SuperPi 32M

32M is one of those benches one could waste an eternity in trying out various tweaks on both the board and in the operating systems. We decided to keep things short and simple for this review by optimizing the basic memory options and Bclk rates to show differences in how each board sets up sub-timings using the same processor and memory clocks on a given multiplier. All the boards managed the same 22x 234 BCLK using the 2:8 memory ratio.

ASUS trails by virtue of a very loose set of default sub timings. Unfortunately, we lost our ASUS ROG board to the Foxconn socket meltdown problem at this point. This also damaged our best CPU in the process so were unable to push further in this particular benchmark as our replacement processors did not clock as well.

The EVGA E659 did not fare as well as the other boards in this benchmark using the 2:10 memory ratio. No matter what we tried we could not get the board to pass 32M any higher than 226~227 BCLK in this bench. Moving over to the 2:8 ratio the E659 managed to out clock the other boards for raw CPU frequency. However, raw memory bandwidth and tight latencies favor this benchmark over the small differences in CPU frequency in our results so the lack of stability with the 2:10 memory ratio is adversely affecting the E659.


Super Pi 32m - Max CPU Clock
WPrime 1024M What is RTL?
POST A COMMENT

52 Comments

View All Comments

  • yyrkoon - Saturday, November 7, 2009 - link

    Ok, sorry for the rude comments. But the main reason why this perturbed me, is that something similar happened to a company that I did like a few years back. They lost a lot of revenue because of the situation( and then left the market altogether; yeah . . . guess who ). With that said, I am glad that you guys reported this issue, because at that time, I was seriously considering the board afflicted. Then, I could even go as far back as the terrible capacitors used by many builders, which also caused bad reviews(and feeling from loyal customers)from many reviewers. You would think these companies would learn eventually. Of course, at the time, the builders had no idea these capacitors were going to ruin long term stability ( or maybe they did ? ). Then even in some cases long term was not an issue, because short term stability suffered as well.

    So, for now on, I suppose I will just have to remember that highly OCable motherboards,are not really dependable for 24/7 operation, and then keep my "mouth" shut :)

    I am glad to see one of you does have something from MSI. Now if only the other players would get something out as well.
    Reply
  • petergab - Saturday, November 7, 2009 - link

    Can you, please, give the socket type of the tested boards? I don't want to start the foxconn/lotes dabate here.

    And one more clarification: The MSI board (I supoose p55-gd80) was not testes because it had a foxconn socket that burned out OR because the two i7 870 were burned out (on asus)?
    Reply
  • Rajinder Gill - Saturday, November 7, 2009 - link

    MSI GD80 was not tested because of damage to 2 870 CPU's, one of which was the best sample I had on hand (the one that ran Wprime over 5.2GHz). I've already presented the socket info of the tested boards in the article, but just to recap for you; EVGA boards were on TYCO AMP (E657) and LOTES (E659), ASUS and Gbyte both on Foxconn.

    MSI's board was ready for review once the CPU damage had already taken place. It was a choice of starting afresh on all 5 boards once again (and risking coming away with even less same CPU comparative info) or running with the almost complete information on 4 boards I had at the time. The latter made more sense to me. Nothing against MSI, their boards were still in beta and undergoing a revision for PCI/e when this all started so they were not in the initial lineup anyway.

    later
    Raja


    Reply
  • petergab - Monday, November 9, 2009 - link

    >> Nothing against MSI, their boards were still in beta and undergoing >> a revision for PCI/e when this all started so they were not in the >> initial lineup anyway.

    Can you explain this in deteils? I think I found something about it 1-2 months ago and haven't saved the address.

    Your review was published in Nov. This means you've tested them in Oct, so the planning should have been some time in Sept. As far as I can remember the current MSI board range was on the market before Sept. Does this mean than the MSI has some problems with PCI- PCIE speeds with the current boards? What about the other verndors?

    Any links are also appreciated.
    Reply
  • Rajinder Gill - Monday, November 9, 2009 - link

    Hi,

    The delay between the article posting and now was simply becasue I tore some fo the content out for the socket burnout stuff a couple of weeks ago. No idea if the MSI PCI/e overclocking patch was post retail or not because I've never had a GD80 in my hands so don't know what to look for per se.

    later
    Raja
    Reply
  • petergab - Monday, November 9, 2009 - link

    >> No idea if the MSI PCI/e overclocking patch was post retail or not because...

    This is exactly what I'm asking about. What was the original problem with this (if any existed)? The fact that you've not considered thier boards talks about some not that trivial issue. What was it? What made you not consider the board?
    Reply
  • Rajinder Gill - Monday, November 9, 2009 - link

    It's simple;

    1) At planning stage of who is going to be in the article one, MSI not added to inital lineup because board not ready.

    2) By the time revision board is ready, 2 CPU's have been damaged while completing tests of 4 other boards (was in week 4 of testing at this point). Leaving me in a position where all tests must be re-run on every board with a new CPU just to add the MSI board into the report. Given the apparent weakness being experienced and not knowing if I'd be lucky enough even to make it through all 5 boards without another failure I decided to post what I had.

    There's nothing more to it. You're reading into this too deeply. If I had anything whatsoever to hide, I would not have posted anything in the first place.

    later
    Reply
  • Makaveli - Saturday, November 7, 2009 - link

    Very happy I just build a P6T Deluxe V2 + 920 D0 combo. Those overclocking numbers look good for the lynnfield setups, but I needed a true and tested platform and with these boards all just coming out I don't trust them. Reply
  • dingetje - Friday, November 6, 2009 - link

    wow the p55 platform is totally screwd if this problem persists...any overclocker still oc'ing the hell out of their p55 must be either brave, rich or (michael jackson voice on:) ignoraaaant
    Reply
  • Raptor88 - Friday, November 6, 2009 - link

    Raja:
    Thank you for you insights..
    Can you provide more detail regarding the Max BCLK testing. Were all the boards running AUTO settings? If not, what were their respective settings?
    Regards,
    Raptor
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now