Basic Features: ASUS P5NSLI

ASUS P5NSLI Specifications
CPU Interface: LGA775-based Pentium 4, Pentium 4 XE, Celeron D,
Pentium D, and Core 2 Duo processors.
Chipset: NVIDIA nForce 570SLI - SPP (C19-A3)
NVIDIA nForce 570SLI - MCP (MCP51-A2)
Front Side Bus: 1066 / 800 / 533 MHz
Front Side Bus Speeds: Auto, 533MHz ~ 1600MHz in 1MHz increments
Memory Speeds: Auto, 400MHz ~ 1200MHz in 1MHz increments
Memory Timings: Auto, CAS, tRCD, tRP, tRAS, tRC, Command Rate
PCI Bus Speeds: Fixed
PCI Express Bus Speeds: Default, 100MHz ~ 150MHz in 1MHz increments
Set Processor Multiplier: Auto, (1X step increments for EE or X series)
LDT Multipliers: 1x, 2x, 3x, 3.5x, 4x, 5x
Core Voltage: Auto, 0.8375V to 1.6000V (in 0.0125V increments).
DRAM Voltage: Auto, 1.8V to 2.1V (in 0.1V increments)
SPP Chipset Voltage: 1.4V. 1.5V
CPU Termination: 1.25V, 1.35V
Memory Slots: (4) x DIMM, max. 4GB per DIMM
max. 16GB total system memory
DDR2 667/533, non-ECC, unbuffered memory
Expansion Slots: (2) x PCI-E X16 (operates in X8+X8 mode for SLI)
(3) x PCI-E X1
(2) x PCI 2.3
Onboard SATA: NVIDIA nForce 570SLI:
(4) x SATA II
Onboard IDE: NVIDIA nForce 570SLI:
(2) x UltraDMA 133/100/66/33
SATA/IDE RAID: NVIDIA nForce 570SLI:
(4) x SATA II
RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 0+1, RAID 5
Onboard USB2.0: (8) USB2.0 ports
Onboard LAN: Marvell 88E8001 PCI 10/100/1000Mb/s Ethernet LAN
Onboard Audio: ADI 1986A, 6-channel capable HD Audio
Power Connectors: 24-pin ATX
4-pin ATX 12V
Back Panel I/O Ports: 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
1 x PS/2 Mouse
1 x Parallel (LPT)
1 x Serial (COM 1)
1 x S/PDIF Coaxial Out
1 x Audio I/O Panel
1 x RJ45
4 x USB
Features: AI Tuning - Manual, Auto, Standard, AI Overclock - 9 options
System Clock Mode - CPU only, Memory Only, CPU/Memory
BIOS: Award 0601

The BIOS layout and configurable options are representative of a mid-range performance system. We would like to note that if the second X16 PCI Express slot is not utilized for a GPU then it will operate as an X1 PCI Express capable slot. The P5NSLI certainly does not offer the same level of controls as the upcoming 590SLI Intel boards or that of current upper-end Intel P965 or 975X boards. However, the options available allow enough control over the BIOS and subsequent performance of the board as not to hinder the user except for one setting.

The one major issue we have with the BIOS is the lack of memory voltage controls over 2.1V. Although this board is targeted to the value performance segment, the lack of voltages over 2.1V for DDR2 memory is unacceptable considering higher performing DDR2-800/667 memory requires around 2.2V for stable operation at the low latency memory timings. This issue will be raised again in our initial overclocking and memory tuning tests. Our belief is that the typical user who is going to spend money on a SLI capable motherboard and SLI GPUs will typically purchase a higher grade memory.

Index ASUS P5NSLI: Features
POST A COMMENT

27 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gary Key - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Funny how your original look at NForce5 (as linked on page 2 of this article) showed 570 was supposed to also include DualNet, yet this board does not. :[


    That is due to the fact they are using a different chipset than the AM2 family although the marketing language is the same.
    Reply
  • scott967 - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link

    I'm trying to understand the chart on memory which compares different chipsets. The Via PT580 falls apart on Sandra standard going from 533 to 667 memory. Is this correct?

    scott s.
    .
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link

    quote:

    I'm trying to understand the chart on memory which compares different chipsets. The Via PT580 falls apart on Sandra standard going from 533 to 667 memory. Is this correct?


    That is correct. ASRock and VIA have figured out the issue, just waiting on a fix that hopefully is bios related and nothing else.
    Reply
  • Spacecomber - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link

    This came up before with another article, but perhaps it needs to be said again, I wish that Anandtech would stop using charts showing comparitive FPS that don't show a full FPS axis that starts with zero.

    I understand that you are trying to highlight the small differences that are being measured and that if you have a chart that uses a proper axis, starting at zero, these differenes are harder to see. However a chart with an axis starting with zero is still a better representation of the results than using a distorted graph to draw out the differences.

    Essentially, all you have graphed are the differences between the different results, and if this is what you want to do that is fine. Just relabel the graph and change the axis to show this. Call it something like "Increase in FPS with Memory Speeds Faster than DDR2-663" and then have an axis that runs from 0 to 5 FPS, since that should about cover all your results.

    Obviously, such a graph would not be very appealing or interesting, but it would be in better keeping with your data. And, the fact that it doesn't seem to be a very informative graph is precisely my point. Trying to dress these charts up, which really are only charts of the small differences between your results, as if they also provide a relative comparison of the different FPS with different motherboards and different memory timings, simply confounds things. You would do better to pick one or the other to represent, but not mash both together as you are doing now.

    It is bad enough that these statistics are posted in such a manner that pays little heed to the kinds of variations that are involved. Magnifying tiny differences in order to make them seen more significant only compounds the problem. Without these distorted graphs a reader might more correctly conclude that the differences in the frame rates, comparing these two different motherboards while using memory running at different speeds, are essentially insignificant. And, drawing out speculative conclusions, based on the perception of any differences, is most likely just much ado about nothing.
    Reply
  • hibachirat - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link

    I don't mind those. But the red and green lines are to close for my red-green color blindness. I can almost tell them apart...but would be nice it the green was brightened and/or the red darkened just a bit. Reply
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link

    quote:

    This came up before with another article, but perhaps it needs to be said again, I wish that Anandtech would stop using charts showing comparitive FPS that don't show a full FPS axis that starts with zero.
    Zero based graphs are available by clicking on the orginal image. :)
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link

    quote:

    This came up before with another article, but perhaps it needs to be said again, I wish that Anandtech would stop using charts showing comparitive FPS that don't show a full FPS axis that starts with zero.


    Our full review will not utilize these charts. Instead of separating the information and showing pages and pages of the data we felt like this was the best way to collectively show it all at once. We end up with either a graph that has the majority of data points stacked into a single line path or the other evil of not having a zero based graph. We are still working on an updated engine so hopefully this issue disappears quickly or we go back to the bar charts.

    Personally, it really bothers me not to have a zero base graph. I will work on another alternative today and update the article if it works. Thanks for the comments and we do agree with you.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link

    We have added a zero-based graphs as pop-ups if you want to see those results. The number tables at the bottom of the charts are intended to help you see that the scores really aren't that far apart, but now you can see the true relative difference. Reply
  • shecknoscopy - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link

    Well, I've never been that discouraged with their axis labeling, but I could see how someone unfamiliar with the world of statistics could be misled by purported performance differences that are actually within the measurement error.

    Personally, if I were the one reporting these data, I'd use <b>both</b> methods. Plot the data as you currently do - so as to highlight subtle differences, and <b>also</b> place them on a full graph (where y ranges between 0 and the maximum observed value) in an inset. That way you get a nice zoom-in on the "interesting stuff," and a smaller zoom-out to illustrate that the differences are typically minor, compared to the absolute values.

    I'll also point out that, if you <i>really</i> want to get persnippity about their stats reporting, you should demand that they repeat their tests several times, and report each datum with an error bar. :)

    Of course, most of my suggestions for improvement involve the word "bar."

    -sheq
    Reply
  • Renoir - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link

    I feel it's important to put a lot of these results in perspective with regards to their level of significance. For me personally when looking at results I find the thing that I find most useful is percentages. Lately it seems that a lot of system variables (memory timings/frequency, cpu cache etc) often result in differences of less than 10% in most cases which to me isn't that significant when just getting 1 higher speed bin on your cpu would get you that and probably for less money than say buying the very best ram. I guess I'm saying that when I see graphs that are zoomed in to highlight minor differences I find myself thinking "ok I see why they've done that but it would be nice to be given a percentage so that I can make a quick and dirty evaluation of whether the difference is significant or not". Just some random thoughts :-) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now