DFI NFII Ultra: Stress Testing


We performed stress tests on the DFI NFII Ultra in several different areas and configurations, including:

1. Chipset and motherboard stress testing, which was conducted by running the FSB at 223MHz; and,
2. Memory stress testing, which was conducted by running RAM at 400MHz in Dual Channel mode with two DIMM slots filled, and at 400MHz with all three DIMM slots filled at the lowest memory timings possible.

Front Side Bus Stress Test Results:

As standard practice, we ran a full range of stress tests and benchmarks to ensure the DFI NFII Ultra was absolutely stable at each overclocked FSB speed. These stress tests included Prime95 torture tests, which were run in the background for a total of 24 hours.

In addition, we proceeded to run several other tasks, such as data compression, various DX8 and DX9 games, and apps like Word and Excel while Prime95 was running in the background. Finally, we ran our benchmark suite, which includes Sysmark 2002, Quake3 Arena, Unreal Tournament 2003, SPECviewperf 7.0, and Jedi Knight2. 223MHz FSB was the highest overclock we were able to achieve with the DFI NFII Ultra without encountering any reliability issues.

Memory Stress Test Results:

This memory stress test is very basic, as it simply tests the ability of the NFII Ultra to operate at its officially supported memory frequency (400MHz DDR) at the lowest supported memory timings that our Corsair TwinX LL modules support:


Stable Dual DDR400 Timings
(2/3 banks populated)
Clock Speed: 200MHz
Timing Mode: N/A
CAS Latency: 2.0
Bank Interleave: N/A
RAS to CAS Delay: 2T
RAS Precharge: 4T
Precharge Delay: 2T
Command Rate: N/A


It’s not surprising to see the DFI NFII Ultra achieve such low memory timings – we often see 2-4-2-2 timings are possible with the better nForce2 boards. The nForce2 Ultra 400 chipset, like Corsair LL memory, seems to be designed to give the lowest possible memory timings. As we have seen in other reports of memory performance, this does not always translate into the fastest memory performance, but the lowest memory timings is a means of comparing motherboards. It is most useful when comparing boards based on the same chipset.

Filling all three available memory banks is more strenuous on the memory subsystem than testing two banks in dual channel mode, as it tests the rare occasion that a desktop user will install three DIMMs running 400MHz DDR at the most aggressive memory timings available in the BIOS:


Stable Dual DDR400 Timings
(3/3 banks populated)
Clock Speed: 200MHz
Timing Mode: N/A
CAS Latency: 2.0
Bank Interleave: N/A
RAS to CAS Delay: 2T
RAS Precharge: 5T
Precharge Delay: 2T
Command Rate: N/A


We were very pleased to see the fast timings that we achieved with all three DIMM banks filled on the NFII Ultra. Those who wish to use all three memory banks will not have to relax timings very much on this motherboard. We found 2-5-2-2 worked well with three banks filled, which is only slightly slower than the 2-4-2-2 timings that worked well with two DIMMs in dual-channel mode.

We tested all these memory timings using several stress tests and general applications to guarantee stability. We started the tests by running 24 hours of Prime95 torture tests. Prime95 ran successfully at the timings listed in the above charts. We also ran Sciencemark (memory tests only) and Super Pi. All of these stress tests ran on the DFI NFII Ultra without problems.

DFI NFII Ultra: BIOS and Overclocking DFI NFII Ultra: Tech Support and RMA
Comments Locked

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • Jeff7181 - Thursday, July 31, 2003 - link

    ... and another thing.

    What the hell is with showing ONE benchmark results for the Gun Metal DX9 tests? What a complete waste of time those were!
  • Jeff7181 - Thursday, July 31, 2003 - link

    I'm not impressed by this article. Comparing 4 motherboards huh? Don't strain yourselves over there guys.
    How bout throwing in a couple of the most popular motherboards for AMD rigs? Like the Asus A7N8X Deluxe and Epox 8RDA+
    Seems like that would be the smart thing to do since people would be able to relate the performance a lot easier.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - link

    You are F-ing kidding me right>?!

    "Many benchmarks show widely different results with different video hardware, so we have indicated benchmarks run with the ATI Radeon 9800 PRO with an asterisk. Benchmarks without an asterisk were run with the nVidia Ti4600."

    So you didn't use the same video card to compare both the NF2 Ultra boards? That is just bad form. Gee I wonder if the motherboard with the 9800 will be a little faster? DUh.
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - link

    We described the Raid 1.5 feature in this review, because many readers of our earlier DFI 875PRO review have asked questions about how this feature is supposed to work. We did not test the performance of Raid 1.5, so we did not comment on how it actually performs compared to other RAID configurations.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - link

    Are you sure about RAID 1.5 too? I've seen several reports that it's nothing more than RAID 1(mirroring) with data being simultaniously read off both drives, which is in turn something a good RAID 1 controller should do anyhow, making RAID 1.5 marketing fluff.
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - link

    Corrections are in process right now. When a review is written it is spell-checked, emailed, and then actually posted by a Managing Editor who is located thousands of miles from my location. The graphs are also created from formatted raw data at that point. Since I am new to Anandtech, then these kinds of errors do happen, and we take them very seriously.

    I sincerely apologize, but the errors will be corrected very soon. Since I am learning the Anandtech procedures, the fault is mine.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now