EPoX EP-5P945 PRO: Budget 945P Performance
by Gary Key on September 11, 2006 4:45 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
FSB Overclocking Results
This board is a decent overclocker for the price and we were pleasantly surprised considering the previous limits we have seen on other boards with the 945P chipset. At these settings the system was able to complete our expanded benchmark test suite three consecutive times along with Dual Prime95 and Dual SuperPI 32M without issue.
In order for our board to operate properly at 319FSB we had to set the memory to a 1:1 ratio and were able to even post at 323FSB but the system was not stable. When we changed our memory to the 4:5 ratio (DDR2-667) our FSB capability dropped to 307FSB and we had to change our memory timings to 4-4-4-12 for stability. We tried different memory modules from our value memory roundup with the same results so it appears there is a limitation with the chipset or BIOS.
Memory Stress Testing
Memory Tests
Our memory stress test looks at the ability of the EPoX EP-5P945 PRO to operate at the officially supported memory frequencies of DDR2-533 at the best memory timings we can achieve. Our DDR2 memory is from Transcend and was utilized in some extensive HTPC testing for our upcoming Intel DHCAT article. The memory features average 5-5-5-12 latencies at DDR2-667 but was able to perform at much lower latencies in our testing with increased voltages at DDR2-533 and DDR2-667, and it only costs around $70 for a 1GB kit.
The EPoX board was perfectly stable with 2 DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel at the settings of 3-3-3-9 at 1.9V. We were able to hold 3-4-3-10 at 2.07V at DDR2-667 but could not overclock the board at this memory speed without increasing to 4-4-3-12 timings. We will now install all four available memory slots that result in more strenuous requirements on the memory subsystem than testing 2 DDR2 modules on a motherboard.
The EPoX board was completely stable with four DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel operation at the settings of 3-4-3-10 at 2.02V. We tried several combinations of memory settings and memory modules at lower timings but the board was not stable enough to complete our test suite. Overall, our recommendation would be to utilize DDR2-533 memory that offers low latency memory timings at reduced voltages on this board.
| EPoX EP-5P945 PRO Overclocking Testbed |
|
| Processor: | Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Dual Core, 1.86GHz, 2MB Unified Cache 1066FSB, 7x Multiplier |
| CPU Voltage: | 1.3125V (default 1.3V) |
| Cooling: | Cooler Master X-Dream P775 |
| Power Supply: | OCZ GameXStream 700W |
| Memory: | 2 x 512mb Transcend JetRam DDR2-533 Tested at 3-4-3-9 1.95V, 1:1 Ratio |
| Video Cards: | 1 x EVGA 7600GS |
| Hard Drive: | Seagate 320GB 7200RPM SATA2 16MB Buffer |
| Maximum OC: (Standard Ratio) |
319x7 (3-4-3-9, 1:1), CPU 1.3125V, MCH - 1.60V 2233MHz (+20%) |
| . | |
This board is a decent overclocker for the price and we were pleasantly surprised considering the previous limits we have seen on other boards with the 945P chipset. At these settings the system was able to complete our expanded benchmark test suite three consecutive times along with Dual Prime95 and Dual SuperPI 32M without issue.
In order for our board to operate properly at 319FSB we had to set the memory to a 1:1 ratio and were able to even post at 323FSB but the system was not stable. When we changed our memory to the 4:5 ratio (DDR2-667) our FSB capability dropped to 307FSB and we had to change our memory timings to 4-4-4-12 for stability. We tried different memory modules from our value memory roundup with the same results so it appears there is a limitation with the chipset or BIOS.
Memory Stress Testing
Memory Tests
Our memory stress test looks at the ability of the EPoX EP-5P945 PRO to operate at the officially supported memory frequencies of DDR2-533 at the best memory timings we can achieve. Our DDR2 memory is from Transcend and was utilized in some extensive HTPC testing for our upcoming Intel DHCAT article. The memory features average 5-5-5-12 latencies at DDR2-667 but was able to perform at much lower latencies in our testing with increased voltages at DDR2-533 and DDR2-667, and it only costs around $70 for a 1GB kit.
| EPoX EP-5P945 PRO Stable DDR2-533 Timings - 2 DIMMs (2/4 slots populated - 1 Dual-Channel Bank) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 266MHz (1066FSB) |
| Timing Mode: | 533MHz - Default |
| CAS Latency: | 3 |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 3 |
| RAS Precharge: | 3 |
| RAS Cycle Time: | 9 |
| Voltage: | 1.90V |
The EPoX board was perfectly stable with 2 DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel at the settings of 3-3-3-9 at 1.9V. We were able to hold 3-4-3-10 at 2.07V at DDR2-667 but could not overclock the board at this memory speed without increasing to 4-4-3-12 timings. We will now install all four available memory slots that result in more strenuous requirements on the memory subsystem than testing 2 DDR2 modules on a motherboard.
| EPoX EP-5P945 PRO Stable DDR2-533 Timings - 2 DIMMs (4/4 slots populated - 2 Dual-Channel Bank) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 266MHz (1066FSB) |
| Timing Mode: | 533MHz - Default |
| CAS Latency: | 3 |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 4 |
| RAS Precharge: | 3 |
| RAS Cycle Time: | 10 |
| Voltage: | 2.02V |
The EPoX board was completely stable with four DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel operation at the settings of 3-4-3-10 at 2.02V. We tried several combinations of memory settings and memory modules at lower timings but the board was not stable enough to complete our test suite. Overall, our recommendation would be to utilize DDR2-533 memory that offers low latency memory timings at reduced voltages on this board.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
Zoomer - Monday, September 18, 2006 - link
While anandtech regularly bashes ATi/nVidia for paper launches, wouldn't this be a paper launch too? I can't find it for sale on the egg nor any other site.Gary Key - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link
I have contacted EPOX about supply, we purchased a retail board from NewEgg for comparison but according to our sources they do not have a firm delivery date so the board was pulled until an ETA is available.
Stele - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link
By the way, another noteworthy point of this review is the superb photography used. The level of detail and focus are excellent, and furthermore there is sufficient, white ambient lighting used so that the board isn't covered in off-colour shadows as if it were photographed under a sofa in the evening or something....While some people would dismiss the quality of motherboard photography as a non-issue, for some of us it's important to be able to see up close and gauge at least the layout of various components, connectors etc (better still if we could even see the details of certain components, as was very much the case in this review) without having to actually find a real sample of the board.
Stele - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link
Good review, as can be expected from Anandtech :)However, I would just like to point out a little misnomer that's becoming distressingly popular on the web... those little bare-metal capacitors are not called "solid state capacitors". They are, in fact, just aluminium electrolytic capacitors. The difference is that generally, the electrolyte used is of a solid type, rather than the liquid electrolyte the 'traditional' aluminium electrolytic capacitors contain.
Hence, if you want to differentiate them from the 'traditional' electrolytic capacitors, you could perhaps call them 'solid electrolytic capacitors' but certainly not 'solid state'... that is an old term used to describe circuits that do not use vacuum tubes, during the advent of transistors.
yyrkoon - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link
Suface mount, according to an EE buddy of mine.Stele - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link
I agree with him perfectly. As much as he's right if he were to call the components in question 'capacitors'. :)
Surface mount just means it's soldered onto the surface of the motherboard's PCB rather than using the traditional thin 'legs' that poke through holes in the PCB (such a component and mounting technology are called 'through-hole'). As such, while surface mount is an accurate description of the capacitors, it describes another aspect of the components in question altogether :)
However, because it is an accurate description nevertheless, calling these capacitors 'surface mount' is therefore actually more accurate than calling them 'solid state' ;) Yet the point reviewers are trying to make is not so much that the capacitors are surface-mount, but that they are not the traditional liquid electrolytic type that are more prone to leakage and failure under prolonged exposure to harsh operating evironments (thermally and electrically). Hence, the focus is more on the electrolyte type - solid vs. liquid - rather than surface-mount vs. through-hole.
blckgrffn - Monday, September 11, 2006 - link
I appreciate this timely review. I was trying to decide whether the GF was a getting a x2 or a Core Duo, and this board is going to solve my dillema.If only they had stuck the ICH7R or even just a 2 or 4 port SATA raid controller on there, as the lack of raid is really bogus now. A lot of my customers/friends want RAID1 for redundancy. I know this can be done in software, but hardware raid is much more transparent.
This board would be a no brainer if it included RAID.
Thanks again,
Nat
yyrkoon - Monday, September 11, 2006 - link
Well, of course I cannot speak for you, or anyone else, but in my opinion, RAID 1 is a bad idea for anyone who is likely to muck up a system. I find that non RAID (possibly USB drive backups, or whatever else you preffer), are often better, and have greater flexability. Another thing to note, is that if Windows isnt nessisary, Linux / BSD RAID 0,RAID 1 is nearly, if not just as fast as Hardware RAID. Also, incremental ghosting of a system drive is another option which is much more flexable.Basicly, the only real reason for RAID 1, is in the event of hardware failure, and if you purchase with this in mind, there is no reason why a HDD cant live for 5-8 years easily.
blckgrffn - Monday, September 11, 2006 - link
Try telling users with 100's of gigs of photos or videos that there HD should have lasted 5 years, not 5 months. I have already been there and it isn't comfortable. There is a reason dell is offering RAID 1 on nearly every desktop model they have. It's the easiest, most transparent way to send your MTBF into the stratosphere.Second, my $80 EVGA SLI mobo has all those features, as do many AMD catered motherboards. In the past, Intel boards have also come down to reasonable levels.
I stoutly refuse to spend more on a mobo than a processor, sorry. And I am not paying $150 for a board that has been gutted of features expected of a high to medium end motherboard.
Nat
yyrkoon - Monday, September 11, 2006 - link
And yes, we run a PC buisness here also, and have yet to see a HDD reguardless of how bad off, that we couldnt pull the data off. Most of the time, you just put the drive in another machine, pull the data off, and thats that. Once in a blue moon you have to send the drive off to have a company equiped with the hardware to get at the data, but that is extremely rare. RAID 1 wont work for an accidental deletion, and the like, thats where its the buisness owners responcability to educate average PC users for each situation, and not just try to make a quick 10%-15%(on a HDD) by selling another drive.