Overclocking

ATI CrossFire Xpress 3200 AM2
Overclocking Testbed
Processor: AM2 X2 4800+
(2.4GHz, 1MB Cache per core)
CPU Voltage: 1.4V (default 1.3V)
Cooling: AMD Stock Heatpipe FX62 Cooler
Power Supply: OCZ Power Stream 520W
Memory: Corsair Twin2x2048-PC2-8500C5 (2x1GB)
(Micron Memory Chips)
2 DIMMs in dual-channel mode
Hard Drive: Hitachi 250GB 7200RPM SATA2 8MB Cache
Maximum OC:
(Standard Ratio)
255x12 (5x HT, 3-3-3-13)
3060MHz (+28% CPU Overclock)
Maximum FSB:
(Lower Ratio)
338 x 9 (4x HT, 3-3-3-13)
3042MHz (+69% Bus Overclock)


The initial reference BIOS supplied by ATI was plagued with several issues that limited overclocking. Since RD580 is known to be an excellent overclocker, ATI looked into the issues and supplied a new 5/30/2006 BIOS which corrected the timing issues that had limited overclocking in the first BIOS.

With the Build 15 BIOS, the ATI CrossFire Xpress 3200 AM2 is an outstanding overclocker - the best we have seen at both stock and reduced multiplier overclocking. We made no attempt to maintain memory speed, but instead selected memory ratios that would allow the Corsair test memory to run at the optimal 3-3-3 timings at around DDR2-800. With the DDR2 memory controller on the processor with the AMD AM2, ratios should not really carry performance penalties as they do on chipset based memory controllers.

No attempt was made to run at x8 or x7 multipliers, which theoretically could yield 380x8 or 400 (highest bus speed option) x7 if the processor speed could be maintained. ATI was absolutely correct in their assessment of our early BIOS bug issues. Overclocking with the updated Build 15 BIOS was effortless, with almost no special OC skills required. Most settings were left on auto, except for a slight boost in HTT voltage and a drop to 4X HT. 5x HTT reached to just over 1500 HTT (302) before requiring a drop to 4x. In all cases base memory speed was reduced to a setting that would yield somewhere around DDR2-800 at OC and timings were left at 3-3-3-13 at 2.147v. We did not even need to boost processor voltage until we reached just over 3.0GHz. The AM2 CPU handled the 3.0 GHz speed at stock voltage. These overclocking results are superb.

Power Usage

It has been reported that the ATI RD580 chipset consumes up to 40 watts less power than the feature-comparable nForce590. We attempted to verify these results with our standard Model P4400 Kill-a-watt meter. The Kill-a-watt plugs into the wall and measures wattage of the entire system. We compared near identically configured Foxconn NVIDIA 590 and ATI CrossFire Xpress 3200 AM2 systems at idle and under stress.

Power Usage - Lower is Better


While the ATI system used less power at idle and when stressed, we could not match the 40W difference some others have reported. We did find the ATI system a bit more power efficient running the NVIDIA 7900GTX or the ATI X1900 XT. Even full CrossFire X1900 XT consumed less power in the ATI AM2 board than NVIDIA SLI 7900GTX required in the NVIDIA 590 board.

Power consumption goes up dramatically during overclocking. At the standard 12X multiplier and 255 clock speed (3.06GHz), running X1900 XT Crossfire, power consumption measured over 500 Watts during load conditions. Whether SLI or Crossfire, ATI or NVIDIA, please keep in mind that two top video cards and overclocking require tremendous amounts of power for stable operation.

Board & Basic Features Test Setup
Comments Locked

71 Comments

View All Comments

  • JarredWalton - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    And you thought LinkBoost was fast! ;)

    Typo fixed, thanks.
  • Stele - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    A main attraction of HD audio over AC'97 other than 100.1 setups is probably better sound quality. As such, perhaps Anandtech needs to develop a test method and/or utility with which to assess precisely this aspect of motherboards' sound subsystems. Low CPU utilisation is well and good but ultimately it's reaching the point where these figures are fairly meaningless, as this review underscored.

    Instead, besides just testing CPU utilisation, Anandtech could test/measure characteristics such as SNR ratio, THD at a reference frequency etc. at the output ports. The test can then be rounded off with subjective hearing tests through reference speakers or headphones, e.g. for irritating crossover noise from the mouse (A7N8X anyone?) or some other EMI source, and so on.

    That way, we can judge if a motherboard manufacturer's implementation and motherboard design are sound (pun intended) because ultimately, it's about what you hear, not see; an 8.1 with terrific speakers, built in DTS/AC3/etc and other paper-spec niceties isn't going to cut it if the codec was, say, jammed right next to the CPU PWM controller with barely any grounding.
  • Gary Key - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Instead, besides just testing CPU utilisation, Anandtech could test/measure characteristics such as SNR ratio, THD at a reference frequency etc. at the output ports. The test can then be rounded off with subjective hearing tests through reference speakers or headphones, e.g. for irritating crossover noise from the mouse (A7N8X anyone?) or some other EMI source, and so on.


    We are still debating our "subjective" results and comments for the audio section. However, at some point this summer we will expand our testing to include additional testing outside the CPU utilization and game results.
  • Stele - Friday, June 2, 2006 - link

    Subjective is, understandably, subjective. Thus such results are bound to differ depending on the person assessing the product as well as the circumstances under which the test was done. IMHO, it should therefore only play a small part in the extended test, complementing the objective, measured figures which should play the dominant role in an extended audio test.

    Indeed, accurately measuring such performance characteristics (SNR, THD, no-signal background noise level) would probably be more useful because even if the subjective part of the test is completely left out, the figures would generally be a sufficient gauge of the quality of the components and implementation (circuit design, manufacture etc).

    Having said that, the subjective opinions do give the review a human perspective and a broader picture which numbers alone may not fully convey - another good example being noise level measurements. Again, nice to have but won't be fatal without it.

    Just my 2 cents' :)
  • Beenthere - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    ...and you can be certain that production mobos will NOT perform as well as the reference mobo. Expect Asus to use a hack design, DFI to have a pretty good design less proper ports, Sapphire to not have a clue at copying the ATI reference mobo, Abit to talk shitza but not deliver, etc. and the prices will be sky high. Ya gotta wonder how much longer people are going to buy crap mobos just because they have a good chipset?
  • Stele - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    Perhaps it's because there're aren't many seriously viable choices - if any - other than the 'crap mobo' brands you listed? The manufacturers know this too, and rest in the relative comfort of the knowledge that since no brand's perfect, buyers aren't likely to suddenly all jump ship in a hurry. They're probably expecting people to grumble and complain, as always, but buy from one of them anyway... as always.
  • xsilver - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    Does ATI have license to product intel chipsets either now or in the future?

    or was their some exclusivity when nvidia made their cross licensing agreement?
  • Gary Key - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Does ATI have license to product intel chipsets either now or in the future?


    ATI has been producing Intel compatible chipsets for a few years now and we should see a "RD580" type chipset for Conroe later this summer.
  • fzkl - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    Why are the setups using different hard drives? The ATI system has a 16MB buffer whereas the Nvidia system has an 8 MB buffer. Does that contribute to any performance difference?
  • peternelson - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - link

    I spotted that too. I imagine the HD might change the PCMark result.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now