DFI CFX3200-DR: ATI RD580 Tweak Attack
by Wesley Fink on May 8, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Overclocking
| DFI CFX3200-DR Overclocking Testbed |
|
| Processor: | Athlon64 4000+ (2.4GHz, 1MB Cache) |
| CPU Voltage: | 1.425V (default 1.35V) |
| Cooling: | Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 Heatsink/Fan |
| Power Supply: | OCZ Power Stream 520W |
| Memory: | OCZ PC4800* Platinum (Samsung TCCD Memory Chips) *The current equivalent OCZ memory to OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2 |
| Hard Drive | Hitachi 250GB 7200RPM SATA2 8MB Cache |
| Maximum OC: (Standard Ratio) |
246x12 (5x HT, 2.5-3-3-7) 2952MHz, 2 DIMMs in DC mode (+23% CPU Overclock) |
| Maximum FSB: (Lower Ratio) |
315 x 9 (4x HT, 1T, 2.5-3-4-7) 2835MHz, 2 DIMMs in DC mode (+58% Bus Overclock) |
In most cases current NVIDIA and ATI chipsets need to have Hyper Transport frequency adjusted to 3X around a 300 Clock frequency to keep HT speed around 1000. The RD580 chipset was designed for higher HT speed. We consistently found the DFI board, like the recently tested ASUS A8R32-MVP based on the same RD580 chipset, could easily handle HT speeds in the 1450 to 1550 range. For most overclocking that means that it is not necessary to even adjust the 5X HT setting. It was only where we were exceeding around 1500 (300 Clock Frequency) that we had to drop the HT one notch to 4X. Overclockers should be very happy with this feature of the RD580 chipset.
It was previously reported that the RD580 chipset will not reset an HTT strap or ratio unless you first power down. We had first seen this in other testing of the RD580 Reference board and it was also the case in our review of the ASUS A8R32-MVP. For instance, if you try to set the ratio to 4X (from 5X), the board will not implement the ratio change until you have powered down the system. Engineers at DFI have found a clever way around this issue. They implement a power down and restart as part of the normal reboot sequence. This is very similar to the method used by ASUS and others in getting around the overclock locks on the 925x chipset. We mention this because at first it appeared the board was a very slow booter compared to similar boards. In fact the extra time is for a complete power down and start so BIOS options are properly implemented on boot. The delay might be annoying for frequent reboots, but most enthusiasts spend time getting their systems properly configured and then seldom shut down/reboot. An extra 5-10 second delay before hours of computer use isn't something we're concerned about.
The DFI CFX3200-DR required a few special adjustments for overclocks of 300 and beyond. Under "Genie BIOS Setting", "DRAM Configuration" "Max Asynch Latency" should be set to 4.5 to 6 for high overclocks. "Read Preamble Time", just below this setting, should be set to 7 to 10. The Auto setting for both options is too fast on early BIOS revisions, but Auto actually sets these more reasonable figures beginning with the 417 BIOS.
While we did not achieve the highest overclocks ever with the DFI CFX3200-DR, we suspect we could have achieved anything with this board if we had the weeks to invest in testing and tweaking the huge array of adjustments that are available. We were frankly overwhelmed by the array of adjustments as already mentioned in the Features discussion. It is wonderful to have such fine levels of control if you need and want it, but it is quite another to be forced to master these control levels to achieve maximum overclocks on this board.
The DFI BIOS really needs auto settings that work for the majority of situations with finer levels of control available if you want them. In many areas "Auto" is fine on the CFX3200-DR, but in other areas Auto is too aggressive or too related to a specific memory or CPU. It will likely take a few more BIOS revisions before the DFI will be a good board for both the budding overclocker and the veteran computer enthusiast. Overclocking has been part of computers for most of the AT staff since the Celeron 300 days or even earlier. However, the DFI adjustments are more than we will ever use and far too difficult to test and master. After complaining loudly for more OC options on boards, we're a little embarrassed to say this board is too much, but we think it will bring most users, even well-informed users, to psychotic episodes with 32 levels of drive strength, and DQS skew levels of +/- 0 to 255 in 511 levels.
Something for DFI to consider is the mechanism used by Gigabyte. Gigabyte has hidden their advanced BIOS options under special menus that only become visible by pressing Ctrl+F1. While we're not huge fans of that mechanism for normal BIOS adjustments - like basic memory timings - there are definitely options on the CFX3200-DR that could be hidden. It would be nice to get a "regular" BIOS that has adjustments similar to DFI's Infinity line available, and then an "advanced" mode could be used to display the additional options. Our only comment is that the "advanced" mode should be clearly documented within the BIOS, as many people newer to computers are unaware of the Ctrl+F1 feature of Gigabyte boards.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
rqle - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
"...breathlessly waiting for DFI's AM2 and Conroe motherboards."Great board, but not sure where this new mainboard will fit in since AM2 is coming, many can opt for the nforce expert if they need a board before AM2.
hoping AM2 version is in the works and will be release soon as well.
electronox - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
*sigh*as far as gaming benchmarks go, what we really need to learn to do is to focus on the lowest framerates rather than the highest framerates (or even the average framerate). fink, anand, and co., you guys offer a progressive tech-journalism and no doubt have thought about what FPS performance really means.
in its most important application, FPS performance means the ability to convey a smooth, fluid visual experience without noticeable dips or jerks in motion. sadly, with the way things are marketed now, the overall fluidity of gaming is sacrificed to reach those peak framerates we all obsess about in our benchmarking suites.
as a long time gamer and enthusiast-sector consumer, i wish such high profile websites as yours would pay more attention to the worst parts of FPS gaming - the parts of the game where the intensity of in-game content is notched up, but often our video settings must be turned down in order to prevent epileptic siezures. such media attention might, in turn, lead industry developers to optimize their drivers for this exceedingly common problem which, in my opinon, is just as easily quantifiable and ever bit as important as average FPS performance.
my thoughts, electronox.
Dfere - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
I have to agree. I make good money, but I no longer have the time to play with bleeding edge components and do modding. I know this is an enthusiast site, but at least for me , and I think a large amount of readers, an analysis of the max you might get out of a bleeding edge system is not all the value your site brings. A lot of posts by the readers show they have mid range systems. Thus I can only agree that an analysis of the FPS "issues" described above with a mid range system would help readers identify what would best go with their current system, not just a top of the line upgrade. I know your testing tries to determine , for example, CPU limits or GPU limits...... but it really only does so on bleeding edge systems..... and these comments were already mirrored in the latest AGP vid card releases......(why compare a new AGP card with new processor when most AGP owners have 754 systems.... etc)JarredWalton - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
I think it all depends on what game you're talking about, and how the impact is felt in the fluidity of the FPS score. These days, the vast majority of first-person shooters have a pretty consistent FPS, at least in normal gaming. In benchmarks, you're often stressing the games in a somewhat unrealistic sense -- playing back a demo at three or four times the speed at which it was recorded. Why does that matter? Well, depending on the game engine, loading of data can occur in the background without actually slowing performance down much, if at all. In a time demo, you don't generally get that capability, since everything moves much faster.There are several other difficulties with providing minimum frame rates. Many games don't report instantaneous frames per second and only provide you with the average score. (Doom 3, Quake 4, Call of Duty 2, Half-Life 2, Day of Defeat: Source all generate scores automatically, but don't provide minimum and maximum frame rates.) If we notice inconsistent frame rates, we do generally comment on the fact. About the only game where I still notice inconsistent frame rates is Battlefield 2 with only 1GB of RAM -- at least on a system of this performance level. (I suppose I should throw in Oblivion as well.)
Sure, we could use tools like FRAPS together more detailed information, but given that there's a limited amount of time to get reviews done, would you rather have fewer games with more detailed stats, or more games with average frame rates? Realistically, we can't do both on every single article. Our motherboard reviews try to stay consistent within motherboards, our processor reviews do the same within CPU articles, and the same goes with graphics cards and other areas. If we have an article where we look at results from one specific game, we will often use that to establish a baseline metric for performance, and readers that are interested in knowing more about the benchmark can refer back to that game article.
Average frame rates are not the be-all, end-all of performance. However, neither are they useless or meaningless. we run into similar problems if we report minimum frame rates -- did the minimum frame rate occur once, twice, frequently? As long as people understand that average frame rates are an abstraction representing several layers of performance, than they can glean meaning from the results. You almost never get higher average frame rates with lower minimum frame rates, or conversely lower average frame rates with higher minimum frame rates -- not in a single game. In the vast majority of benchmarks, an increase in average frame rate of 10 FPS usually means that minimum frame rates have gone up as well -- maybe not 10 FPS, but probably 7 or 8 FPS at least.
In the end, without turning every article into a treatise on statistics, not to mention drastically increasing the complexity of our graphs, it's generally better to stick with average frame rates. Individual articles may look at minimum and maximum frame rates as well, but doing that for every single article that uses a benchmark rapidly consumes all of our time. Are we being lazy, or merely efficient? I'd like to think it's the latter. :-)
Regards,
Jarred Walton
Hardware Editor
AnandTech.com
OvErHeAtInG - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
Good answer :) Also I think that minimum framerates (while very important in gameplay) are much more impacted by the videocard used. With a motherboard review, we're much more concerned with overall performance, which is exactly what you gave us with the avg. framerate numbers...