have AM2 chipsets ready for launch? It seems once again ATI has missed a golden opportunity while NVIDIA has their new 500 family chipsets coming at the market from all directions. Time will provide answers, but with such a short life for AM2 dominance before the launch of Conroe, we wonder why someone at ATI was not lighting fires.

ATI and NVIDIA are worthy competitors in the AM2 market. NVIDIA has added many new features, auto overclocking, some slick LAN features, and a few more bells and whistles, but in the end enthusiasts care about performance. Nothing NVIDIA has added really improves performance, and that is an important point. ATI has a superb overclocker in their CrossFire Xpress 3200 AM2, even better than RD580 939, and the chipset has every option an enthusiast can dream of. NVIDIA also has readdressed the enthusiast in this round of nForce, with boards that perform just as well overall as the ATI. So which is better - ATI or NVIDIA AM2?

The answer depends on what you want in a motherboard. Both are excellent choices. If you really need killer LAN built-in then you may tilt to NVIDIA, which features two Gigabit LAN on-board that can be "teamed". Since you can't really utilize 1Gb on your broadest broadband connection you may find the feature is more about bragging rights, but it is there if that is an important concern in your buying decision. If you're new you might also choose the NVIDIA "LinkBoost" - overclocking for the common man - but just be aware that the items LinkBoost overclocks have almost no effect on performance at all. In fact, we find it just as easy to get great overclocks on the ATI leaving most choices at "Auto" as we do on the fanciest NVIDIA 590 chipset AM2.

On the other hand if you admire simplicity you may be attracted to the ATI AM2 chipset where the Northbridge controls both X16 PCIe video slots and there is no worry about the communication speed between the two chips used to provide the same capabilities to NVIDIA 590. We could not measure any real difference in our tests between ATI or NVIDIA, but we do know NVIDIA is combining their own chips into one for later this year. NVIDIA was very clear, however, that this was in the interest of economy and not performance. The ATI AM2 has all anyone needs and everything worked exactly as it should in our tests. The NVIDIA has more features, but most of them are of questionable usefulness to general desktop users.

In the end, if you want ATI CrossFire video you must choose ATI AM2 and if you want NVIDIA SLI you must choose NVIDIA nForce5. We hope that will change in the near future, but that is the current state. Whatever you choose you will win, by having a choice between two really excellent AM2 chipsets. For that reason alone we would tilt a bit to ATI. NVIDIA owns most of the AMD chipset market, and without choice features and prices tend to stagnate. We like having ATI and NVIDIA competing and providing compelling solutions for the new AM2 processors.

Audio Performance
Comments Locked

71 Comments

View All Comments

  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    1X Increments corrected.

    We did not have audio performance data for nVidia chipsets in the 590 launch review, but it will be included in our roundup of 6 AM2 boards which is in process. I have added numbers for the Foxconn ( nForce 590) HD codec for reference. Foxconn is the nVidia Reference board.

    The board photo was captured at 12 Megapixels. Unfortunately, the "Save for Web" feature in Photoshop which gets the image to a reasonable file size for posting a 1280 image compromises sharpness at higher resolutions.
  • Trisped - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    Thanks for the Foxconn numbers.

    So you used "Save for Web" and lowered the quality so it would be easier to download? That makes sense. A 43k file is much better then a 1M one.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    Or 422K vs. 5+ MB. ;)
  • lopri - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    I truly appreciate AT staff's responses to my questions. It cleared so many things that I questioned while reading the review, so now I'm understanding better.

    quote:

    the fact is DDR400 was the fastest memory standard for DDR. Anything higher was overclocking. For DDR2, we have DDR2-800 as the current highest standard speed


    This is actually the only possible explanation that I could think of. You're right in that DDR400 is the fastest JEDEC approved speed. I sort of guessed but still, considering the ammount of memory reviews you've done in the past, thought a bit stranage. But thank you for explaining. Request, however: Please do a out-of-the spec DDR vs DDR2 reviews in the future. :D This can be a big factor for people who actually consider upgrading.

    quote:

    AMD introduced this platform with very conservative timings and tables for the board and memory suppliers to follow. We expect to see 1T timings at 800 later this year as AMD "massages" the memory controller. I ran tests at DDR2667 1T and they were basically the same or slightly worse than DDR2800 at 2T with all other settings being equal. The problem is we cannot run tRP and tRCD lower than 3 currently so any advantage of 1T is being wasted due to higher latencies. On a couple of our review boards we could also run DDR2800 at 4-4-4-15 1T but the 3-3-3-13/9 2T setting provided better memory bandwidth and lower latencies overall. We are still testing various memory settings as each board has been a little a different in optimizations made by each supplier. We will have a separate review on EPP and Memory settings for AM2 in the near future.


    Again, I appreciate the explanation. Not knowing about DDR2 much myself still, I could not have known it when reading the review. It'd have cleared up some misunderstanding if you have mentioned the 1T/2T issues in the review (like above), it'd have helped a ton to understand. I'm sure there are many different traits of DDR2 compared to DDR, without such knowledge I could not help but questioning. Thank you, Gary.

    Still the 1T/2T issue on AM2 is somewhat disappointing. (Not reviewers' fault) I have a bad feeling that AMD's IMC won't be able to handle 1T for DIMMs faster than DDR2-800, even with future revision. :( For entire lifespan of Socket 939, they couldn't get 4 sticks to run @1T timing.. (except a couple going-around of DFI's)



  • lopri - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Our Corsair or OCZ PC8500 sticks will run at 3-3-3-9 2T at 800 with a small voltage increase to 2.2V easily although the memory is rated at 5-5-5-15 2T. I am working on a single versus dual channel DDR2 article at this time, cutting to the chase, single channel DDR2 with fast timings will provide up to 98% of the performance of dual channel DDR2 under the same conditions. It might be something to think about when looking at $350~$500 DDR2 2GB kits.


    Also if this is true, it's an absolutely fantastic news. Please let us know the detail as soon as you can. Thank you.
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    quote:

    ATI did not need to develop a new chipset for the new Socket AM2. Why then has it been so difficult for ATI to have AM2 chipsets ready for launch?


    Maybe they didn't need to develop a new North bridge, but the South bridge is another matter. With ULi supplies drying up, it would have been extremely stupid to use the SB450 yet again.
  • Myrandex - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    It was stated that the ATI solution was better tahn the ULI and less than Nvidia, however in the graphs it was less than both, although very close to ULI.
    Jason
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    The statement is correct. Going back to review notes there was a typo in the chart creation which has now been corrected. USB throughput for SB600 is 241.6 and not 231.6 as shown in the earlier chart.
  • Alyster - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    I just wonder if SB600 will be available on 939 boards in future. I'm going to purchase ATI based MSI-RS482M4-ILD mATX motherboard with SB450 and may be I should wait untill they start offering SB600 on mATX boards. Any suggestions? Thanks
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    As we understand it, SB600 is not pin-compatible with SB450, so it is not a drop-in for the older chip. We therefore think it is unlikely you should wait for a board redesign on an older 939 board. Any new 939 boards - and there may be some if the market wants them - will likely use SB600.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now