nForce 2 and KT400 in a duel: Asus A7N8X Deluxe against EPoX 8RDA + and EP-8K9A2 +
- 1 Foreword
- 2 The chipsets
- 3 Asus A7N8X Deluxe
- 6 EPoX 8RDA +
- 9 EPoX 8K9A2 +
- 12 Test system
- 17 FSB400
- 19 Conclusion
SiSoft Sandra 2003 Pro
- SiSoft Sandra provides information about the system in abundance and is also able to provide the most important Check components of the PC for their speed. The so-called 'memory benchmark', which determines the interaction between memory, chipset and processor, proves to be particularly useful. So it is not just a matter of the memory clock and the maximum memory bandwidth. Since all data is also sent via the processor, northbridge and frontside bus play an equally important role. The SiSoft Sandra Version 2003 Pro was used.
- More information: SiSoftware.demon.co.uk
- Download: ComputerBase.de
- Int Buffered:
- EPoX 8RDA + (nForce 2) DDR3332.602
- Asus A7N8X (nForce 2) DDR3332.602
- EPoX 8K9A2 + (KT400) DDR3332.541
- Float Buffered:
- Asus A7N8X (nForce 2) DDR3332.474
- EPoX 8RDA + (nForce 2 ) DDR3332,473
- EPoX 8K9A2 + (KT400) DDR3332.418
Although all three Boards with an FSB of 166MHz were running and are theoretically able to shovel 2.7 GB/s over the front side bus In our first test, the candidates were divided into two camps. While the two nForce 2 bolides are practically at the top in synchronous flight, the KT400 on the 8K9A2 + is a good 60MB/s behind in both disciplines. However, the advantage of the nVidia chipset is still quite moderate with a good 2.5%.
- Cachemem seems to have been made for exploring memory latencies (delays). In addition to the pure bandwidth, these represent the most important factors for the speed of a system and are mostly decisive for the final ranking of the motherboards.
- EPoX 8RDA + (nForce 2) DDR333226
- Asus A7N8X (nForce 2) DDR333227
- EPoX 8K9A2 + (KT400)DDR333279
Cachemem had already presented us with the decisive advantage of the nForce 2 in our nForce 2 Beta Preview: the memory latency. And the final boards are not naked in this test either and are a good 25% ahead of the KT400 from VIA. This result should make it clear why, according to recent reports, VIA wants to improve the delays of the memory controller in the KT400A. A step that helped the KT266A a few months ago.
Even though we have already taken a look at the data transfer rates with Sandra, we also want to briefly devote our attention to the results of Cachemem.
- Asus A7N8X (nForce 2) DDR3331,655
- EPoX 8RDA + (nForce 2) DDR3331,654
- EPoX 8K9A2 + (KT400) DDR3331.593
- EPoX 8RDA + (nForce 2) DDR3331.009
- Asus A7N8X ( nForce 2) DDR3331.008
- EPoX 8K9A2 + (KT400) DDR333753
While the KT400 only lags behind by a good 4% in the reading test, nForce 2 and the VIA chip separate a full 34% from each other in the writing test - remarkable.
On the next page: PCMark 2002