Overclocking: DFI LANParty UT RDX200

 DFI LANParty UT RDX200
Overclocking Testbed
Processor(s): Athlon 64 4000+
(2.4GHz, 1MB Cache)
CPU Voltage: 1.425V (default 1.40V)
Cooling: Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 Heatsink/Fan
Power Supply: OCZ Power Stream 520W
Memory: OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2
(Samsung TCCD Memory Chips)
Hard Drive: Seagate 120GB 7200RPM SATA 8MB Cache
Maximum OC:
(Standard Ratio)
245x12 (4x HT, 2.5-3-3-10)
2940MHz (+22.5%)
Maximum FSB:
(Lower Ratio)
305 x 9 (3x HT, 1T)
(2718MHz, 2 DIMMs in DC mode)
(+53% Bus Overclock)

The DFI matched the highest stock speed overclock that we have achieved with this Clawhammer 130nm processor. There is little to complain about with this kind of stock overclocking with this CPU.

Lowering the multiplier to reach the highest CPU clock was a bit more difficult. While it was easy to reach a stable 270 with the default (mostly AUTO) memory timings in BIOS, getting to the eventual 305 proved more of a challenge. The design team tells us that the RDX200 was optimized for Crucial Ballistix 1GB DIMMs and not our standard OCZ TCCD DIMMs. We finally reached a stable 305 setting with the following settings:

  • Tref (Refresh Period) - 2592
  • DRAM Drive Strength - 7
  • DRAM Data Drive Strength - 2
  • Max Asynch Latency - 9
  • Read Preamble Time - 6.5
The other settings were left at default for TCCD. HT, main memory timings, and voltages are in the above chart.

When we discussed results with the DFI Design Engineer, we were told that our results were typical of what could be expected on this. The highest clock does not reach to 315 to 318 as a few other boards have because of the compromises made to achieve reliable operation with 4 double-sided DIMMs at 1T. However, most boards should be able to reach a 300 to 310 Clock frequency in overclocking with appropriate ratios.

Basic Features: DFI LANParty UT RDX200 4 DS DIMMs at 1T: Memory Stress Testing
POST A COMMENT

48 Comments

View All Comments

  • Skoad - Friday, October 21, 2005 - link

    Board just came in stock at newegg for $209+5 shipping.


    Also what psu was used in this test. I read somewhere that the board needs an 8pin connection from the psu and that very few psu's have this right now.

    I can't seem to find where I read this at atm.
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, October 21, 2005 - link

    We use the OCZ 520W as a standard bench PSU. It has both 4 and 8-pin 12V connectors. 8-pin slots will also work with 4-pin 12V plugs. Reply
  • Zoomer - Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - link

    Will there be a value ATi board?

    I don't forsee myself getting a xfire solution, ever.
    Reply
  • smaky - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    Guess who is getting one this week? hiihihihiihih x850? Reply
  • danidentity - Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - link

    You make no comment on the stability of this board, how is it? Reply
  • cryptonomicon - Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - link

    Sorry, but I can't help but ask why the gaming performance graphs were not all done on the same graphics card. Initially I thought WOW THIS NEW ATI CHIPSET IS MAD FAST but then I see it was using the 7800 gtx while all the other boards got 6800 ultras... WTF?
    What the heck is going on? Was the scientific method forgotten or something? This is a let down.
    Reply
  • rjm55 - Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - link

    I'm always amazed in reading AT Comments that those who complain loudest are the ones who don't even bother to READ the review. I may not always agree with Wesley's approach on a review, but I know his results are always documented clearly in the review, logical, and repeatable. In fact he is the reviewer at AT who is most careful to always document the components he tested with and the setups. Derek and Anand often leave you guessing how they tested and you have to ask to figure it out.

    If you had bothered to read the test setup you would have seen that the red bars are tests with the 6800 Ultra - the same used in every other compared board. The 7800GTX and Crossfire were BONUS results - for those who would be screaming "Why have you tested with the obsolete 6800 Ultra instead of the 7800GTX".

    Please READ before you scream so your rants aren't a total waste of time.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - link

    Sorry to have to point this out, but assembling and testing a motherboard can take several days. The 7800GTX scores were there for reference, but 6800 Ultra was used as well (the red bar) to make scores comparable. It's not practical to go back and retest seven (or more) motherboards every time a new article needs to be published. If we don't include something like the 7800GTX, people wonder how that affects performance. Just look at the red bars for motherboard comparisons and the gold bar to see what a $500 (instead of $350) GPU will do. :) Reply
  • cryptonomicon - Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - link

    nevermind, wesley made no error, just me :D the board using the 6800u in red is the direct comparison (which it said in the article, albeit not on the gaming performance page). must have been too late at night or i was just too dumb to see it! excellent article as always. Reply
  • cryptonomicon - Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - link

    hats off to DFI, this board is wicked fast. i am curious though as to how it will sell given the high price. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now