Memory Stress Testing

The SLI version of the Gigabyte nForce4 handled memory exactly as we found on the K8NXP-9, which is very good indeed. We did not see any issues with memory on this board that have been reported as problems on the older nForce3 Ultra Gigabyte boards.

The memory stress tests measure the ability of the K8NXP-SLI to operate at its officially supported memory frequency (400MHz DDR), at the lowest memory timings that OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2 modules will support. All DIMMs used for stress testing were 512MB double-sided (or double-bank) memory. To make sure that memory performed properly in Dual-Channel mode, memory was only tested using either one dual-channel (2 DIMMs) or 2 dual-channels (4 DIMMs).

Stable DDR400 Timings - One Dual-Channel
(2/4 DIMMs populated)
Clock Speed: 200MHz
CAS Latency: 2.0
RAS to CAS Delay: 2T
RAS Precharge: 10T*
Precharge Delay: 2T
Command Rate: 1T
*Several memory tests have shown that memory performs fastest on the nVidia nForce chipsets at a TRas (RAS Precharge) settings in the 9 to 13 range. Memory Bandwidth tests were run with memtest86 with TRas settings from 5 to 15 at a wide range of different memory speeds. The best bandwidth was consistently at 9 to 11 at every speed, with TRas 10 always in the best range at every speed. The performance improvement at TRas 10 was only 2% to 4% over TRas 5 and 6 depending on the speed, but the performance advantage was consistent across all tests. All benchmarks were therefore run at a TRas setting of 10.

By using two DIMMs in Dual-Channel 128-bit mode, the memory performed in all benchmarks at the fastest 2-2-2-10 timings, at default voltage.

Stable DDR400 Timings - 4 DIMMs
(4/4 DIMMs populated)
Clock Speed: 200MHz
CAS Latency: 2.0
RAS to CAS Delay: 2T
RAS Precharge: 10T*
Precharge Delay: 2T
Command Rate: 2T

Tests with all four DIMM slots populated on the Gigabyte required a 2T Command Rate with 4 DIMMs in two dual channels. This is the pattern seen on other top-performing Socket 939 boards.

Overclocking: Gigabyte K8NXP-SLI Test Setup
Comments Locked

58 Comments

View All Comments

  • BenSkywalker - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link

    "To clarify test results, benchmarks are reported in separate graphs for standard results at 1024x768 resolution and enhanced results at 1280x1024. Since 1600x1200 normally requires a 20" or larger flat panel monitor, we did not report 1600x1200 results, since most readers will not run at that resolution."

    As pointed out by cnq not having even 1600x1200 makes your review of SLI worthless. Honestly, stopping at 1600x1200 is a bit of a joke, who is going to spend $1K on video cards and have some POS display that can't handle a resolution worthy of that kind of cash? SLI testing should START at 1600x1200 and go up to 2048x1536- anything else is pointless. Anyone who purchases dual 6800GTs to run 1280x1024 certainly lacks the capacity to be reading this site as everyone already knows it is nigh pointless.

    You may as well test 320x240, it has about the same level of relevance. 1600x1200(for baseline, low end comparisons), 1920x1440 and 2048x1536 are the settings that people who are honestly thinking about ponying up want to see tested.

    "Most any decent 19" CRT can support 1600x1200 as you stated, but have you ever tried to play a game at 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT. I tried it just to see for this review and it was pretty ugly. However 16x12 was OK on the 22" Diamondtron, though I prefer 1280x1024 on the 19" flat panels for most gaming."

    Why is playing a game on a 19" @16x12 difficult at all? If you have a decent 22" Diamondtron try having someone set one input up for you running 1280x1024 4xAA and the other input running 2048x1536 without AA and see what you think is better. I can't even comment about how 2048x1536 with AA would look as the only people that can run that type of setup right now are those with SLI parts in their hands and unfortunately they haven't deemed us worthy of obtaining that type of knowledge.
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link

    #11 - The K8NXP v1.0 and the K8NXP-SLI both ran perfectly at 5X HT, which was the reported issue with the nF4 "bug". All stock benchmarks were run with 5X enabled.
  • Live - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link

    I'll have to agree with Wesley on the resolutions. Most people don't run 1600x1200. SLI as it stays now
    looks limited on lower resolutions but will it when more demanding games are realesed? I think not. So the upgrade option is letting me run future games at max quality without byuing a new top of the line card. Just focusing on 1600x1200 beacuse you own a 2001FP seems rather silly.


  • Beenthere - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link

    There never was an issue with the nF4 chipset silicon. The A02 runs at 800 MHz HTT as the socket 754 was designed to run and the A03 runs at 1000 MHz HTT as the S939 is designed to do.

    The original Rev. 1.X A7N8X Mobo was designed to run at 133 MHz FSB as that's what AMD chipsets used for a FSB at the time it was designed. Later when AMD was planning to release the XP 3200 with a 200 MHz FSB, the Rev. 2.0 A7N8X was released. There never was any design defect in the A7N8X it's just a matter of CPU/Mobo evolution.

    PCIe is just an evolution also. There is no performance advantage to PCIe over AGP unless you run dual graphics cards in SLI mode.
  • VIAN - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link

    Wesley, where is 8xAA/16xAF benching.

    I understand your resolution decision, plus you probably didn't have time to bench it all... but no 8xAA/16xAF. Especially when the 6800Ultra came to a crawl with 8xAA enabled.

    That would've kicked ass.
  • Googer - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link

    Correction:

    I am wondering, since I have no Interest in running SLI but would like to use an LSI x4 scsi controler in place of the other graphics card. I know you can run a x1 or x2 device (nic?) in slot with a higher number of lanes (x8,x16,x32)and it will function fine.

    My questen is because these boards use a semi-proprietary PCI-e setup it possible to use the second (x16 sized) unused PCI-E x16 slot for something else? while running something (i.e. a Graphics Processor) in the main x16 slot. I have a strong suspicion that it is ok; based on the fact that TOMSHADWARE.com Ran both ATI and nVIDIA (x800 and 6800uL) on the same motherboard! Run some Please let me know thanks!
  • Googer - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link

    #9 Agreed, they are less informed since they like to know as little as they possibly can. Ignorance is bliss. As for you and I, we are much higher up on the totem pole then they.

    I am wondering, since I have no Interest in running SLI but would like to use an LSI x4 scsi controler in place of the other graphics card.I know you can run an x1 or x2 device in slot with a higher number of lanes (x8,x16,x32) Is it possible to use the unused PCI-E x16 slot for something else? while running somethin in the main x16 slot. I have a strong suspicion that it is ok; based on the fact that TOMSHADWARE.com Ran
    both ATI and nVIDIA (x800 and 6800uL) on the same board! Please let me know thanks!
  • madnod - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link

    it's a good review and it's a good mobo, but what about the reported bug in the NFORCE4 shipset is it fixed yet or no? if no then all this bunch of mobos are going to use the customers and beta tester, i had thsi situation with the ASUS A7N8X deluxe rev 1.3 2 years ago and i still hate asus for that.
  • j@cko - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link

    I guess that their brain is too small to absorb all those info...
  • j@cko - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link

    I don't understand why some people would critize Anand for including too much info... Those people are morons, period.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now