Final Words

The Gigabyte K8NNXP-940 is an impressive motherboard. The performance it exhibits at standard settings in our benchmarks is simply outstanding. The early impressions of the Athlon64 FX51 were that it was not much faster than Athlon64. Perhaps we should recast this to say that the early Athlon64 FX motherboards were not much faster than the Athlon64 motherboards running Athlon64 processors. In almost every benchmark, the Gigabyte K8NNXP-940 with an Athlon64 FX51 tops our fastest Pentium 4 motherboard — the Asus P4C800-E running a 3.2GHz processor. Even the usual P4 stronghold of Content Creation sees the Athlon64 FX51 and 3.2GHz P4 in a dead heat. In almost every other benchmark, the Athlon64 FX51 is a clear winner — over both the Pentium 4 3.2GHz and the Athlon64 3200+. The only exception here is our Media Encoding benchmark, which tends to favor Intel processors and will soon be replaced with an updated benchmark.

The features, layout, and included accessories make the Gigabyte K8NNXP-940 a stellar home for a new FX CPU. Gigabyte has done an outstanding job in the engineering of this Socket 940 motherboard, and in standard testing, it is in every way a winning combination with the Athlon64 FX51. The addition of Multipliers to the release K8NNXP motherboard just sweetens the picture that much more. With the high cost of the FX51, Enthusiasts will need some persuading to pay the price for the FX processor. AMD and Asus were smart to make it clear that the FX51 could be unlocked in the BIOS, unlike regular, cheaper, single-channel Athlon64 chips. Gigabyte becomes the second manufacturer to add the ability to manipulate FX ratios in the BIOS.

With this high praise, we do believe Gigabyte has more work to do on the BIOS of the K8NNXP-940. It is certainly fast and full of options in the release F1 version, but it is disappointing to find that the new CPU ratios do not work reliably, and the FSB often exhibits some strange behaviors — resetting itself to lower values on boot — and we don't just mean default 200. We had two cases where settings of 220 came back at boot as 209.5, and the 12 multiplier only worked at 200 FSB setting.

Despite the issues with the immature BIOS, we still highly recommend the Gigabyte K8NNXP-940. It can take the Enthusiast to new performance heights as it is, and we fully expect even better overclocking with some of the BIOS kinks worked out. It performs better than any Socket 940 board that we have tested so far.

We have been told that we will see at least a couple of new and revised Athlon64 FX motherboards in the near future. They may prove to be even better, in particular, an update with the VIA chipset that is said to have new features for that chipset. However, until we test those Socket 940 boards and perhaps find one that performs even better, the Gigabyte K8NNXP-940 is King of the Hill.

High End Workstation Performance - SPECviewperf 7.0
Comments Locked

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • juc - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    can you try and put in a lower clock opteron and see what type of overclocking you can do w/ it?, is the regular 14x opteron unlocked? it would be nice if it was.
  • Reflex - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    #1: A RDRAM version would completely eliminate the advantage of having an on-die memory controller on the CPU as it is very very high latency by design. The A64 thrives on very very low latency/high IPC, and RDRAM does not provide that.

    Honestly, what would be truly ideal is a QDR solution. But everytime I hear about it being close nothing seems to come of it. Too bad...
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Considering the performance gain, money ain't that important :-)
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    #1,

    Samsung PC-3200 512 MB DDR SDRAM $125
    Samsung PC-3200 512 MB ECC Reg. DDR SDRAM $174

    +49

    Corsair XMS3200 PC-3200 512MB DDR SDRAM $175
    Corsair XMS3200 PC-3200 ELL 512MB DDR SDRAM $220
    Corsair XMS3200LL-RE PC-3200 ECC Reg. 512MB DDR SDRAM $235

    +15 (+60 compared to slower timings)

    completely unmeaningful to anyone with the money to buy an fx.
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Looks like a cool mobo, and an amazingly fast CPU, but . . .

    Who's going to buy one of these!?!?!?

    The price you'll spend on memory put's this way out of most people's price range! And before you yell at me for saying that, look up pricing for registered modules!

    You could probably buy an awesome Athlon 64 system now, then upgrade your mobo and CPU to FX when the 939 pin version comes out, and still spend less money than paying this ridiculous premium on memory. Plus, it would be upgradable to future FX chips, not an unsupported beast. Anyone remember socket 423?

    Say goodbye to the idea of 'surpassing the 4Gb memory limitation,' unless you have like $10,000 to spend on memory!

    My real question here is why, when the Athlon 64 (non-FX) is such a success, would they make this strange beast?

    What I would LOVE to see (I know you're going to hate this one) is a really tight RDRAM chipset ready when the 939-pin chipset comes out.

    What do you think? Quad Channel 1200Mhz RDRAM on the new FX? Ain't gonna happen, but I can dream.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now