Epox 9NDA3+: A New Socket 939
by Wesley Fink on October 25, 2004 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Performance Test Configuration: Epox 9NDA3+
If you are interested in more information comparing the Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX, LGA 775 Prescott, P4, and P4EE, please see our in-depth comparisons in the recent reviews:AMD Athlon 64 4000+ & FX-55: A Thorough Investigation
nForce4: PCI Express and SLI for Athlon 64
.09 Athlon 64: Value, Speed and Overclocking
AMD Sempron: A Fresh Take on Budget Computing
Intel's 925X & LGA-775: Are Prescott 3.6 and PCI Express Graphics any Faster?
Intel 925X/915: Chipset Performance & DDR2
Intel Celeron D: New, Improved & Exceeds Expectations
Socket 939 Chipsets: Motherboard Performance & PCI/AGP Locks
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ and FX-53: The First 939 CPUs
The Athlon 64 FX-53: AMD's Next Enthusiast Part
Intel's Pentium 4 E: Prescott Arrives with Luggage
Athlon64 3400+: Part 2
AMD's Athlon 64 3400+: Death of the FX-51
Athlon64 3000+: 64-bit at Half the Price
| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD Athlon 64 FX53 (2.4GHz) Socket 939 |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2 2 x 512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3500 Platinum Ltd |
| Hard Drive(s): | Seagate 120GB 7200RPM IDE (8MB Buffer) |
| Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: | nVidia nForce 6.11 Beta (nForce4) nVidia nForce Platform Driver 4.24 (nForce3 Ultra) VIA 4in1 Hyperion 4.51 (12-02-2003) |
| Video Card(s): | nVidia 6800 Ultra (PCI Express) nVidia 6800 Ultra (AGP 8X) |
| Video Drivers: | nVidia nForce 61.81 Beta (nForce4) nVidia nForce 61.77 (nForce3 Ultra) |
| Operation System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboards: | Epox 9NDA3+ (nForce3 Ultra) nVidia nForce4 Ultra Reference Board Abit AV8 PRO (VIA K8T800 PRO) ECS KV2 Extreme (VIA K8T800 PRO) Gigabyte K8NSNXP-939 (nVidia nForce3 Ultra) MSI K8N Neo2 (nVidia nForce3 Ultra) MSI K8T Neo2 (VIA K8T800 PRO) |
Tests used OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2, which uses Samsung TCCD chips. Earlier 939 benchmarks used Mushkin PC3500 Level II or OCZ PC3500 Platinum Ltd, which were both based on Winbond BH5 memory chips. BH5 memory has been discontinued and is no longer available. All memory ran at 2-2-2-10 timings in all benchmarks.
Since the nVidia 6800 Ultra AGP was used for testing in the 939 chipset launch, we used same 6800 Ultra AGP for these tests. A PCI Express 6800 Ultra was used for all testing with the nForce4. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32 unless otherwise noted.
The highest overclocked FSB of the Epox was 291x9. You can see a general comparison of the overclocked performance of a Socket 939 processor at 290x9 to an FX53 at stock speeds on pages 6 and 7 in .09 Athlon 64: Value, Speed and Overclocking. This is to allow a general comparison of the maximum overclock on the Epox to stock FX53 performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
TrogdorJW - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
Wes (#23) - I'm not 100% positive, but I'm almost sure that UT2K3/UT2K4 are DX8.1 in terms of the 3D code, but they require DX9 in order to run. Sort of like how Doom 3 is an OGL game but requires DX9 for input/output functions. AFAIK, no Unreal engine game has shipped with DX9 features, but that will probably change soon.You could even make the argument that most of the UT engine is still DX7, with only a few DX8 additions. What does that mean? That pixel and vertex shaders are not absolutely necessary to get great graphics. Useful? Yes. Required? Nope. :)
AtaStrumf - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
I had 2 Epox nForce 2 Ultra 400 boards (got a new one after I RMA-ed the first one) and not one worked perfectly. That was reason enough for me to stay clear of Epox boards from that moment on. After reading tihs review, it seems that they still send out unfinished/not properly tested products, so I sugest to all to pick some other brand, because something is systematicly wrong at Epox. They are just not a good choice for the enthusiast anymore.ABIT seems to have improved a bit though, but I don't garantee anything.
NedFlanders - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
any new info on the FSB for the ep-9nda3+ when using 4 sticks? Epox's website has no owner's manual for this board on ANY of their worldwide websites. No BIOSs either.Wesley Fink - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
#22 -My UT2004 package says "DirectX version 9.0b or higher required." The website says DirectX 8.1. If someone can provide a definitive answer and a link I will change the category.
CrystalBay - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
Hi Wes, I'm just curious why UT2k4 is considered a DX9 benchmark ?Bonesdad - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
I think the review was quite good. I did not get the sense that this is a "positive" review or even a wholly "negative" review. I think you did an admirable job of giving readers your observations and letting them make the final purchase decision. Which is the goal of a good review.Based on current information about this board, I will skip it too. I'll stick with my 8RDA+ until the field is more populated with 939s.
NedFlanders - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
my Epox 9kda3+ is en route. The whole reason why i waited for 939 was to use all of my RAM sticks (4). Should I just return this thing un-opened to newegg or is there the potential that i can run 4 256 hyperX's at 400?Thanksdidilyanks
Gholam - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
Does Cool'n'Quiet work on this board with four DIMMs? Because 8KDA3+ has this annoying problem with Cool'n'Quiet not working with two or three DIMMs present...ksherman - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
Thanks for changing the article title Wesley! Now its more representative of the review ;)LocutusX - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
This board seems like "too little, too late". Still, I think AT has done a good job on this review as it has indicated where most of the problem areas lie so people can decide for themselves if its an important issue or not. As for me, I`d skip this one.