Soltek NV400-L64: Purple, Practical, AND Performance!
by Wesley Fink on August 11, 2003 10:26 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Soltek NV400-L64: Stress Testing
We performed stress tests on the Soltek NV400-L64 in these areas and configurations:1. Chipset and motherboard stress testing, conducted by running the FSB at 215MHz.
2. Memory stress testing, conducted by running RAM at 400MHz with one DIMM slot filled and at 400MHz with both DIMM slots filled, at the lowest memory timings possible.
Front Side Bus Stress Test Results:
As standard practice, we ran a full range of stress tests and benchmarks to ensure that the Soltek NV400-L64 was absolutely stable at each overclocked FSB speed. These stress tests included Prime95 torture tests, which were run in the background for a total of 24 hours.In addition, we ran several other tasks: data compression, various DX8 and DX9 games, and apps, like Word and Excel. Moreover, Prime95 was running in the background. Finally, we ran our benchmark suite, which includes ZD Winstone suite, Unreal Tournament 2003, SPECViewperf 7.0, and Gun Metal Benchmark 2. While we were able to boot and run some tests at speeds as high as 223MHz FSB and at default voltage on the NV400-L64, 215MHz was the highest achievable overclock without encountering any reliability issues.
Memory Stress Test Results:
This memory stress test is very basic, as it simply tests the ability of the NV400-L64 to operate at its officially supported memory frequency (400MHz DDR) and at the lowest supported memory timings that our Corsair TwinX LL modules support:| Stable Dual DDR400 Timings (1/2 banks populated) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 200MHz |
| Timing Mode: | N/A |
| CAS Latency: | 2.0 |
| Bank Interleave: | N/A |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 2T |
| RAS Precharge: | 4T |
| Precharge Delay: | 2T |
| Command Rate: | N/A |
It’s not startling to see the Soltek NV400-L64 run at the lowest timings that we could establish on the board. We often see 2-4-2-2 timings working well with better nForce2 boards in dual-channel mode. So, we certainly predicted single-channel mode to run at these maximum speed timings. The nForce2 Ultra 400 chipset, like Corsair LL memory, seems designed to give the lowest possible memory timings, and the nForce2 400 single-channel is behaving in the same manner. As we have seen in previous reviews on memory performance, this does not always translate into the fastest memory performance. Nevertheless, lowest memory timings is one means of comparing motherboards. It is most useful when comparing boards based on the same chipset.
Filling both available memory banks is more strenuous on the memory subsystem than testing one bank in single-channel mode, as it tests two DIMMs running 400MHz DDR at the most aggressive memory timings available in the BIOS:
| Stable
DDR400 Timings (2/2 banks populated) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 200MHz |
| Timing Mode: | N/A |
| CAS Latency: | 2.0 |
| Bank Interleave: | N/A |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 2T |
| RAS Precharge: | 4T |
| Precharge Delay: | 2T |
| Command Rate: | N/A |
We were pleased that the Soltek handled the same aggressive memory timings with two Corsair DIMMs installed as with one DIMM installed. While there are only two DIMM slots available on the Soltek, both slots can be filled with the confidence that you can run at the most aggressive settings handled by the memory. Please keep in mind that the fastest timings do not always equate to the best performance when it comes to memory. It is also true that the real world performance difference between aggressive memory timings and more relaxed memory timings, such as SPD, can be very small. Unless your goal is to squeeze every last bit of performance from your system, SPD timings will work just fine 99% of the time.
We tested all these memory timings using several stress tests and general applications to guarantee stability. Prime95 torture tests were successfully run at the timings listed in the above charts. We also ran Sciencemark (memory tests only) and Super Pi. None of the three stress tests created stability problems for the Soltek NV400-L64 at these memory timings.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
35 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - link
#13 - The VIA KT600 board tests were earlier tests already completed by Evan Lieb with the 4.47 VIA Hyperion drivers . We reported what was used in those tests. The Hyperion drivers do not have any relevance to THIS review of the nForce 400.Turnip - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - link
This is the least fair benchmark I ever remember having seen on AnandTech!To quote the last paragraph of the review, "It's hard not to get excited about a board that sells for about $70 and outperforms the majority of Athlon boards in gaming."
You're comparing 3D-based benchmarks using different graphics cards! Of course the benchmarks using the brand new whizzy cards are faster than the older benchmarks with old cards!
Regardless of whether you're updating this article with the new results now or not, this article should never have appeared in a publication of AnandTech's standing in this appalling condition in the first place!
- A long-time reader of AnandTech, who has never before seen such an unfair review.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - link
Wesley-Just a little curious why you used all the updated drivers available except the Via Hyperion 4.48 drivers?
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - link
Jeff7181 -In our tests at AnandTech, the performance of the nForce2 and nForce2 Ultra 400 is virtually the same at the same settings. The difference is that the Ultra 400 officially supports the 200FSB AMD processors, and they generally overclock better as a result.
As stated in #10 above, we have completed a retest of recent reviews with our new ATI 9800 PRO video card standard, and those will be posted in this review later today. Since the difference in nForce2 and nForce2 Ultra 400 is 200 CPU/bus support and overclocking, we did not retest the older nForce2 chipset boards.
Jeff7181 - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - link
This review is lacking... where's the benchmarks for the popular motherboards like the A7N8X Deluxe, NF7-S, and 8RDA+ ?!?!? I don't care if a new nForce2 400 Ultra whatever the hell they call it now is faster than a KT600 chipset... I want to know if it's faster than the previous generation of nForce2 motherboards. Quit slackin off Anand.Wesley Fink - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - link
All of our benchmarks have been updated using the ATI 9800 as the reference video card, and you will see updates in this article very shortly. The text changes will go up first, so bear with us until all the updates are up.Anonymous User - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - link
Stability? Sound? Are you joking?You can also get an Epox 8RDA+ with those same features for $15 more and it'll come with Serial ATA, nForce sound (much better than any VIA sound), better overclocking potential, and most likely better drivers. Push comes to shove, who would any sane person choose, VIA or NVIDIA? LOL, as if I should have to answer that.
Face it, KT600 motherboards are worthless unless you're a VIA whore.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - link
I have an Asus A7N8X-X, and this mobo has a nForce2 400 chipset, with single chanel memory. Processor, XP2600(fsb333) and 1GB DDR333. If it is faster than nForce2 ultra 400 (dual chanel), or not... that I don't know. But I was surprised with the speed of my system.Anonymous User - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - link
Lets See what issues this chipset brings,For 15$ more KT600 With integrated SATA &
better sound (& probably stability) is a better
choice without a doubt.
Btw..What is it with you guys & Corsair...Looks
Like you have a "Nice" setup with them huh ..
Anonymous User - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - link
#2 what are you talking about? Why would anyone choose a KT600 motherboard that is slower and overclocks poorly for more money just because you can get onboard SATA that does absolutely nothing for performance? Puhlease.