Testbed Setup
| Testbed Setup Overclocking / Benchmark Testbed | |
| Processor | 1 x Intel i5-870 ES CPU, 2.93GHz, 8 Threads, 8MB Cache Intel i5-750 Retail, 2.66GHz, 4 Threads, 8MB Cache Intel I7 920 D0, 2.66GHz, 8 Threads, 8MB Cache |
| CPU Voltage | Various |
| Cooling | Intel air cooler, Heatkiller 3.0 waterblock, PA120.2 radiator and DDC ultra pump (with Petra top). 1/2 ID tubing for watercooling. |
| Power Supply | Corsair HX950 |
| Memory | Corsair Dominator GT 8-8-8-24 2200MHz 4GB kit (X2 for 8GB) G.Skill Perfect Storm 8-8-8-24 2200MHz 4GB kit |
| Memory Settings | Various |
| Video Cards | MSI 275 Lightning (stock clocks) |
| Video Drivers | nVidia 195.62 WHQL |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital 7200RPM 1TB SATA 3/Gbps 32MB OCZ Vertex 120GB SSD |
| Optical Drives | Plextor PX-B900A, Toshiba SD-H802A |
| Case | Open Test Bed - Dimastech Benching Station Lian-Li V2110 |
| Operating System | Windows 7 64-bit |
| . | |
We utilized memory kits from Corsair and G.Skill to verify memory compatibility on our test boards. Our OS and primary applications are loaded on the OCZ Vertex 120GB SSD drive and our games operate off the WD Caviar Black 1TB drive. We did a clean install of the OS and applications for each motherboard.
We used Intel's stock cooler for the stock comparison testing, while water-cooling via the superlative Heat Killer 3.0 water block was utilized for overclocking. For graphics duty, we used MSI's 275 Lighting GPUs to provide performance comparisons between boards and to test SLI scaling in our gaming benchmarks.
For our test results we set up each board as closely as possible in regards to memory timings. Otherwise all other settings are left on auto. The P55 utilized 8GB of DDR3 (apart from DFI's MI-T36 which is limited to 4GB), while the X58 platform contained 6GB. The P55 and X58 DDR3 timings were set to 7-7-7-20 1T at DDR3-1600 for the i7-920 and i7-870 processors at both stock and overclocked CPU settings.
We used DDR3-1333 6-6-6-18 1T timings for the i5-750 stock setup for all system benchmarks (non gaming tests) as DDR3-1600 is not natively supported at a stock BCLK setting of 133. We had early BIOS releases that offered the native 1600 setting but stability was a serious problem and support was pulled for the time being. Performance is essentially the same between the two settings.
Non-3D test results are all identical to the GD-65, so we've not spent too much of our time re-running the same tests for the same numbers. We're not providing a running commentary for that section of benchmarks as there are no discernable performance differences when running each of these boards at the same operating frequency. We've condensed the application tests down to the most important and have put more focus on the gaming side of things for this article given the nature of the board we're reviewing today.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
12 Comments
View All Comments
a4mula - Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - link
I'm sorry, but did I miss the part of this article where we were trying to come to a consensus on the performance of the NF200 for tri configurations on the limited 1156? Why go with a board that doesn't even come close to saturating the 8x bandwidth limit. Trifire 5870's, QuadfireX dual 5970's. We learned absolutely nothing other than the 1156's 16x pcie to die lanes still bottleneck in a 275 trisli. Where are the real reviews of NF200 + 1156?dia - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - link
I think you've answered your own question. If 275's are bottlenecked somewhat; going by the fact they 'dont saturate 8x bandwidth', how do you think the higher performance cards will fare?You're probably looking at a 2~5% performance drop maximum on the current cards.
DeepThought86 - Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - link
How about adding stability to all your reviews. Run for 24 with the highest TDP proc that's officlally supported along with the highest TDP video cards that will fit, see if it burns up or not.Rajinder Gill - Thursday, December 24, 2009 - link
I usually run LinX for the stability testing stuff overclocked (along with plenty of application testing). Which is plenty IMHO.Holly - Saturday, December 26, 2009 - link
Well, to be honest, it is and it isn't... These days systems are way too complex to be able to draw really good stability conclusion...Just an example... My old E6300 (the 1.86GHz one) runs perfectly stable 24/7 on 2.975GHz (7x425) at 1.2V flat... and it runs without any troubles... games, C++ compilations, complex Maple calculations...
You'd say it runs perfect... well until I installed SSSE3 optimized Seti@Home application (instead of normal one that was running for like half year on this machine)... and guess what... CPU temperature went up by 5°C (water cooled) compared to previous top and computer went BSOD in couple of minutes. To compensate I had to either drop FSB to 410MHz or raise voltage to 1.224V.
Long story short... we can't hope to be able to really load the cpu 100%... yes, it doesn't idle when you stress it, but in fact how big part of the core is actualy working and how big part is taking a nap?
I would suggest trying mentioned optimized S@H on the system you consider stable (I am not saying it will crash, but the possibility is there)... We use the app at my friend's computer shop and usualy if there is a problem with hardware the machine goes BSOD in few minutes of testing... It's a bit drastic but very fast way to check failed OC.
Merry Xmas,
Holly
sgtpokey - Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - link
Dear Anandtech Staff,You don't have to invent your own nomenclature (OVERVIEW/CONCLUSIONN) for having an "Executive Summary" (or shorten it to "Summary" if you want) leading off the analytical article.
Calling anything other than the concluding section a "Conclusion" is a bit jarring.
Thank you for your time,
sgtpokey
Etern205 - Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - link
When AT first introduced this "overview/conclusion", I can't believe how many readers actually agree with this type of approach. Sure AT is a great site, but it does not mean you will need to agree on everything they do.I still prefer the old fart method
intro-->article w/pics-->benchies-->conclusion/author's pov
strikeback03 - Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - link
They probably have some page hit numbers they could pull out, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the majority of readers hit the conclusion (whether at beginning or end) before reading any graphs or descriptive text.As far as the board goes, meh, it seems to be a relatively competent, really expensive board mostly designed to stroke the companies' ego rather than provide something useful to 99% of potential users
Kenenniah - Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - link
Conclusion can easily mean the reviewer's conclusion and not the conclusion of the article itself.at80eighty - Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - link
I'm undecided about AT's new "draw your own conclusions' approach