ABIT KV7 (KT600): Budget Performance in a Small Package
by Evan Lieb on September 7, 2003 10:42 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
ABIT KV7: Stress Testing
We performed stress tests on the ABIT KV7 in these areas and configurations:1. Chipset and motherboard stress testing, conducted by running the FSB at 211MHz.
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 ABIT KV7 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 220MHz FSB and at default voltage on the KV7, 211MHz 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 KV7 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 (2/3 banks populated) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 200MHz |
| Fast Command: | Fast |
| CAS Latency: | 2.0 |
| Bank Interleave: | Disabled |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 2T |
| RAS Precharge: | 6T |
| Precharge Delay: | 2T |
| Command Rate: | 2T |
Here, we see the KV7 performed decently with two, on par with other KT600 motherboards on the market. The reason you don’t see a Fast Command of Ultra mode is because the KV7’s BIOS did not allow from any mode but Normal and Fast. This may have contributed to the KV7’s somewhat slow stock performance in our benchmark suite. However, the difference would never be noticeable in any real world situation; it’s simply something of note.
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 (3/3 banks populated) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 200MHz |
| Fast Command: | Normal |
| CAS Latency: | 2.0 |
| Bank Interleave: | Disabled |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 3T |
| RAS Precharge: | 6T |
| Precharge Delay: | 2T |
| Command Rate: | 1T |
In this scenario, we see that the memory modules we used needed quite a bit of relaxation operating in the KV7. This means that the KV7 was unable to operate at the fastest available performance timings located in its BIOS. nForce2 motherboards are somewhat notorious for their excellent multi-DIMM performance, so this is one area where the KV7 (and all KT600 motherboards for that matter) fall short. The real world performance is still quite small though, so we urge users not to base their purchases on these findings, but on the accumulation of our findings (stock performance, overclocked performance, price, etc.).
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 ABIT KV7 at these memory timings.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Saturday, September 13, 2003 - link
Oh, so since I'm anonymous, I'm not a human being with feelings? Your behavior is completely unjustifiable because for one, it was only *your* opinion that my original post was cold and rude, and for two, I really don't think Mr. Lieb would give a shit even if I *was* cold and rude. This is a professional site and based on his response to my original comment I believe Mr. Lieb is also a professional who acted appropriately to a legitimate comment about his work. I really doubt that you're the difference-maker who makes Mr. Lieb feel good about the work he has done. Who told you that his feelings were hurt anyway? Are you Mr. Lieb's big brother or something? I'm simply amazed at how you can assume so many things based on my original comment. Egregious? That's frickin' hilarious. How the heck did you deduce that from my little comment? I mean, LISTEN TO YOURSELF. "After my first post, I have to admit that I just kept going because I was having fun..." Do you not see the hypocrisy in your words my son? You preach sensitivity and the sparing of feelings, you rush to the defense of "poor, hurt feelings" Evan, yet you enjoy acting like an asshole to others. The best part is when you tell me to lighten up, and then you tell me to be more sensitive. So which one is it? This whole thing started because *you* were overly sensitive about my comment, so maybe *you're* the one who should lighten up.I wonder when the mods will delete these useless comments, or whether they're getting a good laugh out of them. haha!
Anonymous User - Saturday, September 13, 2003 - link
In all sincerity, I initially posted #13 because I thought your original post was rather cold and rude. As a result, I wanted to help Evan laugh it off and feel good about the work he had done. I think that sometimes when we are in a forum such as this, we forget that the people receiving our comments and criticisms are human beings with feelings. I find this particularly inappropriate when they are identifiable by name, as is the case for Evan (but not for you or me). I would have preferred to see something like, "Hey, great review, but you had a typo." At least then you spare the person's feelings, and are ultimately more successful in getting your point across if you truly believe that the omission of a word is such an egregious error.After my first post, I have to admit that I just kept going because I was having fun since you appeared to respond to every post I made. In terms of making everyone miserable, please review the posts above and see if you can find anyone else complaining. In closing, lighten up. I encourage you to think before you post (advice that equally applies to me and others) and try to be more sensitive.
Anonymous User - Saturday, September 13, 2003 - link
Oh, and yes, Evan, I just meant to point out that you were missing a word in that sentence. I take back what I said about you not caring, because I had read your comment #14 before #11. I was just a little bit upset with the rudeness of #13. Keep up the good work!Anonymous User - Saturday, September 13, 2003 - link
Wow, you really need to get a life. Did you even have a point to make in your original post #13? Or are you just here to make things miserable for everyone? Talk about taking things to the extreme...Anonymous User - Saturday, September 13, 2003 - link
#18 Cease! Desist! I surrender. I concede. You win. You are right. I apologize.P.S. When beginning a sentence with a clause that starts with because, you should separate the clause from the remainder of the sentence with a comma. The truth is that you forgot the comma.
Anonymous User - Saturday, September 13, 2003 - link
To #18: Again, I really don't see why you have to be so sarcastic. This is a page for making comments and a comment about a "minor" typographical error is still a comment. If there are rules against making observations like the one I made, then please point me to it so I won't repeat it. Because of your tone and attitude I am explicitly *not* going to share my thoughts on the content of the review with you, but I doubt that you were serious when you were saying that anyway. I just don't see why you have to get so worked up about a little comment. Even the author didn't say anything about it, because as you said, it's a "minor" error that's easily corrected. It was just that at the time I read the article, it was incorrect. Finally, unlike you all my comments have been honest and sincere, and I maintain that I have taken the high road in response to your blatant sarcasm. The truth is you did omit an "s" in your comment, and I was merely stating a fact (and not being sarcastic) as well as demonstrating to you that some people do in fact notice these things.Anonymous User - Saturday, September 13, 2003 - link
Thank you, #17, for your observation as to my omission of the letter "s" in my previous post as #13. I have no problem with acknowledging errors when I make them and I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. At the same time, I am pleased to see that I may have been helpful to you. In contrast to your initial comment as #5, you actually discussed the content of my post rather than focusing exclusively on a minor typographical error. It seems that progress has been made! I welcome reading any thoughts you may have as to the content of the review of the Abit KV7.P.S. If you were trying to take the high road, you seem to have abandoned it with your P.S. Cheers!
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
#13, there is no need to be sarcastic. I don't understand why you're so offended by my pointing out a simple grammatical error. I did not take any time to carefully proofread the article, as you put it. I encountered it on my first read. As a news and review website, I believe that AnandTech.com should at least make an effort to write articles that are free of errors and I was merely trying to point out a mistake in case it was missed by the author and/or the editor. Based on #14's response, however, I doubt that the author cares very much about this issue. I was very tempted to take #13's sarcasm route but I think I'll take the high road here. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.P.S. #13, you spelled "consistent" incorrectly. Sorry, I'm just an astute reader, these things pop out at me.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 9, 2003 - link
About the mentioning about a natural increased voltage fluctuations at "certain values", is there a good rundown of around what specific values those values would be? Perhaps it might be worthwile to raise the voltage by a 0.025 increment if less fluctuation could be achieved.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 9, 2003 - link
Evan, thanks for helping out on the FSB/RAM question. It seems that when setting the FSB with a manual option then the RAM frequency is kept in sync at all times, regardless of what the separate DRAM speed setting is set to. It's reassuring to be able to confirm such things with CPU-z.