Audio Performance

For audio testing, we used Rightmark 3D Sound CPU utilization test, which is the same benchmark run in our earlier nForce4 SLI and Ultra roundups. This benchmark measures the overhead or CPU utilization required by a codec or hardware audio chip. We tested performance using the latest version 2.1. Since we found that Version 2.1 yields different results from the earlier 1.24, we have only included test results with version 2.1.

Audio Performance - Empty CPU - RightMark 2.1

Audio Performance - 2D Audio - RightMark 2.1

Audio Performance - 3D Audio - RightMark 2.1

None of the onboard audio solutions were quite as low in CPU utilization as the hardware Creative SoundBlaster Live! chip, which we have tested on both AMD and Intel top-end boards from MSI. However, ATI's High Definition Audio on the ADI Soundmax used in the Asus produced excellent performance in all the utilization tests. Results were in every case almost as good as the hardware solution. Azalia HD is apparently more demanding of CPU power, but CPU utilization remained below 5% even in 3D audio rendering as tested with RightMark 2.1. While we have not reported 3D + EAX comparative results, we did run this test and found CPU utilization of just 6.11% for this demanding audio test.

It is very important to point out that the ATI chipset motherboards have the necessary hooks to deliver Azalia High Definition audio. Those who have been complaining about the poor AC'97 audio present on most AMD boards should be very pleased to find Azalia HD on the ATI chipset boards. The nForce4 family does not offer the necessary chipset hooks to support HD Azalia audio.

Ethernet Performance

The one area where the Asus A8R-MVP is mildly disappointing is in their choice of an Ethernet controller. Instead of using a PCIe LAN that is capable of providing full 1 Gb bandwidth, Asus used a PCI solution that will be limited in maximum speed by the PCI bus. In practical terms, the PCI bus caps out about 700 Mb/s compared to the 950Mb/s capability of a 1 Gigabit PCIe solution. Since most broadband Ethernet connections barely tax 10Mb/s, this really only matters to those who do sustained high-speed transfer of very large files over a true 1Gb network - probably less than 1% of users. Still, you should be aware that PCIe Gigabit Ethernet is always a better solution.

The Windows 2000 Driver Development Kit (DDK) includes a useful LAN testing utility called NTttcp. We used the NTttcp tool to test Ethernet throughput and the CPU utilization of the various Ethernet Controllers used on the AMD motherboards.

We set up one machine as the server; in this case, an Intel box with an Intel CSA Gigabit LAN connection. Intel CSA has a reputation for providing fast throughput and this seemed to be a reasonable choice to serve our Gigabit LAN clients. At the server side, we used the following Command Line as suggested by the VIA whitepaper on LAN testing:
Ntttcps -m 4,0,‹client IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
On the client side (the motherboard under test), we used the following Command Line:
Ntttcpr -m 4,0,‹server IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
At the conclusion of the test, we captured the throughput and CPU utilization figures from the client screen.

Ethernet Throughput

Ethernet Overhead

As you can clearly see, PCIe Gigabit LAN is capable of about 35% faster speed than what the PCI Gigabit LAN used on the A8R-MVP. In practical terms, this won't matter to most users, since high-speed internet barely taxes a 10Mb/s connection. The speed difference may be important if you routinely transfer many large files on a full 1 Gigabit network.

USB and Disk Controller Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

74 Comments

View All Comments

  • james007 - Thursday, February 16, 2006 - link

    Hi, I deeply appreciate the hard work and thought that went into this article. I'm not a 'gamer' though -- I'm trying to select the fastest available mobo for software development. Visual Studio 2005 is a dog, dawg! I don't mind dropping a few hundred for speed.. so what are y'all's thoughts: what's the fastest mobo? A8R-MVP, or A8N32-SLI? Or another board?
    + I'm still trying to select the snappiest hard drive. SCSI (like, Cheetah) or Sata?

    Thanx for your advice and for lending us the benefits of your experience.
    JH
  • htcstech - Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - link

    Apologies for my ignorance, but did you test the motherboard overclocked or as standard?
    If either OC or standard, have you posted the other results?
    Thanks
  • superkdogg - Monday, January 16, 2006 - link

    Hey Wes,

    Did you really get that 325x9 @ 1.300 vCore like the screenshot on the first page says?

    If so, you had a fantastic setup going. I'm looking forward to getting my board (despite the numerous complaints about vCore not as advertised). I can deal with the memory issues (real or user-based) because I'm still rocking the Corsair VS with dividers anyway.
  • tanstudio - Thursday, January 12, 2006 - link

    I have a a8r mvp and opteron 146 running stable at 2.6G with 1.45V. I can boot into 2.7G but soon windows hangged. And the max cpu voltage I can have is 1.45V with this motherboard. It would be great if the board can have 1.5-1.65 v cop voltage so my opteron 146 may have a chance to hit 2.8G with 1.5V or 1.55V core voltage.
  • Beenthere - Sunday, January 8, 2006 - link

    As many people who have purchased the A8R-MVP Mobo have sadly discovered, there are some serious issues with the production Mobos that Anandtech did not experience with their review board. Specifically the Mobo does NOT provide CPU Vcore voltages above 1.40V and many if not most people who have purchased this Mobo have been unable to run memory at 1T above 250 MHz even though the same memory runs fine on other Mobos above 250 MHz at 1T with no problem. The voltage issue is serious because Asus clearly advertises the A8R-MVP for use with all socket 939 Athlon / FX / X2 CPUs, which of course is impossible as the (CG) Clawhammer core chips require a MINIMUM 1.50V, which isn't even an option on the A8R-MVP Mobo.

    After careful review of a number of factors I have a suspicion that the A8R-MVP has limited Vcore current capacity and that is why Asus has refused to provide the proper voltage options in the BIOS. I suspect after they produced the Mobo they discovered the shortcoming and so limited the voltage options because the current draw increases as you O/C the CPU, which is only possible if you can raise the voltage, in most cases. This is just my theory but if Asus could provide the proper CPU voltages for the CG core CPUs then you'd have thought after two BIOS updates they would have...

    From my perspective this is simply unacceptable as any Clawhammer based CPU requires a minimum 1.50V per AMD. Asus has advertised the A8R-MVP as being fully Athlon / FX / X2 compatible and even states in their online Tech Section that the FX-55 and 4000+ are fully supported on this Mobo - which of course they ARE NOT as they require a MINIMUM 1.50V, which is not even an option on the A8R-MVP.

    My suggestion is that people STOP BUYING THIS MOBO if you need a minimum 1.50V Vcore. Anyone who can return their A8R-MVP under warranty would be advised to do so. If you have an FX-55 or 4000+ that requires 1.50V per AMD, then you can't run it on this Mobo despite Asus' claims of fitment. That's my view of things based on what I see and I'd suggest potential purchasers of this Mobo be advised of the unusually low CPU voltage options PRIOR to purchase as you may need to return the Mobo if your CPU requires 1.50 or more volts to function properly.
  • Wesley Fink - Sunday, January 15, 2006 - link

    Your information is not completely true - but you already know this. The vCore of the A8R-MVP varies according to the CPU installed. It does NOT stop at 1.4V with a Clawhammer. The range available varies with the CPU and is always 0.0v to 0.1v more than the default voltage of the CPU. When we tested the board Asus advised that the additional overvolt option in the BIOS added 0.2V more vCore. After measuring several boards the actual addition of the overvolt jumper is 0.1V.

    The range is not quite as wide as what we initially reported, but it is not nearly as limited as what you report. If you plan to post this in every Forum that mentions the A8R-MVP you need to at least get your facts correct. The limit is not 1.65V with a 1.45V processor, but it is alos not the 1.4V you imply. Fo most recent AMD processors increasing vCore does little for overclocking anyway. You are better off using the chipset and HTT overvolt. No doubt many would welcome a range to 1.7V, but the design of the A8R-MVP does not make that a likely prospect. I also did not need the much higher vCore to reach 325FSB in my testing.

    What I am finding in emails is about half can duplicate results I found, while the other half have difficulty getting above 250-260. It does appear there may be quite a bit of variation in the OC performance of the shipping RD480 chipsets - and that there are chipsets out there that OC well and half that don't overclock as well.
  • dlxhammer - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Thanks for the info Beenthere, but sadly i have already ordered this mobo, along with an x1800xt. I WAS planning on using my current cpu (amd 3500 clawhammer) and you are correct the voltage is 1.5

    Maby its time to upgrade my cpu:\ I notice the AMD dual core processors require 1.35-1.4 volts would this be a wise choice? maby ill give my current cpu a shot 1st...
  • tmodel37 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Hi Wes,
    Since I cannot find the A8n32 SLI Deluxe anywhere, the A8n-MVP sounds great, but I already have 2 7800GT's. Where can I get the hacked drivers? I am 68 yr. old newbie, and need all the help I can get.
  • Ryan Norton - Monday, December 12, 2005 - link

    Feedback thread:

    http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...9&th...

    I took it up to 325HTT last night in 5MHz increments and let it run Memtest all night, still rock solid. A couple anomalous BIOS setting options, however.
  • AllanLim - Sunday, December 11, 2005 - link

    And am proceeding wring some performance from it. Question is Wes, how were you able to get 325x9 with the current BIOS options.

    Rgds

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now