ABS Ultimate X9: Core 2 Extreme Hits a Speed Bump
by Jarred Walton on August 18, 2006 1:35 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Final Thoughts
Overall, the ABS Ultimate X9 is an impressive system. It looks great and offers record-breaking performance... in CPU limited applications. If you want guaranteed and warrantied out of box performance that's 20% faster than the fastest official CPU currently offered by Intel, the price of around $4500 really isn't all that bad. However, if you are an enthusiast and prefer to fly by the seat of your pants, it shouldn't be too difficult to match and even exceed the performance offered by ABS and other system vendors, and save some money at the same time. There were some other concerns as well, unfortunately.
If there's one weak point in the Ultimate X9, we would have to say it's the Intel motherboard. It isn't a bad motherboard, but it has some flaws. The onboard audio really needs work. Purchasing a soundcard fixes that issue, but for a system that comes with a 20% overclock from the manufacturer, we would much rather see a true enthusiast motherboard like the ASUS P5W-DH. Not only can that allow higher overclocks, but it should also do so with greater stability in our experience. The Intel motherboard is limited to a maximum overclock of 50%, and even at 25% the system experienced definite stability problems. In our own testing of the motherboard, we were able to achieve a 22% overclock with full stability, but that pales in comparison to the 36% overclock we achieved using the ASUS motherboard. The ASUS motherboard was also able to run with a front side bus speed of up to 400 MHz (1600 MHz quad pumped) by using a lower CPU multiplier. Finally, the Intel 975XBX tends to take a lot longer to POST than most other motherboards, with a delay of over 30 seconds before the OS even begins loading. Intel is regarded as providing some of the most stable motherboards around, but that doesn't always make them the best, particularly for enthusiast level systems.
The water cooling of the GPUs is another weak point, as all indications are that the GPUs get too hot during long gaming sessions. Given that we have successfully overclocked Core 2 Extreme processors to 4.0 GHz on high-end air cooling, and also looking at the power results, the X1900 cards are capable of drawing a lot of power and they need better waterflow in order to stay at acceptable temperatures. It's a shame as the water cooling does wonders for reducing noise levels. We'd prefer a water cooling solution that only cools the GPUs if that's what it takes to get 100% stability. Besides, as the benchmarks clearly show, the GPUs are a far bigger bottleneck in games than the CPU, and going from a 2.66 GHz Core 2 to a 3.52 GHz Core 2 only improved performance by up to 6% in games at higher resolutions.
There are also some other areas that give us cause for concern, though these are not necessarily ABS's fault. First, Core 2 Duo/Extreme systems do not seem to be fully optimized when running ATI graphics solutions. Performance is good, but our testing with NVIDIA SLI and Core 2 Extreme indicates that ATI cards currently don't perform as well as they could on the platform. Another ATI issue that was much more pronounced on the ABS Ultimate X9 is the slow startup time associated with loading the ATI drivers and the .Net framework; once the Windows desktop appears, there is another ~30 second delay before the ATI drivers are fully loaded and the system becomes useable. (This delay is much longer than what we have encountered on RD580 CrossFire platforms and is far more noticeable, despite the fact that in other areas the ABS X9 is clearly faster.) If you don't plan on rebooting your system very often, it may not be a big deal, but it did become a little irritating during testing. Finally, the issues we encountered when first trying to run Oblivion solidify our feeling that the ATI CrossFire and Core 2 combination is still immature. We expect all of the issues to be ironed out in the future, but the future also holds faster GPUs, processors, and new motherboards.
It is difficult to recommend any computer system that costs over $4000, as the vast majority of people don't really need that much processing power. However, if you're in the market for a new über-computer and you don't want to build it yourself, the ABS Ultimate X9 is at least worthy of consideration. Given the current GPU limitations in most of the games we've tested, not to mention a couple crashes, we would certainly recommend saving the $500 and getting the un-overclocked version. With the water cooling and all of the other extras that ABS includes, you should be able to overclock the system on your own if the need/desire arises, though the GPUs may still present a problem. If you're just not willing to risk overclocking without a manufacturer warranty, you're probably better off sticking with a stock speed Core 2 Extreme anyway. Spending $1500 for a fast CPU in a system that isn't 100% stable is very difficult to justify in our minds.
The major benefit of buying a system from a company like ABS rather than building it yourself is that someone else gets to do all the dirty work. Many enthusiasts find that to be one of the "fun" parts of getting a new computer, but for those with less free time or less inclination, system vendors like ABS provide a great out of box experience. You get the system in about a week, and when it arrives you can be up and running in 15 minutes or less. ABS has informed us that we are using one of their first water-cooled GPU systems, and they are working on tuning the system. Hopefully, they can address the concerns we've raised, because the system is otherwise a great piece of hardware. With better waterflow to the GPUs, that should hopefully remove the few instabilities we encountered, and at that point you would have a very fast and stable system.
The one question we haven't yet answered is how the ABS Ultimate X9 compares to offerings from other system vendors. If $3000-$4000 is too much for you to spend on a computer, we've got a couple more Core 2 system reviews coming that will cover other portions of the computing spectrum. In the meantime, we welcome your comments and suggestions.
Overall, the ABS Ultimate X9 is an impressive system. It looks great and offers record-breaking performance... in CPU limited applications. If you want guaranteed and warrantied out of box performance that's 20% faster than the fastest official CPU currently offered by Intel, the price of around $4500 really isn't all that bad. However, if you are an enthusiast and prefer to fly by the seat of your pants, it shouldn't be too difficult to match and even exceed the performance offered by ABS and other system vendors, and save some money at the same time. There were some other concerns as well, unfortunately.
If there's one weak point in the Ultimate X9, we would have to say it's the Intel motherboard. It isn't a bad motherboard, but it has some flaws. The onboard audio really needs work. Purchasing a soundcard fixes that issue, but for a system that comes with a 20% overclock from the manufacturer, we would much rather see a true enthusiast motherboard like the ASUS P5W-DH. Not only can that allow higher overclocks, but it should also do so with greater stability in our experience. The Intel motherboard is limited to a maximum overclock of 50%, and even at 25% the system experienced definite stability problems. In our own testing of the motherboard, we were able to achieve a 22% overclock with full stability, but that pales in comparison to the 36% overclock we achieved using the ASUS motherboard. The ASUS motherboard was also able to run with a front side bus speed of up to 400 MHz (1600 MHz quad pumped) by using a lower CPU multiplier. Finally, the Intel 975XBX tends to take a lot longer to POST than most other motherboards, with a delay of over 30 seconds before the OS even begins loading. Intel is regarded as providing some of the most stable motherboards around, but that doesn't always make them the best, particularly for enthusiast level systems.
The water cooling of the GPUs is another weak point, as all indications are that the GPUs get too hot during long gaming sessions. Given that we have successfully overclocked Core 2 Extreme processors to 4.0 GHz on high-end air cooling, and also looking at the power results, the X1900 cards are capable of drawing a lot of power and they need better waterflow in order to stay at acceptable temperatures. It's a shame as the water cooling does wonders for reducing noise levels. We'd prefer a water cooling solution that only cools the GPUs if that's what it takes to get 100% stability. Besides, as the benchmarks clearly show, the GPUs are a far bigger bottleneck in games than the CPU, and going from a 2.66 GHz Core 2 to a 3.52 GHz Core 2 only improved performance by up to 6% in games at higher resolutions.
There are also some other areas that give us cause for concern, though these are not necessarily ABS's fault. First, Core 2 Duo/Extreme systems do not seem to be fully optimized when running ATI graphics solutions. Performance is good, but our testing with NVIDIA SLI and Core 2 Extreme indicates that ATI cards currently don't perform as well as they could on the platform. Another ATI issue that was much more pronounced on the ABS Ultimate X9 is the slow startup time associated with loading the ATI drivers and the .Net framework; once the Windows desktop appears, there is another ~30 second delay before the ATI drivers are fully loaded and the system becomes useable. (This delay is much longer than what we have encountered on RD580 CrossFire platforms and is far more noticeable, despite the fact that in other areas the ABS X9 is clearly faster.) If you don't plan on rebooting your system very often, it may not be a big deal, but it did become a little irritating during testing. Finally, the issues we encountered when first trying to run Oblivion solidify our feeling that the ATI CrossFire and Core 2 combination is still immature. We expect all of the issues to be ironed out in the future, but the future also holds faster GPUs, processors, and new motherboards.
It is difficult to recommend any computer system that costs over $4000, as the vast majority of people don't really need that much processing power. However, if you're in the market for a new über-computer and you don't want to build it yourself, the ABS Ultimate X9 is at least worthy of consideration. Given the current GPU limitations in most of the games we've tested, not to mention a couple crashes, we would certainly recommend saving the $500 and getting the un-overclocked version. With the water cooling and all of the other extras that ABS includes, you should be able to overclock the system on your own if the need/desire arises, though the GPUs may still present a problem. If you're just not willing to risk overclocking without a manufacturer warranty, you're probably better off sticking with a stock speed Core 2 Extreme anyway. Spending $1500 for a fast CPU in a system that isn't 100% stable is very difficult to justify in our minds.
The major benefit of buying a system from a company like ABS rather than building it yourself is that someone else gets to do all the dirty work. Many enthusiasts find that to be one of the "fun" parts of getting a new computer, but for those with less free time or less inclination, system vendors like ABS provide a great out of box experience. You get the system in about a week, and when it arrives you can be up and running in 15 minutes or less. ABS has informed us that we are using one of their first water-cooled GPU systems, and they are working on tuning the system. Hopefully, they can address the concerns we've raised, because the system is otherwise a great piece of hardware. With better waterflow to the GPUs, that should hopefully remove the few instabilities we encountered, and at that point you would have a very fast and stable system.
The one question we haven't yet answered is how the ABS Ultimate X9 compares to offerings from other system vendors. If $3000-$4000 is too much for you to spend on a computer, we've got a couple more Core 2 system reviews coming that will cover other portions of the computing spectrum. In the meantime, we welcome your comments and suggestions.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
yyrkoon - Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - link
Ah, I was wondering why you were mentioning .NET in technologies you were unhappy with. .NET is really a boon for programmers, and even more so for hobbyist programmers such as myself (it makes things much easier, and faster to code very usefull applications ).JarredWalton - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
Of course, after looking at some of the results on the AM2 RD580, maybe SLI *is* faster in most situations. We need to test additional games to say for sure, which I think Derek will be doing on his next GPU article.yyrkoon - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
I think they were talking about the intel crossfire implementation is immature. Irregaurdless, comparred to nVidia technology, Crossfire technology IS Immature.giantpandaman2 - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
Here's my suggestion to have better system reviews:1) A ratings system where you break down things like value, game performance, work performance, ease of use/documentation, customer service and the like. Similar to CNET and HardOCP.
2) A greater focus on the complete end user experience. How easy was it to order the system? How long did it take to get it after ordering. Was the packaging good? How was customer service when you had a part fail (made up or real)?
3) A handy list of comparable systems from other vendors w/reviews of those systems if you have them. Or if there are other respectable sites that have reviews of them. (Now this is a pie in the sky type of request, but it'd be an extremely nice little function.)
4) A small separate box for the "reviewers tilt." In other words, whether the reviewer would buy the system or get something else. For example, for the added cost would you buy a mac? Would you prefer a different type of memory? What concerns do you have with the system? IE-Case cooling would be poor if you added a second video card. Etc. This would be totally subjective, hence why it'd have to be offset from the normal review.
5) A chance for the vendor to respond to any questions or criticisms you had with the system and/or customer experience.
Now, honestly, given your focus on less consumer oriented computer stuff I don't know how far you'd want to go with any of these. As much as I understand why people dislike HardOCP a couple of things they've put in that are nice is a focus on customer experience in system reviews and they're slight separation of consumer oriented reviews as compared to enthusiast reviews.
Personally I'd love it if Anandtech created more focused regular content based around Business IT/Consumer/Enthusiast rather than your current back end classification of stuff. (Motherboard/CPU/Video/etc.) Why? Well, I think you'd be able to up your number of reviews. Quicker less technical reviews for a lot of the consumer stuff. IE-You could quickly do reviews of a lot of cheap digital cameras and OS iterations. And far more technical and in depth reviews of expensive cameras or OS iterations when used in business/network settings.
Heck, you could almost do both types of reviews at once, get out the consumer one early, then the more in depth one later. That way low end consumers don't have to wade through a lot of stuff they don't understand or may not be interested in, and gurus can get the fix they need. Anyhow, just a few ideas out of many, but this post is getting too long. :)
yyrkoon - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
I'd have to agree somewhat. Breaking down how a system performs into categories I think is a good idea. Something along the lines of how TH does it but perhaps with your own little twist. Doing two seperate reviews on a product however, I would think is a bit overboard. People like me, who are very interrested in the technical aspect of hardware, will pick and choose thier articles, which may give you less readers for those type of articles, but I think the over all experience for everyone would be fine. My suggestion for this type of thing, would be maybe to make a dumbed down review, if you think readers of said article may not be interrested in the technical aspect, and just leave it at that. *shrug*I still think you guys do a bang up job, and it isnt fanboyism when I repeat the words "I'll read your articles over tomshardware.com's reviews any day". It just seems to me, that you guys at AT are less worried about how the manufactuers feels about your reviews, and call it how you see it.
Now, for a couple of gripes:
1) PLEASE work on your forums, its ugly, not very organized, and the over all experience just doesnt "leave a good taste in my mouth".
2) I've sent you guys an email concerning this issue, Animated ads within the text area of your articles are very annoying, and make it sometimes very hard to read / concentrate on the article on hand. Since this, I've disabled all images within my browser from your site, but what IF I want to veiw a photo relating to the article ?!
Take these gripes for what they are worth, and not personally please, it is my hope that these gripes will help you improve your reader overall experience whilst on your site, and forums.
chunkychun - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
I am a non techie and I am glad you review the OEM systems, high end or low end. Although I don't have the time or patience to learn how to build a computer, I enjoy reading which components are perfered by more experienced builders. Keep up the good work.SunLord - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
Now we jsut need Anandtech to get a ABS Ultimate M6 Sniper AM2 speced out with as much incommon as possible and see what the performance difference is on a real world systems...JarredWalton - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
It depends on what you're doing. If you're playing games at high resolutions, the difference in performance is negligible. If you're doing video encoding or 3D rendering or certain other tasks, Core 2 Duo is still quite a bit faster -- and even more so when overclocked to 3.52 GHz. If you want to buy a $4000 computer, I really see no reason to purchase an AMD system right now. However, I don't think most people should spend that much money on the computer system regardless of processor type. You can build a system that is almost as fast (in games) for about $2000 -- using either Intel or AMD processors.pottervillian - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
One Error:Page 2: Features and Price
Component Price List
"Power Suply: Enermax Liberty 620W Modular PSU 155"
Other than that, this is a great article. Too bad I don't have a rich uncle.
eastvillager - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
If you had a rich uncle, you'd be better off getting cash and building it yourself, or paying a friend to do it. These prices are crazy.