Biostar TF560 A2+: Overclocking NVIDIA's new nForce 560
by Gary Key on August 2, 2007 12:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Test Setup
Test conditions were maintained the same, as much as possible, over the platforms tested. Our game tests were run at settings of 1280x1024 HQ with an 8800GTX to ensure our GPU was not a bottleneck during testing. We selected the AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+, AMD X2 BE-2300, and the Intel E2160 processors as our processor choices as they represent great bargains at this moment along with a similar cost. Our motherboard choices for each chipset selected were based on comparisons of performance and similar cost. All results are reported in our charts and color-coded for easier identification of results.
We utilize new drive images on each board in order to minimize any potential driver conflicts. Our 3DMark results are generated utilizing the standard benchmark resolution for each program. We run each benchmark five times, throw out the two low and high scores, and report the remaining score. All results are run at stock speeds for this article with optimized memory timings.
Our choice of software applications to test is based on programs that enjoy widespread use and produce repeatable and consistent results during testing. Microsoft Vista has thrown a monkey wrench into testing as the aggressive nature of the operating system to constantly optimize application loading and retrieval from memory or the storage system presents some interesting obstacles. This along with the lack of driver maturity will continue to present problems in the near future with benchmark selections.
Our normal process is to change our power settings to performance, delete the contents of the prefetch folder, and then reboot after each benchmark run. This is a lengthy process but it results in consistency over the course of benchmark testing. All applications are run with administer privileges.
Note that for overclocking, all of the test CPUs topped out at between 3.0 and 3.2 GHz using stock cooling. We decided to normalize the speeds for direct clock-for-clock comparisons to 3.0 GHz, though we will also include results for the BE-2300 running at 3.15GHz. The X2 3800+ might have been able to squeeze out a bit more, but it didn't seem worth the effort, and the E2160 could get another ~80 MHz. With a Tuniq 120 and additional voltages, overclocking results would be a bit better, but using a $65 heatsink for a $150 setup didn't seem to make a lot of sense.
On a side note, the new performance BIOS releases from Biostar and Jetway for their respective NV7050 and AMD 690G equipped boards allowed us to match the HTT 333 setting for our BE-2300 overclocked test results today. We kept the memory settings the same as our nForce 560 board in order to show consistent results between chipsets. Our Jetway 690G board had the ability to run slightly tighter timings and an HT Link speed of 1600. We reached a maximum HTT setting of 342 on this board. In contrast, it was everything we could do to get our Biostar 7050 board stable at HTT 333 and until the 0716 BIOS release the board refused to POST past HTT 310. The maximum stable HTT setting reached was 335 with our BE-2300 and 306 with the X2 3800+.
| Standard Test Bed Vista Ultimate 64-Bit Test Configuration |
|
| Processor | Intel E2160, (1.8GHz, 1MB Unified Cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+, (3.00GHz, 2x1MB Cache) AMD X2 BE-2300, (1.9GHz, 2x512KB Cache) AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+, (2.00GHz, 2x512KB Cache) |
| RAM | OCZ Reaper HPC PC2-6400 |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital 150GB 10,000RPM SATA 16MB Buffer |
| System Platform Drivers | AMD 7.7 NVIDIA 15.01 |
| Video Cards | 1 x MSI 8800GTX |
| Video Drivers | 163.11 |
| CPU Cooling | Retail Stock Cooler |
| Power Supply | SeaSonic S12 II 380W |
| Optical Drives | Plextor PX-760A, Plextor PX-B900A |
| Case | Cooler Master CM Stacker 830 |
| Motherboards | Biostar TF560 A2+ - (nF560, AM2) BIOS 0612 EVGA 122-CK-NF66-T1 - (nF650i Ultra, 775) BIOS P03 Biostar TF7050-M2 - (NV7050, AM2) BIOS 0716 Jetway M2A692-GHG - (AMD 690G, AM2) BIOS A07 |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Ultimate 64-Bit |
| . | |
Test conditions were maintained the same, as much as possible, over the platforms tested. Our game tests were run at settings of 1280x1024 HQ with an 8800GTX to ensure our GPU was not a bottleneck during testing. We selected the AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+, AMD X2 BE-2300, and the Intel E2160 processors as our processor choices as they represent great bargains at this moment along with a similar cost. Our motherboard choices for each chipset selected were based on comparisons of performance and similar cost. All results are reported in our charts and color-coded for easier identification of results.
We utilize new drive images on each board in order to minimize any potential driver conflicts. Our 3DMark results are generated utilizing the standard benchmark resolution for each program. We run each benchmark five times, throw out the two low and high scores, and report the remaining score. All results are run at stock speeds for this article with optimized memory timings.
Our choice of software applications to test is based on programs that enjoy widespread use and produce repeatable and consistent results during testing. Microsoft Vista has thrown a monkey wrench into testing as the aggressive nature of the operating system to constantly optimize application loading and retrieval from memory or the storage system presents some interesting obstacles. This along with the lack of driver maturity will continue to present problems in the near future with benchmark selections.
Our normal process is to change our power settings to performance, delete the contents of the prefetch folder, and then reboot after each benchmark run. This is a lengthy process but it results in consistency over the course of benchmark testing. All applications are run with administer privileges.
Note that for overclocking, all of the test CPUs topped out at between 3.0 and 3.2 GHz using stock cooling. We decided to normalize the speeds for direct clock-for-clock comparisons to 3.0 GHz, though we will also include results for the BE-2300 running at 3.15GHz. The X2 3800+ might have been able to squeeze out a bit more, but it didn't seem worth the effort, and the E2160 could get another ~80 MHz. With a Tuniq 120 and additional voltages, overclocking results would be a bit better, but using a $65 heatsink for a $150 setup didn't seem to make a lot of sense.
On a side note, the new performance BIOS releases from Biostar and Jetway for their respective NV7050 and AMD 690G equipped boards allowed us to match the HTT 333 setting for our BE-2300 overclocked test results today. We kept the memory settings the same as our nForce 560 board in order to show consistent results between chipsets. Our Jetway 690G board had the ability to run slightly tighter timings and an HT Link speed of 1600. We reached a maximum HTT setting of 342 on this board. In contrast, it was everything we could do to get our Biostar 7050 board stable at HTT 333 and until the 0716 BIOS release the board refused to POST past HTT 310. The maximum stable HTT setting reached was 335 with our BE-2300 and 306 with the X2 3800+.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
View All Comments
chesterman86 - Sunday, August 5, 2007 - link
any one knows which boards will work with am2+ processorsi've a evga 590sli, with a x2 4200. it will be great if i could upgrade to a phenom =D
anyway, even if i do the bios update, i'll not have ht3 right?
lopri - Saturday, August 4, 2007 - link
Thanks for the great review. The board reviewed looks solid and the coverage is, as usual, complete and clear. I always liked BioStar's boards and felt their products are not getting much spotlight among enthusiasts. The board and NV's new chipset looks solid and it's really amazing that how much computing power we get for the dollars these days.Said that, I'd like to know if Gary thinks the review samples are representative enough for retail products that one can buy, when it comes to overclocking? I haven't kept up with AMD's latest steppings and the overclocking performance of the reviewed CPUs is simply amazing. I remember the time when a 3.0GHz A64 was considered a golden.
lopri - Saturday, August 4, 2007 - link
Forgot to ask: What is the thing that going for NF560? There was a brief mention regarding GPU optimazation and PCI-E lane configuration, but overall it looks almost identical to NF550. If one were to buy a either similarly priced NF550 board or NF560 board, what would differentiate 560 from 550?CrystalBay - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
That is some incredible value right there .Thanks for the article G.K.!!!
Powered by AMD - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Why do you use a U$S 100 Motherboard with the Intel setup and a U$S 80 one for the AMD?If we are in the cheap setup, i would like to make a comparision apples to apples.
I think if you use the U$S 85 JetWay J966GDAG-PB, the tables should be much different.
yyrkoon - Friday, August 3, 2007 - link
You try finding a decent enough Intel motherboard for under $100. Most people I know wouldnt even settle for less than a $150 + board concerning an Intel system. In-expencive/good AMD motherboards with a decent feature list have been around for a while, open your eyes, and do a product search of your own . . .crimson117 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Good point!
Also, the processors costs are not equal... (newegg prices)
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ costs $65
AMD X2 BE-2300 costs $90
Intel E2160 costs $95
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ costs $170
So the AMD setup would be $50 cheaper for about equal performance.
DeepThought86 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
2 PATA ports supproted but only one implemented on this board. Boo, hiss. So Biostar saves $0.50 and we're out $100 buying a new driveelpresidente2075 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
All I have to say is: You've gotta move forward sometime. PATA is OK if you like slow, bulky, and outdated interfaces, but if you're into the whole "having a decent computer" thing, you're gonna have to spend the money anyway.And if you mean that you've just purchased a large PATA drive and don't want to purchase a new SATA one, I pity you and your short-sightedness. PATA is going the way of the Dodo, and SATA is the future for now.
Good luck with the new drive!
LoneWolf15 - Saturday, August 4, 2007 - link
This one made me laugh.
Not because PATA isn't an old interface. But, compare the speeds of a modern PATA drive to an SATA drive, and you'll find almost no difference. The interface isn't the bottleneck; the drive mechanics are. For that reason, an UltraATA Seagate 7200.10 and a SATA Seagate 7200.10 are within a hairsbreadth in performance.
SATA certainly cables nicer than PATA, and getting rid of the whole master/slave configuration is a great thing too. But you're buying into the hype a little too heavily. Until we can improve drive mechanics to both increase data throughput and decrease latency in more than tiny incremental steps, the interface won't matter all that much.