CrossFire Xpress 3200: RD580 for AM2
by Wesley Fink on June 1, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Final Words
ATI was late to the AMD chipset wars. When they arrived the market was already owned by NVIDIA. The early ATI Rx400 and Rx480 chipsets were promising, but they really didn't grab the attention of manufacturers and consumers. Finally in RD580, for both Socket 939 and AM2, ATI seems to have reached the level of maturity where their chipsets are providing the kind of compelling AMD performance that can't be ignored.
The only real roadblock from the past has been the ATI SB450 Southbridge, which with AM2 is finally replaced with the long-awaited and much improved SB600. It is also good that SB600 is just in time, since the ULi M1575 Southbridge most manufacturers used with 939 RD580 has been in shorter supply since NVIDIA bought ULi. We like the ULi Southbridge, but frankly the SB600 strikes us as better integrated. Everything about the RD580/SB600 combo worked very smoothly. The complete ATI chipset is a nice combination that provides enough features that there is no longer any reason to choose ULi instead.
The puzzle with ATI AM2 then, is why they couldn't capitalize on what appears on the surface to be a very strong position. When RD580 was launched several months ago, ATI told anyone who would listen that RD580 was also for AM2. ATI did not need to develop a new chipset for the new Socket AM2. Why then has it been so difficult for ATI to have AM2 chipsets ready for launch? It seems once again ATI has missed a golden opportunity while NVIDIA has their new 500 family chipsets coming at the market from all directions. Time will provide answers, but with such a short life for AM2 dominance before the launch of Conroe, we wonder why someone at ATI was not lighting fires.
ATI and NVIDIA are worthy competitors in the AM2 market. NVIDIA has added many new features, auto overclocking, some slick LAN features, and a few more bells and whistles, but in the end enthusiasts care about performance. Nothing NVIDIA has added really improves performance, and that is an important point. ATI has a superb overclocker in their CrossFire Xpress 3200 AM2, even better than RD580 939, and the chipset has every option an enthusiast can dream of. NVIDIA also has readdressed the enthusiast in this round of nForce, with boards that perform just as well overall as the ATI. So which is better - ATI or NVIDIA AM2?
The answer depends on what you want in a motherboard. Both are excellent choices. If you really need killer LAN built-in then you may tilt to NVIDIA, which features two Gigabit LAN on-board that can be "teamed". Since you can't really utilize 1Gb on your broadest broadband connection you may find the feature is more about bragging rights, but it is there if that is an important concern in your buying decision. If you're new you might also choose the NVIDIA "LinkBoost" - overclocking for the common man - but just be aware that the items LinkBoost overclocks have almost no effect on performance at all. In fact, we find it just as easy to get great overclocks on the ATI leaving most choices at "Auto" as we do on the fanciest NVIDIA 590 chipset AM2.
On the other hand if you admire simplicity you may be attracted to the ATI AM2 chipset where the Northbridge controls both X16 PCIe video slots and there is no worry about the communication speed between the two chips used to provide the same capabilities to NVIDIA 590. We could not measure any real difference in our tests between ATI or NVIDIA, but we do know NVIDIA is combining their own chips into one for later this year. NVIDIA was very clear, however, that this was in the interest of economy and not performance. The ATI AM2 has all anyone needs and everything worked exactly as it should in our tests. The NVIDIA has more features, but most of them are of questionable usefulness to general desktop users.
In the end, if you want ATI CrossFire video you must choose ATI AM2 and if you want NVIDIA SLI you must choose NVIDIA nForce5. We hope that will change in the near future, but that is the current state. Whatever you choose you will win, by having a choice between two really excellent AM2 chipsets. For that reason alone we would tilt a bit to ATI. NVIDIA owns most of the AMD chipset market, and without choice features and prices tend to stagnate. We like having ATI and NVIDIA competing and providing compelling solutions for the new AM2 processors.
ATI was late to the AMD chipset wars. When they arrived the market was already owned by NVIDIA. The early ATI Rx400 and Rx480 chipsets were promising, but they really didn't grab the attention of manufacturers and consumers. Finally in RD580, for both Socket 939 and AM2, ATI seems to have reached the level of maturity where their chipsets are providing the kind of compelling AMD performance that can't be ignored.
The only real roadblock from the past has been the ATI SB450 Southbridge, which with AM2 is finally replaced with the long-awaited and much improved SB600. It is also good that SB600 is just in time, since the ULi M1575 Southbridge most manufacturers used with 939 RD580 has been in shorter supply since NVIDIA bought ULi. We like the ULi Southbridge, but frankly the SB600 strikes us as better integrated. Everything about the RD580/SB600 combo worked very smoothly. The complete ATI chipset is a nice combination that provides enough features that there is no longer any reason to choose ULi instead.
The puzzle with ATI AM2 then, is why they couldn't capitalize on what appears on the surface to be a very strong position. When RD580 was launched several months ago, ATI told anyone who would listen that RD580 was also for AM2. ATI did not need to develop a new chipset for the new Socket AM2. Why then has it been so difficult for ATI to have AM2 chipsets ready for launch? It seems once again ATI has missed a golden opportunity while NVIDIA has their new 500 family chipsets coming at the market from all directions. Time will provide answers, but with such a short life for AM2 dominance before the launch of Conroe, we wonder why someone at ATI was not lighting fires.
ATI and NVIDIA are worthy competitors in the AM2 market. NVIDIA has added many new features, auto overclocking, some slick LAN features, and a few more bells and whistles, but in the end enthusiasts care about performance. Nothing NVIDIA has added really improves performance, and that is an important point. ATI has a superb overclocker in their CrossFire Xpress 3200 AM2, even better than RD580 939, and the chipset has every option an enthusiast can dream of. NVIDIA also has readdressed the enthusiast in this round of nForce, with boards that perform just as well overall as the ATI. So which is better - ATI or NVIDIA AM2?
The answer depends on what you want in a motherboard. Both are excellent choices. If you really need killer LAN built-in then you may tilt to NVIDIA, which features two Gigabit LAN on-board that can be "teamed". Since you can't really utilize 1Gb on your broadest broadband connection you may find the feature is more about bragging rights, but it is there if that is an important concern in your buying decision. If you're new you might also choose the NVIDIA "LinkBoost" - overclocking for the common man - but just be aware that the items LinkBoost overclocks have almost no effect on performance at all. In fact, we find it just as easy to get great overclocks on the ATI leaving most choices at "Auto" as we do on the fanciest NVIDIA 590 chipset AM2.
On the other hand if you admire simplicity you may be attracted to the ATI AM2 chipset where the Northbridge controls both X16 PCIe video slots and there is no worry about the communication speed between the two chips used to provide the same capabilities to NVIDIA 590. We could not measure any real difference in our tests between ATI or NVIDIA, but we do know NVIDIA is combining their own chips into one for later this year. NVIDIA was very clear, however, that this was in the interest of economy and not performance. The ATI AM2 has all anyone needs and everything worked exactly as it should in our tests. The NVIDIA has more features, but most of them are of questionable usefulness to general desktop users.
In the end, if you want ATI CrossFire video you must choose ATI AM2 and if you want NVIDIA SLI you must choose NVIDIA nForce5. We hope that will change in the near future, but that is the current state. Whatever you choose you will win, by having a choice between two really excellent AM2 chipsets. For that reason alone we would tilt a bit to ATI. NVIDIA owns most of the AMD chipset market, and without choice features and prices tend to stagnate. We like having ATI and NVIDIA competing and providing compelling solutions for the new AM2 processors.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
71 Comments
View All Comments
lopri - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link
Most of responses below my post didn't read my points. I'll be paitently waiting for AT staff's responses. In the meantime, you guys can check:http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=267...">http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=267...
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=239...">http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=239...
And the sub-reviews. If DDR400(2-2-2) are DDR600(2.5-3-3), I guess all those memory reviews on AT were wasting of time?
Ahe here is the DIMM sticks this review used for AM2 platform.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
Oh that's not it. While searching, I found that decent DDR2-800 would cost >$250, and higher speed/same timing or same speed/timing sticks will (if you were to buy) dig a big hole in your packet. (think $500) Is that mainstream? What about the 1T issue??
The top of the line Socket 939 vs Socket AM2 comparison could be something like this:
2 x 512MB: DDR600 with 2.5-3-3-7 (less thanl $150) vs DDR2-800 with 3-3-3 ($500) or,
2 x 1GB: DDR500 with 2.5-3-2-7 (less than $200) vs DDR200-800 with 4-4-4 ($250)
Think about how mwny mobo/memory reviews we've seen here on AT? Why don't we use the knowledge we learned from those founding to compare Socket 939 and Socket AM2?
Spoelie - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link
You need a reality check. Lots of reviews have pointed out that the higher cost of TCCD memory and such is not worth the little extra performance, except if you're a serious overclocker that just really wants to run his mem on 1:1 and need the frequency headroom.The common setup out there is not 270-2.5/3/2 or whatever, it is 200-2.5/3/3/8 or even CL3. Especially with the higher density memories like 1GB sticks. THAT is what most persons are running. If anything, the 2/2/2 200 are a bit too high end for the majority of people. And they're also reading AT.
lopri - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link
What you're saying is not totally out of my context. My main meat was towards the reviewers. Does anyone here own a DDR2-800/3-3-3? (Forget about TCCD 270MHz) DO you know how much they are? Indeed, such memory is not even officially out yet. But AT is using those sticks for AM2 system but at the same time for Socket 939 system they use more "pedestrian" DDR400/2-2-2. These days you can by 2 x 1GB DDR400/2-3-2 for under $200.Wesley Fink - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link
The Corsair 8500 we used for testing is NOT rated at DDR2-800 3-3-3 - it is actually rated at DDR2-1066 5-5-5-15. The fact is it will run at DDR2-800 3-3-3 with voltage in the 2.1 to 2.2v range. So will most other recent dimms based on Micron memory chips. At stock voltage of 1.8v it runs about 4-4-4-13.Where TCCD was capable of DDR400 2-2-2 and DDR500 2.5-2-3 or 2.5-3-3, Micron chips are currently the top-performing chips for DDR2. Infineon also has DDR2 chips that perform at lower latency and they are generally priced more reasonably.
Our memory articles ALWAYS compare performance at different memory speeds, but the fact is DDR400 was the fastest memory standard for DDR. Anything higher was overclocking. For DDR2, we have DDR2-800 as the current highest standard speed, though there will likely be a DDR2-1066 speed in the near future.
When we point out that the massive bandwidth increases in DDR2 on AM2 have almost no impact on performance, surely it is obvious that AM2 is not memory bandwidth starved. We found on DDR that the on-chip memory controller for AMD was very sensitive to latency improvements. In fact hte mad shrimp article unintentionally shows just that - gaming responded more to latency improvement than bandwidth improvement. That will also likely be the case in DDR2 EXCEPT with such a massive increase in bandwidth over DDR, latency may not matter nearly so much. We will take a closer look at htis in a future memory article.
peternelson - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link
Price of fast, low latency DDR2 will come down once AMD users start buying it in volume. That will come, so it is not unrealistic to benchmark now using fast expensive highend memory, because it won't be as expensive or uncommon in a month or two or three when boards are in most stores and consumers are buying them in bulk eg for "back to school/college" or "Christmas holidays season" which are when sales peak. Conroe should also improve the market availability for high performance DDR2 memory.
On the other hand there are reports of far east short-term wholesale prices of ddr2 generally having a rise because of more demand.
Spoelie - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&ar...">http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&ar...peternelson - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link
AMD are moving to AM2 with or without you.
Get over it.
You will not be able to get AMD's top performing new models if you stay with 939. Ditto the 65nm processors will also be on AM2.
939 WILL be phased out sooner or later, and with it goes DDR support.
Therefore it is somewhat irrelevant question to complain about the speed of the DDR. There won't BE any DDR support going forwards. Make the transition.
lopri - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link
Did you even read my post? What was I saying?It has nothing to do with AM2 transition and I have nothing against AM2.
peternelson - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link
Yes, the ddr comments relate to your Q1 section, not the DDR2 discussion.
Sorry if my response seemed overly critical.
lopri - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link
On page 3, in the tablePCIe Speeds | 100 to 2000 in 1MHz Increments