ASUS Maximus Formula SE: X38 and DDR2 Unite!
by Rajinder Gill on November 9, 2007 7:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Overclocking with the ASUS Maximus Formula SE
For the vast majority of PC users, the announcement of a new CPU or chipset release generates a fair amount of interest, pegged with a realistic and thoughtful reaction towards the potential benefits (if any) over present hardware. Intel has forged ahead at such a pace this last year that it seems owning the performance crown for the foreseeable future is not even enough at this point. Releases of information from AMD about their future CPU and chipset plans have quickly been answered by Intel (with actual product releases in most cases) to ensure their continued market dominance in the enthusiast sector for the time being.
With this rapid release schedule comes improved fabrication methods that have brought many benefits: better speed scaling, lower transistor leakage, lower overall power consumption, and reduced production cost. These new CPU and chipset releases have also been coupled with competitive price cuts based on the competitive landscape that users have enjoyed the past 18 months. We have seen these improvements and strategies delivered with precision by Intel into the market place over the last year and a half while AMD has stumbled. If that's not enough, the upcoming release of the Penryn processor family features a CPU die shrink from the current 65nm process to 45nm along with additional cache sizes and several core improvements such as SSE4 support. This seems more than enough to guarantee an overall performance advantage over AMD for some time to come in the enthusiast sector.
The question from those steeped in conservatism is whether or not this industry will ever fully utilize the potential of current hardware before moving ahead to something new. From a corporate perspective, posing this question can be construed as completely naïve. Indeed, there's money to be had by making a series of small changes, while simultaneously holding a partially revealed trump card in current R&D, just in case there is the chance of a competitor counterstrike.
The Internet has become such a powerful marketing tool that a strategic selection of websites for a launch can create enough interest to guarantee a successful campaign, even when economically or performance wise a change might not be beneficial for the user. At this time, much of Intel's advertising success is accrued by placement of product in the hands of overclockers, who are enlisted to fulfill the role of presenting new hardware by showing gains in various synthetic benchmarks. This is a perfectly logical corporate decision - it is easier to sell new product to a group that is passionate about even the smallest gains than it is to satisfy the somewhat discerning real world PC user.
Since the launch of Core 2 Duo, we have shown that any company in support of Intel's CPU and chipset release strategy needs to have sufficient resources to co-exist with Intel's relentless marketing drive. This leads us to ASUS, who has managed to surf the Core 2 Duo wave to its full potential. They are usually among the first to release a motherboard with each Intel chipset launch, reaping the benefits of being one of the preferred launch partners for Intel chipsets. Most of the boards released by ASUS have attained substantial accolade for the most part, especially those priced in the sub $200 region. Further, there is ASUS's top of the line motherboards, the ROG (Republic Of Gamers) series. This particular product line is aimed to satisfy the needs of the upper tier gaming and overclocking enthusiasts.
Over the past year, we have seen several boards released bearing the ROG badge: the Striker Extreme, Commando, Blitz Formula, and Blitz Extreme. Most of these motherboards have been a popular choice for enthusiasts and gamers alike. Our own feelings about the ROG series is that ASUS has offered overall improvements in terms of overclocking friendly BIOS functions, component quality, features, unique on-board cooling designs, and in some cases improved compatibility - although not always. The ASUS Striker series was an especially finicky beast for non-QVL memory modules. Fortunately, the Intel chipset based boards are far friendlier in this department, a trend we hope continues with their latest products.
The latest addition to the "bells and whistles" ROG series is the ASUS Maximus Formula, based upon the Intel X38 chipset and featuring DDR2 memory support. To date, DDR2 performance using the X38 chipset has been a little underwhelming for us. Synthetic and real world benchmarks have shown little to separate X38 DDR2 scores from those using the P35 chipset. The motherboard suppliers should not be penalized for this situation as the X38 was certainly hyped to be the killer product for Intel's high-end aspirations. Our experiences with the X38 over the summer reminded us of a roller coaster ride with several highs but just as many lows as we tested each chipset revision and BIOS release. A month ago we were not excited about the X38, but with the BIOS releases maturing along with early performance results from Penryn we are ready to get back on the roller coaster.
Purchasing decisions often seem clear-cut, especially those based upon outright synthetic performance figures. Before we arrive at a conclusion today, let's look at some of the factors forcing/promoting use of the X38 chipset within selected markets (in this case the top-end enthusiast sector):
For the vast majority of PC users, the announcement of a new CPU or chipset release generates a fair amount of interest, pegged with a realistic and thoughtful reaction towards the potential benefits (if any) over present hardware. Intel has forged ahead at such a pace this last year that it seems owning the performance crown for the foreseeable future is not even enough at this point. Releases of information from AMD about their future CPU and chipset plans have quickly been answered by Intel (with actual product releases in most cases) to ensure their continued market dominance in the enthusiast sector for the time being.
With this rapid release schedule comes improved fabrication methods that have brought many benefits: better speed scaling, lower transistor leakage, lower overall power consumption, and reduced production cost. These new CPU and chipset releases have also been coupled with competitive price cuts based on the competitive landscape that users have enjoyed the past 18 months. We have seen these improvements and strategies delivered with precision by Intel into the market place over the last year and a half while AMD has stumbled. If that's not enough, the upcoming release of the Penryn processor family features a CPU die shrink from the current 65nm process to 45nm along with additional cache sizes and several core improvements such as SSE4 support. This seems more than enough to guarantee an overall performance advantage over AMD for some time to come in the enthusiast sector.
The question from those steeped in conservatism is whether or not this industry will ever fully utilize the potential of current hardware before moving ahead to something new. From a corporate perspective, posing this question can be construed as completely naïve. Indeed, there's money to be had by making a series of small changes, while simultaneously holding a partially revealed trump card in current R&D, just in case there is the chance of a competitor counterstrike.
The Internet has become such a powerful marketing tool that a strategic selection of websites for a launch can create enough interest to guarantee a successful campaign, even when economically or performance wise a change might not be beneficial for the user. At this time, much of Intel's advertising success is accrued by placement of product in the hands of overclockers, who are enlisted to fulfill the role of presenting new hardware by showing gains in various synthetic benchmarks. This is a perfectly logical corporate decision - it is easier to sell new product to a group that is passionate about even the smallest gains than it is to satisfy the somewhat discerning real world PC user.
Since the launch of Core 2 Duo, we have shown that any company in support of Intel's CPU and chipset release strategy needs to have sufficient resources to co-exist with Intel's relentless marketing drive. This leads us to ASUS, who has managed to surf the Core 2 Duo wave to its full potential. They are usually among the first to release a motherboard with each Intel chipset launch, reaping the benefits of being one of the preferred launch partners for Intel chipsets. Most of the boards released by ASUS have attained substantial accolade for the most part, especially those priced in the sub $200 region. Further, there is ASUS's top of the line motherboards, the ROG (Republic Of Gamers) series. This particular product line is aimed to satisfy the needs of the upper tier gaming and overclocking enthusiasts.
Over the past year, we have seen several boards released bearing the ROG badge: the Striker Extreme, Commando, Blitz Formula, and Blitz Extreme. Most of these motherboards have been a popular choice for enthusiasts and gamers alike. Our own feelings about the ROG series is that ASUS has offered overall improvements in terms of overclocking friendly BIOS functions, component quality, features, unique on-board cooling designs, and in some cases improved compatibility - although not always. The ASUS Striker series was an especially finicky beast for non-QVL memory modules. Fortunately, the Intel chipset based boards are far friendlier in this department, a trend we hope continues with their latest products.
The latest addition to the "bells and whistles" ROG series is the ASUS Maximus Formula, based upon the Intel X38 chipset and featuring DDR2 memory support. To date, DDR2 performance using the X38 chipset has been a little underwhelming for us. Synthetic and real world benchmarks have shown little to separate X38 DDR2 scores from those using the P35 chipset. The motherboard suppliers should not be penalized for this situation as the X38 was certainly hyped to be the killer product for Intel's high-end aspirations. Our experiences with the X38 over the summer reminded us of a roller coaster ride with several highs but just as many lows as we tested each chipset revision and BIOS release. A month ago we were not excited about the X38, but with the BIOS releases maturing along with early performance results from Penryn we are ready to get back on the roller coaster.
Purchasing decisions often seem clear-cut, especially those based upon outright synthetic performance figures. Before we arrive at a conclusion today, let's look at some of the factors forcing/promoting use of the X38 chipset within selected markets (in this case the top-end enthusiast sector):
- Intel's CPU price/performance scaling strategy: Intel uses lower default multipliers for non-Extreme CPUs, demanding higher overall FSB potential from chipsets - especially for quad-core CPUs.
- Attaining the limits of economically viable engineering practices by using a separate memory controller hub: This creates the need to push towards DDR3 rather than trying to lower overall chipset latency and increasing memory bandwidth using current DDR2 technology. Using DDR3 and associated memory timing ranges can offer superior scaling potential; testing has shown increased synthetic benchmark scores and small gains in workstation and gaming software with the right memory. The obvious selling points of X38 in DDR2 format are suggested in points 1 and 3.
- Dual x16 PCI-E 2.0 support for upcoming AMD graphics solutions (RV670 to start) to improve CrossFire performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
24 Comments
View All Comments
takumsawsherman - Saturday, November 10, 2007 - link
Now, we have a close to $300 board, and what we get for that is no Firewire800 support. Amazing. But the sick part is that for $300, you also don't get:1. PS/2 mouse. Obviously too expensive to implement.
2. Poorly attached cooling (a perennial issue dating back at least to A7N8X 2.0)
3. No parallel or serial, not that anyone would use it. But I'm looking for something they could maybe afford to add when you drop $300 on a motherboard.
4. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see eSATA, either.
What a waste of time. Heck, I think the Tyan 1846S/L/A from 1998 had more features, and for $115. At the time, that seemed expensive. Great board, with great support. Now, off to the forums to see what issues the Maximus users are having. I'm betting it's not been all fun and games for them.
Speaking of fun and games, in 1999, Tyan had a board with a front panel socket surrounding the front panel headers. When I called them, they said they were pushing for a standard interface for that pain in the butt stuff nobody likes to install. One connector. Never happened. Now, Asus should do the same thing. Instead of just moving it out of the case (which is better than the current system, I admit), why not put the connector on the board, and push other mobo manufacturers and case manufacturers to support it.
GlassHouse69 - Sunday, November 11, 2007 - link
yeah. parallel and serialthey are actually useful if you just dont load up your ipod and play l33t games that pwn.
no firewire 800 also. it would be like a 50 cent piece of hardware. id say most 2 dollars.
300 dollars equates to 15 dollars of rediculous cooler that is not needed, 25 dollars at most for the board, and the rest kiddie shit ripoff. People forget the articles 2 years about how much really a "high end" motherboard should cost.
thanks for playing.
LoneWolf15 - Sunday, November 11, 2007 - link
I couldn't agree more on the PS/2 ports. ASUS' decision to do this on their recent boards has caused me to strike them from my list. I use a KVM to allow me to troubleshoot the systems of others, and PS/2 still works the best for me in this.No eSATA ports on the backplate would be forgivable on a board that didn't cost this much, but at near $300, it's ridiculous. Admittedly, eSATA is kind of a future thing, but for the price, you should expect some future proofing. (I checked ASUS' website and found no mention of an eSATA port bracket either, so I'm guessing it's not there)
I no longer need parallel, though serial is occasionally useful for console-port programming. As for FireWire 800, as much as I'd like to see it adopted, so far it's just not happening on the PC, and I won't fault ASUS for that.
I think Gigabyte's GA-X38-DQ6 offers a better layout in almost every way except maybe the SATA ports (which is a judgement call - I like the front-port connectors ASUS uses, but they won't work well for every case). And Gigabyte is smart enough to provide both PS/2 ports while still fitting more USB ports, dual FireWire, and all the requisite audio ports. Gigabyte also has a well thought out eSATA port bracket.
ASUS just loses out on this one. (note: that said, I'll never pay $300 for a mainboard.)
Missing Ghost - Saturday, November 10, 2007 - link
I fully agree with you. 300$ is a lot for a board, for that price you can expect workstation quality. eSATA and serial COM ports are definitely ports that I do use. Also I'm sure the board has tons of problems since it's made by ASUS.Axbattler - Saturday, November 10, 2007 - link
1. I am not too offended by that. At least it has two more USB ports than Abit's iX38 Quad-GT. That said, Gigabyte can fit both two PS/2 and 8 USB ports in some boards (those without Serial/Parallel ports). It comes down to the connectivity you need - there is a finite amount of space at the back and you will sacrifice something. I'll take two USB ports over one PS/2.2. Problematic indeed.
3. Goes back to point 1. I think it's acceptable for parallel or serial to go. Although optional brackets would've been nice. For the cost though, it is more appropriate in my view to see Firewire 800..
4. ...and eSATA. What were they thinking? They are basically saying that if you want X38 and eSATA, you have to get a DDR3 boards.
It looks like while price of Intel CPU today do not have a big mark up compared to AMD at their peak, top end motherboards based on the S775 is a lot more expensive than similarly classed motherboard back then. I remember that Asus's motherboard around the 939 chipset were around £130 back then, somewhat comparable than their top P35 offering today, but well short of most of their x38 - and the MaximusExtreme is close to £200.
Raja Gill - Saturday, November 10, 2007 - link
Some of the points made do show how the makret for extreme products has changed over the last 18 months. For the ROG boards, the users who provide the greatest amount of 'heard' feedback are generally the extreme users. This is probably why the emphasis has shifted away from entry 'workstation level' ports. The ragged edge top end enthusiasts do not seem to mind sacrificing the additional ports for additional board speed, as they would see it at least. Additional peripheral ports do require extra BIOS code and onboard resources (not a great excuse from me, but one of the only ones I can really give). There is of course no justification one can provide in either direction that satisfies both types of users requirements. We can guess that cost and profit margins play a large part in decisions too. What we have seen in recent years is Asus also offerring 'WS' boards that are aimed at overall compatibility and the ports that general PC users deem essential. At this time we have no idea at this time if a WS level variant featuring the X38 chipset is planned.regards guys
Raja
Axbattler - Saturday, November 10, 2007 - link
Is the ROG series significantly better than the WS series when it comes to board speed/tweaks? Which board (out of any manufacturers) have the best fan monitoring/control of all (and in the event of a tie - which has the best layout/connectivity)?IntelUser2000 - Friday, November 9, 2007 - link
Boo on the useless expensive products!! Chipsets are the least beneficial in terms of R&D spent.carpediem2u - Friday, November 9, 2007 - link
I was wondering about this question due to this article.Could it be possible to disable of the dual cores in a Quad core CPU?
Since they are made of two dual core CPU's?
Raja Gill - Friday, November 9, 2007 - link
There is no function in 0505 BIOS to turn off a core or cores, I have not tried the later BIOS releases...