Biostar TF560 A2+: Overclocking NVIDIA's new nForce 560
by Gary Key on August 2, 2007 12:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Gaming Performance
Our limited look at gaming performance consists of Prey and Battlefield 2. These two particular titles are both CPU throughput and memory latency sensitive when utilizing a GPU such as our MSI 8800GTX. We ran benchmarks with our standard 1280x1024 resolution set to High Quality mode. Given the number of users that run 19" LCDs these days, 1280x1024 represents one of the most commonly used resolutions and will still keep these two particular titles from becoming GPU bound.
Prey
Prey offers some superb action sequences, unique weapons and characters, and is a visually stunning game at times. It still requires a very good GPU to run it with all of the eye candy turned on. We set all graphic settings to their maximum except for AA/AF and utilize a custom timedemo that takes place during one of the more action oriented sequences.
Battlefield 2
This benchmark is performed using DICE's built-in demo playback functionality with additional capture capabilities designed in house. When using the built-in demo playback features of BF2, frames rendered during the loading screen are counted in the benchmark. In order to get a real idea of performance, we use the instantaneous frame time and frames per second data generated from our benchmark run. We discard the data collected during the loading screen and calculate a result that represents actual game play.
Gaming Summary
In a switch from our application benchmarks, we see our AM2 processors performing very well against the Intel E2160 in the gaming benchmarks from both a stock and overclocked performance perspective. It appears that for this particular task, the lack of L2 cache finally catches up with the Core 2 E2160. In Prey, the BE-2300 has a performance increase of 39% while the X2 3800+ improves by 26% when overclocked, and the E2160 improves by 33%. Battlefield 2 experiences similar gains with the BE-2300 being 42% faster and the X2 3800+ being 36% faster, and the E2160 is also 38% faster. The L2 cache advantage of the X2 6000+ allows it to maintain a lead in BF2 and almost overcome the HTT and memory throughput advantage of the overclocked X2 3800+ in Prey. Gaming performance is still driven by the GPU, especially in the latest titles, but every extra bit of CPU performance always helps.
Looking at the AM2 boards, the nF560 appears to be the fastest gaming solution of these three, at least in the two tested games. The margins aren't huge, but you do get up to a 3% performance increase in certain instances. As we become more GPU bound with increasing CPU speeds, the differences between the platforms and chipsets diminishes.
Our limited look at gaming performance consists of Prey and Battlefield 2. These two particular titles are both CPU throughput and memory latency sensitive when utilizing a GPU such as our MSI 8800GTX. We ran benchmarks with our standard 1280x1024 resolution set to High Quality mode. Given the number of users that run 19" LCDs these days, 1280x1024 represents one of the most commonly used resolutions and will still keep these two particular titles from becoming GPU bound.
Prey
Prey offers some superb action sequences, unique weapons and characters, and is a visually stunning game at times. It still requires a very good GPU to run it with all of the eye candy turned on. We set all graphic settings to their maximum except for AA/AF and utilize a custom timedemo that takes place during one of the more action oriented sequences.
Battlefield 2
This benchmark is performed using DICE's built-in demo playback functionality with additional capture capabilities designed in house. When using the built-in demo playback features of BF2, frames rendered during the loading screen are counted in the benchmark. In order to get a real idea of performance, we use the instantaneous frame time and frames per second data generated from our benchmark run. We discard the data collected during the loading screen and calculate a result that represents actual game play.
Gaming Summary
In a switch from our application benchmarks, we see our AM2 processors performing very well against the Intel E2160 in the gaming benchmarks from both a stock and overclocked performance perspective. It appears that for this particular task, the lack of L2 cache finally catches up with the Core 2 E2160. In Prey, the BE-2300 has a performance increase of 39% while the X2 3800+ improves by 26% when overclocked, and the E2160 improves by 33%. Battlefield 2 experiences similar gains with the BE-2300 being 42% faster and the X2 3800+ being 36% faster, and the E2160 is also 38% faster. The L2 cache advantage of the X2 6000+ allows it to maintain a lead in BF2 and almost overcome the HTT and memory throughput advantage of the overclocked X2 3800+ in Prey. Gaming performance is still driven by the GPU, especially in the latest titles, but every extra bit of CPU performance always helps.
Looking at the AM2 boards, the nF560 appears to be the fastest gaming solution of these three, at least in the two tested games. The margins aren't huge, but you do get up to a 3% performance increase in certain instances. As we become more GPU bound with increasing CPU speeds, the differences between the platforms and chipsets diminishes.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
View All Comments
chesterman86 - Sunday, August 5, 2007 - link
any one knows which boards will work with am2+ processorsi've a evga 590sli, with a x2 4200. it will be great if i could upgrade to a phenom =D
anyway, even if i do the bios update, i'll not have ht3 right?
lopri - Saturday, August 4, 2007 - link
Thanks for the great review. The board reviewed looks solid and the coverage is, as usual, complete and clear. I always liked BioStar's boards and felt their products are not getting much spotlight among enthusiasts. The board and NV's new chipset looks solid and it's really amazing that how much computing power we get for the dollars these days.Said that, I'd like to know if Gary thinks the review samples are representative enough for retail products that one can buy, when it comes to overclocking? I haven't kept up with AMD's latest steppings and the overclocking performance of the reviewed CPUs is simply amazing. I remember the time when a 3.0GHz A64 was considered a golden.
lopri - Saturday, August 4, 2007 - link
Forgot to ask: What is the thing that going for NF560? There was a brief mention regarding GPU optimazation and PCI-E lane configuration, but overall it looks almost identical to NF550. If one were to buy a either similarly priced NF550 board or NF560 board, what would differentiate 560 from 550?CrystalBay - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
That is some incredible value right there .Thanks for the article G.K.!!!
Powered by AMD - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Why do you use a U$S 100 Motherboard with the Intel setup and a U$S 80 one for the AMD?If we are in the cheap setup, i would like to make a comparision apples to apples.
I think if you use the U$S 85 JetWay J966GDAG-PB, the tables should be much different.
yyrkoon - Friday, August 3, 2007 - link
You try finding a decent enough Intel motherboard for under $100. Most people I know wouldnt even settle for less than a $150 + board concerning an Intel system. In-expencive/good AMD motherboards with a decent feature list have been around for a while, open your eyes, and do a product search of your own . . .crimson117 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Good point!
Also, the processors costs are not equal... (newegg prices)
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ costs $65
AMD X2 BE-2300 costs $90
Intel E2160 costs $95
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ costs $170
So the AMD setup would be $50 cheaper for about equal performance.
DeepThought86 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
2 PATA ports supproted but only one implemented on this board. Boo, hiss. So Biostar saves $0.50 and we're out $100 buying a new driveelpresidente2075 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
All I have to say is: You've gotta move forward sometime. PATA is OK if you like slow, bulky, and outdated interfaces, but if you're into the whole "having a decent computer" thing, you're gonna have to spend the money anyway.And if you mean that you've just purchased a large PATA drive and don't want to purchase a new SATA one, I pity you and your short-sightedness. PATA is going the way of the Dodo, and SATA is the future for now.
Good luck with the new drive!
LoneWolf15 - Saturday, August 4, 2007 - link
This one made me laugh.
Not because PATA isn't an old interface. But, compare the speeds of a modern PATA drive to an SATA drive, and you'll find almost no difference. The interface isn't the bottleneck; the drive mechanics are. For that reason, an UltraATA Seagate 7200.10 and a SATA Seagate 7200.10 are within a hairsbreadth in performance.
SATA certainly cables nicer than PATA, and getting rid of the whole master/slave configuration is a great thing too. But you're buying into the hype a little too heavily. Until we can improve drive mechanics to both increase data throughput and decrease latency in more than tiny incremental steps, the interface won't matter all that much.