Chaintech VNF4-Ultra: Features and Layout

 Specification  Chaintech VNF4-Ultra
CPU Interface Socket 939 Athlon 64
Chipset nForce4 Ultra (single chip)
BUS Speeds 200MHz to 400MHz (in 1MHz increments)
PCI/AGP Speeds Asynchronous (Fixed)
PCI Express 100MHz to 145MHz in 1MHz increments
Core Voltage Auto, 0.90V to 1.70V in 0.025V increments
DRAM Voltage Default, 2.7V, 2.8V, 2.9V
Chipset Voltage Default, 1.6V, 1.65V, 1.7V
Hyper Transport Ratios 1x to 5x in 1x increments
LDT Bus Transfer 16/16, 16/8, 8/16, 8/8
LDT Voltage Normal, +0.1V, +0.2V, +0.3V
CPU Ratios Auto, 4x to 25x in 1x increments
DRAM Speeds Auto, 100, 133, 166, 200
Memory Command Rate Auto, 1T, 2T
Memory Slots Four 184-pin DDR Dual-Channel Slots
Unbuffered Memory to 4GB Total
Expansion Slots 1 x16 PCIe Slots
2 x1 PCIe
3 PCI Slots
Onboard SATA 4-Drive SATA 2 by nF4
Onboard IDE Two Standard NVIDIA ATA133/100/66 (4 drives)
SATA/IDE RAID 4-Drive SATA 2 PLUS
4-Drive IDE (8 total)
Can be combined in RAID 0, 1
Onboard USB 2.0/IEEE-1394 10 USB 2.0 ports supported nF4
No Firewire
Onboard LAN Gigabit PCIe Ethernet by Vitesse VSC8201 PHY
Onboard Audio Realtek ALC850 8-Channel codec with 6 UAJ audio jacks, CD-in, front audio, and optical SPDIF
Other Features AMD Dual-Core (X2) Support with 5/18 Beta BIOS
BIOS Award 6/03/2005

The Chaintech was one of the motherboards that we had looked forward to testing. It is very inexpensive, and the last Chaintech that we tested, the Socket 754 VNF3-250, was an Editors Choice for value. Chaintech has repeated an outstanding selection of useful overclocking adjustments in the VNF4-Ultra BIOS. The features are also first rate for an Ultra board selling for $89 street price, with Firewire being the only missing feature of importance to some buyers. Even the excellent NVIDIA "any-drive" RAID for SATA 2 and IDE is fully supported, along with the standard NVIDIA chipset-based Firewall and LAN features. Chaintech has also implemented a really nice boot screen option. When selected in the BIOS, the boot screen shows post codes during boot so that you can see exactly what is going on and where problems might be.


Click image to enlarge.

While a little smaller than the other nF4 Ultra boards, Chaintech has compensated with a different layout that works very well in most cases. The 4 DIMM slots move to the top, with the Socket 939 moved towards the center of the board. This allows Chaintech to place almost all the storage connectors on the right edge of the board where they usually work best. SATA and IDE are well clear of the PCIe slot. The nF4 floppy connector is at the lower right of the board - not the best location, but much better than at the bottom of the board.

The only real compromise that Chaintech made with the smaller board was placing the 24-pin ATX and the 4-pin 12V between the CPU and rear panel connectors. No matter how you run the bulky 24-pin cable, it gets in the way of something - memory or CPU or IDE/SATA connections - and none of the routing options is really a great choice. Chaintech builds to a price point, and if this is the concession that had to be made for performance, we will find a way to live with it. That doesn't mean that we have to like it though.

At first, we thought that Chaintech had omitted an optical or coaxial SPDIF port, but looking closer, we found that the top left audio port (the blue connector) does double-duty as an optical SPDIF out port.

When we first received the Chaintech for evaluation, it was supplied with a passive heatsink for the single-chip nForce4 Ultra chipset. Chaintech sent an announcement that they had updated the design for active chipset cooling due to high temperatures with the nF34 chipset. Soon thereafter, we received an active cooling kit for the VNF4-Ultra that was a very easy installation. Chaintech tells us that current boards should be equipped with active cooling for the chipset.

Biostar NF4UL-A9: Overclocking and Stress Testing Chaintech VNF4-Ultra: Overclocking and Stress Testing
Comments Locked

75 Comments

View All Comments

  • arfan - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link

    "So ECS, Foxconn, Biostar - we can only suggest that you need to add features and performance that will make an AMD user want to buy your boards. "

    Why u think's ECS is bad ???

    From your benchmark, ECS is not too bad, their ranking in the middle until top1.

    Sorry, if myenglish is so bad.
  • smn198 - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link

    Page 1: "There are no performance differences in the SLI and Ultra chipsets, or even the base nForce4 for that matter. These chipsets differ only in which features are available to the buyer - but they beat with the same heart."

    I thought the base nForce4 had a 800MHz HT where as the Ultra and SLI have 1GHz. Is that not correct?
  • Frallan - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link

    For PSU requirements read the mfg websites. Especially the DFI comes with explicit requirements.

    480W 24pin ATX 2.0+ PSU and from experiance Id have to say that U want a 1st tier PSU on top of that. Anecdotal advices that its possible to run a DFI SLI set up overclocked from a 350W PSU exists but fact remains that a good solid 500W+ ATX 2.0+ PSU will help U with stability.
  • Calin - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link

    What I want to ask: does the processor works with four DS DIMMS at 1T command rate at lower frequency? By what you say (that 2T command rate is much slower than 1T command rate), then 1T command rate at 333MHz would be faster than 2T command rate at 400MHz.
  • Vesperan - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link

    I love the look of that Epox board. Pity noone imports Epox products into New Zealand any more.
  • GhostlyGhost - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link

    Ermm.. It's "Marvell". With two l's.
  • Heidfirst - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link

    I think that you must have a bad example of the ABIT. A no. of other sites (HardOCP, Hexus etc.) have all been over 300 ref. clock with it.
    Not to mention that there is also now the non-Fatality AN8 Ultra which is cheaper & yet has better sound & 3.55Vdimm instead of 2.8V on the Fatality ...
  • Affectionate-Bed-980 - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link

    I think the Neo4 should've been included even though it was in the SLI test. Same with the Asus board. Those are really important boards. I'm sure if you add up the Asus and MSI users they would outnumber Biostar + Foxconn + Chaintech + ECS. Iono. just my 2 cents. I dont want to go look at the SLI review and then compare it to this review to see other boards and do a mental benchmark merge to get hte relative performance.

    You know what we should make? We should make the uber super chart system. Kinda like THG's CPU charts. Just make the interactive system comparation machine. Choose a CPU, a mobo, a gfx card etc. If you bench every component (not every combo), but just CPUs vs CPUs, mobos vs mobos, you can get the relative score and construct a relative table for combinations..... hmm just a thought.
  • Palek - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link

    A few mistakes made it into the final article...

    -------------------------------------------------
    Page 7

    1. The following bit does not belong in this review. Cut and paste?

    "There are absolutely no PCIe slots at all on the Neo4/SLI except for the pair of x16 slots for SLI video. MSI tells us that the 2nd PCIe can function as a PCIe x1 slot if you're not using it for video, but that is it for PCIe. Does this really matter? Right now, it really isn't important, since we had a very hard time even finding a PCIe x1 LAN card for the new PCI Express. It may matter in the future, but by that time, you will likely have moved on to a newer version of whatever chipset is the latest wonder. This is particularly clear when you look at the feature set of the MSI, since it is definitely a cut above the other boards in this roundup."

    2. "SPDIG" should be SPDIF, or S/PDIF if you want to be really accurate.

    Page 11

    1. The title row of the table is incorrect. The motherboard name should read:
    "DFI LANParty UT nF4 Ultra"

    2. Link to next page is also incorrect, same as above.

    Page 12

    1. Title of the page is incorrect, same as above.

    2. Title row of the table is incorrect, same as above.

    Page 13

    1. "SPDIG" round two.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Also, do guys have any idea why placing the codec on a daughter card reduces CPU overhead? Obviously there is something more going on than just the physical relocation of the chips. Any theories or explanations?
  • Xenoterranos - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link

    Just a word about the soundblaster Live on the MSI board...

    "That price tag [200$] may be a bit high for the average gamer who just spent most of his/her savings on a Pentium II / Voodoo2 setup, however if you're going to swallow the cost of an expensive sound card it might as well be the Creative Labs SB Live!"

    That was Anandtech back in '99. And you're getting this for free! (well, almost)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now