NVIDIA's nForce2 Performance Review

Ethernet Controller Performance

Now that it's clear that the nForce2 performs just as well as the fastest Socket-A chipset out there, let's look at some of its features in greater depth. One of the biggest selling points of the new nForce2 MCP-T is its "router on a chip" capability, made possible by having two independent Ethernet controllers on die. You'll also remember that a major advantage of the nForce2 architecture is that the integrated Ethernet controller(s) gets an isochronous path to the IGP, guaranteeing that your Ethernet controller always receives the bandwidth it needs.

Two ethernet MACs lay beyond the packaging of the MCP-T

In order to test the performance of the nForce2's integrated network controllers we turned to NetIQ's Chariot benchmark. The way Chariot works is simple; you run the Chariot client on a handful of PCs, including the one you wish to test and you install the controller software on another PC. The Chariot controller then instructs all of the client PCs to generate traffic to/from the PC you wish to test and it takes data during the test. We chose to look at average bandwidth through the network controllers as well as their average CPU utilization during the tests. In order to provide some good reference points, we not only compared the two nForce2 Ethernet controllers but also added the following:

1) AMD PCNet based 10/100 card
2) Intel server class 10/100 PRO+ adapter
3) Netgear FA311 10/100, and
4) VIA's VT6103

With the exception of the VIA chip, we installed all of the cards on our ASUS nForce2 testbed in order to limit the number of variables introduced into the comparison. The VIA chip was on our KT400 test platform and thus we used a different motherboard for those tests, although the result should be comparable with the others. We also used the best driver we could find for the particular card, we tested both Windows XP's integrated drivers as well as those available from the manufacturers' website and chose the highest performing of the two.

All of our tests simulated file transfers between 1 or 2 PCs and our nForce2 test bed; we ran a total of six different tests, we'll describe each one as we encounter it:

This first test involves two client PCs sending and receiving data from our nForce2 testbed. Remember that although we're testing a 100Mbit connection, it is a full-duplex connection and thus the theoretical maximum is 200Mbps (100Mbps each way).

Note relatively low bandwidth throughput of the 3Com MAC in the MCP-T but also note that both nForce2 solutions have the lowest CPU utilization scores out of the bunch.

Our next test involves two clients both sending data to our nForce2 testbed. Since the traffic is only occurring in one direction, the theoretical maximum transfer rate here is 100Mbps.

Once again we see that the 3Com MAC is performing well below the rest of the group and this time it ends up eating a good 20% of our Athlon XP 2800+. The NVIDIA MAC in the nForce2 MCP-T not only provides high bandwidth but it also does so at a very low CPU utilization.

Our final dual client test has our nForce2 testbed sending data to two clients. Since the traffic is only occurring in one direction, the theoretical maximum transfer rate here is 100Mbps.

Interestingly enough, the numbers all look to be on par with one another here, including the 3Com MAC.

The single client tests take place between our nForce2 test bed and one other PC. This particular test has data flowing both to and from the testbed, meaning that the theoretical maximum transfer rate is 200Mbps.

There seems to be an issue with getting the 3Com MAC to work in full duplex mode as it will not break the 100Mbps barrier while the NVIDIA MAC had no problem reaching 155 Mbps. Once again, CPU utilization is lowest on the nForce2 controllers (they are even as low as the Intel NIC).

Here we have one client sending data to the nForce2 testbed. The two nForce2 controllers perform identically and once again yield the lowest CPU utilization out of the bunch.

For our final test we have our nForce2 testbed sending data to one client and once again we see the 3Com MAC deliver sub-par performance while the NVIDIA MAC works wonderfully.

In the end, although the integrated nForce2 Ethernet doesn't really provide any more bandwidth than the competition it does provide some of the highest performance at the lowest CPU utilization possible. There is one caveat and that is that there seems to be an issue with the integrated 3Com controller; we're not sure whether this is a driver problem or if the integrated 3Com controller is just a cheap add-in that isn't really meant to perform all that well but primarily there for brand recognition.

Audio & I/O Performance

Since the APU remains unchanged from the original nForce, the audio performance of the nForce2 chipset is identical to the original nForce and thus we won't go over it again here.

We ran disk tests on the nForce2 platform to ensure it was at least on par with the KT333 and throughout our tests we could not get the two platforms to ever differ in performance. It seems like NVIDIA has really made sure that the nForce2 won't fall behind on performance, thus finally allowing it to stand on its own and attract buyers based on its features.