Asus A8R-MVP: Mainstream Rocket
by Wesley Fink on November 23, 2005 1:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
USB Performance
USB has been a problem area for the ATI SB450 chipset, so we were anxious to test the ULi M1575 South Bridge, which is supposed to fix USB performance issues. We ran our standard USB throughput test on the Asus A8R-MVP using an external USB hard drive.
Our test method uses a RAM disk as our “server”, since memory removes almost all overhead from the serving end. We also disable disk caching on the USB and Firewire side by setting up the drives for “quick disconnect”. Our results are then consistent over many test runs.
We use just 1GB of fast 2-2-2 system memory, set up as a 450MB RAM disk and 550MB of system memory. Our stock file is the SPECviewPerf 8.01 install file. which is 432,533,504 bytes (412.4961MB). After copying this file to our RAM disk, we measure the time for writing from the RAM disk to our external USB 2.0 or Firewire 400 or Firewire 800 drive using a Windows timing program written for AnandTech by our own Jason Clark. The copy times in seconds are then converted into Megabits per second (Mb) to provide a convenient means of comparing throughput. Higher Rates therefore mean better performance.
In addition to competitive USB performance, the M1575 also provides the SATA2 ports that are missing from the ATI SB450. The ULi SATA2 also supports RAID 0, 1, 0+1, 5, and JBOD.
Disk Controller Performance
With the variety of disk drive benchmarks available, we needed a means of comparing the true performance of the wide selection of controllers. The logical choice was Anand's storage benchmark first described in “Q2 2004 Desktop Hard Drive Comparison: WD Raptor vs. the World”. To refresh your memory, the iPeak test was designed to measure "pure" hard disk performance, and in this case, we kept the hard drive as consistent as possible while varying the hard drive controller. The idea is to measure the performance of a hard drive controller with a consistent hard drive.
We played back Anand's raw files that recorded I/O operations when running a real world benchmark - the entire Winstone 2004 suite. Intel's iPEAK utility was then used to play back the trace file of all IO operations that took place during a single run of Business Winstone 2004 and MCC Winstone 2004. The drive was formatted before each test run and a composite average of 5 tests on each controller interface was tabulated in order to ensure consistency in the benchmark.
iPeak gives a mean service time in milliseconds; in other words, the average time that each drive took to fulfill each IO operation. In order to make the data more understandable, we report the scores as an average number of IO operations per second so that higher scores translate into better performance. This number is meaningless as far as hard disk performance is concerned as it is just the number of IO operations completed in a second. However, the scores are useful for comparing "pure" performance of the storage controllers in this case.
USB has been a problem area for the ATI SB450 chipset, so we were anxious to test the ULi M1575 South Bridge, which is supposed to fix USB performance issues. We ran our standard USB throughput test on the Asus A8R-MVP using an external USB hard drive.
Our test method uses a RAM disk as our “server”, since memory removes almost all overhead from the serving end. We also disable disk caching on the USB and Firewire side by setting up the drives for “quick disconnect”. Our results are then consistent over many test runs.
We use just 1GB of fast 2-2-2 system memory, set up as a 450MB RAM disk and 550MB of system memory. Our stock file is the SPECviewPerf 8.01 install file. which is 432,533,504 bytes (412.4961MB). After copying this file to our RAM disk, we measure the time for writing from the RAM disk to our external USB 2.0 or Firewire 400 or Firewire 800 drive using a Windows timing program written for AnandTech by our own Jason Clark. The copy times in seconds are then converted into Megabits per second (Mb) to provide a convenient means of comparing throughput. Higher Rates therefore mean better performance.
In addition to competitive USB performance, the M1575 also provides the SATA2 ports that are missing from the ATI SB450. The ULi SATA2 also supports RAID 0, 1, 0+1, 5, and JBOD.
Disk Controller Performance
With the variety of disk drive benchmarks available, we needed a means of comparing the true performance of the wide selection of controllers. The logical choice was Anand's storage benchmark first described in “Q2 2004 Desktop Hard Drive Comparison: WD Raptor vs. the World”. To refresh your memory, the iPeak test was designed to measure "pure" hard disk performance, and in this case, we kept the hard drive as consistent as possible while varying the hard drive controller. The idea is to measure the performance of a hard drive controller with a consistent hard drive.
We played back Anand's raw files that recorded I/O operations when running a real world benchmark - the entire Winstone 2004 suite. Intel's iPEAK utility was then used to play back the trace file of all IO operations that took place during a single run of Business Winstone 2004 and MCC Winstone 2004. The drive was formatted before each test run and a composite average of 5 tests on each controller interface was tabulated in order to ensure consistency in the benchmark.
iPeak gives a mean service time in milliseconds; in other words, the average time that each drive took to fulfill each IO operation. In order to make the data more understandable, we report the scores as an average number of IO operations per second so that higher scores translate into better performance. This number is meaningless as far as hard disk performance is concerned as it is just the number of IO operations completed in a second. However, the scores are useful for comparing "pure" performance of the storage controllers in this case.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - link
Theoretically nVidia SLI can run on ATI crossfire without much trouble. We have tested hacked drivers that do just this and it appears to work fine. However, until nVidia allows Crossifire board operation in their video drivers it is officially not supported. The same goes for ATI Crossfire on nVidia - ATI has to support it in their drivers. Single video cards are supported on all platforms.As for avaialability of X1800XT, our video reviewer received a review sample about 6 weeks ago, but we have not seen another X1800XT from ATI. The X1800XT was to be available for sale November 5. ATI tells us daily there are none available for sampling, but we can expect a unit for motherboard testing "very soon".
shabby - Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - link
Geez if your having this much trouble getting a x1800xt i wonder when you'll recieve the crossfire ones.Schro - Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - link
Has Asus stated the general availability date of the board? The only vendor that I can find with it listed is ZZF @ $199 for a pre-order, which is certainly not a mainstream price.Wesley Fink - Thursday, November 24, 2005 - link
I just did a search on Google's Froogle at http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=A8R-MVP+&b...">http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=A8R...;btnG=Se.... There are 4 listings for the A8R-MVP - buy.com for $104.99, Computer Brain for $108.21, PC & Stuff for $115.94, and PCSuperDeals for $119.15. These prices are very much in line with what Asus projected - in fact they are even better. A Crossfire motherboard with these features for $105 is a terrific value.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - link
We confirmed final pricing with Asus yesterday. They told us the board should sell initially in the $115 to $125 range. Obviously a new board, a good review and limited availability drive up the price in capitalism. Asus confirmed last evening the boards have shipped from Taiwan to US e-tailers and should begin appearing for sale Friday or Monday (November 25th or 28th).Live - Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - link
This board is listed for pre-order from several e-tailers here in Europe at just the price range ASUS is suggesting.Calin - Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - link
it's nowhere near the $100-$125 suggested by the article... but the price will fall when availability increasesOrSin - Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - link
Poster before me hit it right on the head. My next motherboard will most likely be one of these ATI boards but it seems this was fluck to me. I guess we can wait for other sites to seee if they get similar results.poohbear - Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - link
excuse me, great review, but when presuming that this board is not a fluke u state:"based on the Asus expectations being set very low for this board, and the genuine surprise that Asus expressed when we reported our results, I would venture to say that what we found is not a fluke."
how are the 2 aforementioned reasons related to it NOT being a fluke? i was a bit confused reading that. if a mobo manufacturer's expectations are low, and then they're surprised, would'nt that mean that this mobo might on the contrary, be a fluke?
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - link
I receive some emails complaining that I must receive "Cherry" motherboards for testing since my OC results are so high. Of course, part of my success is due to being a long-term overclocker, and overall my results have not noramlly been that different than what other experienced overclockers found on retail boards.In this case Asus positioned this as a mainstream board and advised us the board was not positioned as a top overclocker. The ATI Crossfire chipset is an outstanding overclocker and I believe this board, with the design efforts of a talented design team turned out to be a surprising overclocker and that retail boards will also. I really don't think Asus as a company considered that this might be a top overclocker, but certainly someone in Asus design did consider this with the BIOS options that are available.
The first BIOS was not particularly good for overclocking, but version 2 and 3 are outstanding. We have seem many manufacturers, even tier 1, design boards for overclockers that were mediocre in performance. We have also seen boards that had a solid design but no great OC credentials rise to the top as a great overclocker. In fact, Asus has had a number of this type of "wolf in sheep's clothing" boards over the past few years.