ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2: Sneak Peek
by Gary Key and Jarred Walton on June 29, 2007 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Test Setup
A 2GB memory configuration is standard in our XP test beds as most enthusiasts are currently purchasing this amount of memory. Our choice of midrange OCZ Flex XLC PC-6400 memory represents an excellent balance of price and performance that offers a very wide range of memory settings during our stock and overclocked test runs.
We are currently completing testing several other memory modules from Transcend, Super Talent, and WINTEC at DDR2-667. We will show full compatibility and performance results in our next article along with DDR/AGP results. Our memory timings are set based upon determining the best memory bandwidth via MemTest86 and test application results for each board. We optimize the four main memory settings with sub-timings remaining at Auto settings.
We are utilizing the MSI 8600GTS video card to limit GPU bound situations at our 1280x1024 resolution for our motherboard test results. The main purpose for using this particular video card is the fact that our budget board roundup will utilize the same card. We did find in testing that applying a 4xAA/8xAF setting in most of today's latest games created a situation where the performance of the system changed somewhat due to our video card choice. Our video tests are therefore run at 1280x1024 resolutions without AA/AF.
All of our tests are run in an enclosed case with a standard optical/hard drive setup to reflect a moderately loaded system platform. Windows XP SP2 is fully updated and we load a clean drive image for each system to ensure driver conflicts are kept to a minimum. We were able to run our memory test modules at 3-3-3-9 1T at DDR2-533 for our benchmark results on the ASRock boards.
| Standard Test Bed Performance Test Configuration |
|
| Processor | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz, 4MB Unified Cache) |
| RAM | OCZ Flex XLC PC2-6400 CAS 3 (2x1GB), 2.10V |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital 150GB 10,000RPM SATA 16MB Buffer |
| System Platform Drivers | Intel - 8.1.1.1010 NVIDIA - 9.35, 8.43 ATI - 7.6 |
| Video Cards | 1 x MSI 8600GTS |
| Video Drivers | NVIDIA 158.22 |
| CPU Cooling | Tuniq 120 |
| Power Supply | OCZ GameXstream 750W |
| Optical Drive | Plextor PX-760A |
| Case | Cooler Master CM Stacker 830 |
| Motherboards | ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 - BIOS 1.10 ASRock 4CoreDual-VSTA - BIOS 1.80 ASUS P5B-E (Intel P965) DFI LANParty UT ICFX3200-T2R/G (AMD RD600) EVGA 650i Ultra (NVIDIA 650i Ultra) EVGA 680i LT SLI (680i LT) GIGABYTE GA-N680SLI-DQ6 Intel D975XBX2 (Intel 975X) MSI P6N SLI Platinum (650i SLI) |
| Operating System | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| . | |
A 2GB memory configuration is standard in our XP test beds as most enthusiasts are currently purchasing this amount of memory. Our choice of midrange OCZ Flex XLC PC-6400 memory represents an excellent balance of price and performance that offers a very wide range of memory settings during our stock and overclocked test runs.
We are currently completing testing several other memory modules from Transcend, Super Talent, and WINTEC at DDR2-667. We will show full compatibility and performance results in our next article along with DDR/AGP results. Our memory timings are set based upon determining the best memory bandwidth via MemTest86 and test application results for each board. We optimize the four main memory settings with sub-timings remaining at Auto settings.
We are utilizing the MSI 8600GTS video card to limit GPU bound situations at our 1280x1024 resolution for our motherboard test results. The main purpose for using this particular video card is the fact that our budget board roundup will utilize the same card. We did find in testing that applying a 4xAA/8xAF setting in most of today's latest games created a situation where the performance of the system changed somewhat due to our video card choice. Our video tests are therefore run at 1280x1024 resolutions without AA/AF.
All of our tests are run in an enclosed case with a standard optical/hard drive setup to reflect a moderately loaded system platform. Windows XP SP2 is fully updated and we load a clean drive image for each system to ensure driver conflicts are kept to a minimum. We were able to run our memory test modules at 3-3-3-9 1T at DDR2-533 for our benchmark results on the ASRock boards.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
16 Comments
View All Comments
strafejumper - Friday, June 29, 2007 - link
board is great if you are interested in a core 2 duo system on a budgeti upgraded from AMD socket 754 system to ASROCK and e4300 for around $165
can't beat the price for a c2d system - all my parts including power supply work with the board so i didn't have to "upgrade" from IDE HDD to SATA HDD or "upgrade" from IDE optical to SATA optical or "upgrade" from AGP to PCIE. I put upgrade in quotes becuase if i had spent money on 2 new SATA drives and the same graphics card except PCIE instead of AGP i don't think i would have ANY REAL performance gains and i would be out plenty of money!
agree completely with the article i did a quake 4 benchmark at very CPU dependent settings and the c2d e4300 blew away my socket 754 3000+, and because this board supports the older (although not necessarily any slower) interfaces, i didn't have to spend much at all.
kmmatney - Sunday, July 1, 2007 - link
You should be able to set the FSB of the motherboard to 266, for an instant and easy overlock to 2.4 Ghz. The processor will easily run at that speed at stock voltage.yyrkoon - Friday, June 29, 2007 - link
Lets not forget about product support; I have recently purchased an Asrock board, and noticed that while twiddling my thumbs waiting for driver/BIOS updates, the motherboard seemed to have some unusual behavior, and it was not a very stable, or overclockable board. A few more months of thumb twiddling, and I noticed that 'holding my breathe' may give better results towards recieving newer drivers, or BIOS updates. Plus, the one major issue I had with this board required me placing a phone call initially, and then the person I spoke with mroe than gladly gave me an email address to communicate wit him directly. The end result was that while he did seem to try very hard in solving my problem (simply trying to boot from a SATA drive . . .), I had to resort to trial and error to fix the problem myself.I have since ditched that motherbaord, and gave up on driver / BIOS updates, and could not be happier with my decission, except that I could have saved myself $70 usd by completely bypassing that utter complete waste of hardware known as an Asrock motherboard. Whats more, the replacement is an exceptional motherboard, with loads of features (for the price), and only cost $15 more than the Asrock board I bought.
They say that hind sight is always 20/20, and in my case here, I would have to say that fore sight is as well (as I will never purchase another motherboard from Asrock again).
ergenius - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
14 years later this main board is selling around around at 3x (or more) the price for the rest of the "top" main boards it was compared to. It is harder and harder to find one and the price for it it's skyrocketing by the day. More many are still in perfect working conditions despite the original price...Why? Time proved you are lacking imagination when Asrock did not! Many collectors out-here use this MB to test a AGP-pciex GPUs, DDR-DDR2 and SATA-IDE hdd before using them to restore other systems. The fact you can do this with only one MB is still amassing 14 years later... and prove you where terribly wrong :)
DeepThought86 - Friday, June 29, 2007 - link
Why is it that when you guys test only Intel procs you do the multitasking tests, but when there is a mix of Intel/AMD this is conveniently dropped and only single program performance is measured?Very suspicious
slatr - Friday, June 29, 2007 - link
It would be great if you guys could benchmark Maya or 3DS Max. That would give us an idea of whether or not this board would be a good candidate for a cheap render box.