Articles: Mainboards
 

Bookmark and Share

(12) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 ]

Testbed and Methods

This is our testbed configuration:

  • Athlon XP 3200+ CPU;
  • ASUS A7V600 mainboard;
  • 2x256MB OCZ PC3700 EL DDR SDRAM;
  • Seagate Barracuda ATA IV 40GB HDD;
  • ATI RADEON 9700 PRO graphics card;
  • Chipset driver: VIA Hyperion 4.48;
  • Graphics driver: ATI Catalyst 3.6.

The testbed worked in Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1 and DirectX 9.0a installed.

Now, a few words about the memory timings. Firstly, for the system to work at all (to boot Windows up) at 200MHz memory frequency, I had to disable the SDRAM 1T Command Rate in the BIOS. So, Command Rate was set to 2. After a lot of experiments, I found the system to be fully stable with 2-3-3-6-2T memory timings, so I used them during the tests.

I am inclined to think that these problems are connected with the chipset rather than the mainboard. As an indirect evidence, I can point to VIA’s launching a PC3200 modules certification program not so long ago. Mainboard manufacturers that offer KT600-based products also test memory modules for compatibility. Particularly, ASUS’ website lists modules tested for compatibility with A7V600. Regrettably, the Corsair and OCZ modules we have at hand are not on the list.

Performance

So, here are the test results shown by the ASUS A7V600 mainboard:

 

ASUS A7V600

VIA KT600 Reference board

DFI LAN PARTY (nForce2)

Business Winstone 2002, Score

32.5

36.1*

36.7

Content Creation Winstone 2003, Score

39.1

40.1*

40.9

3DMark2001 SE, Score

15806

16031

16504

3DMark03, Score

4937

4967

5033

3DMark03, CPU Score

549

605

641

PCMark2002, CPU Score

6666

-

6826

PCMark2002, Memory Score

5442

5768

6242

SiSoft Sandra Int RAM Buffered Bandwidth

2739

3041

2897

UT2003, dm-antalus, 1024x768x32

66.52

68.64

72.26

Serious Sam SE, The Grand Cathedral, 1024x768x32

103.9

108

111.9

* The results of this test should not be compared directly as the testbed featuring the VIA KT600 reference board had a different hard disk drive.

Yeah, ASUS A7V600 doesn’t offer any spectacular performance. Far from it. This mainboard was slower than both nForce2-based product (which is natural) and the KT600 reference board. Although the failure is not catastrophic, it doesn’t add any good feelings about the mainboard. We should also admit that with the BIOS version 1001 the performance was much lower, in particular, we failed to reach 15,000 score in 3DMark2001 SE. Having reflashed the new BIOS version 1005, I managed to improve the performance quite noticeably. Therefore, I have some hope that ASUS may push it higher in future BIOS versions. As it is now, the performance of ASUS A7V600 is even below the average.

Conclusion

So, you have just taken a look at the ASUS A7V600 mainboard, the first KT600-based mass product to enter our test lab. Frankly speaking, I can’t call this solution good. The mainboard is slower than the reference board from VIA and is practically devoid of any overclocking potential (at bus frequencies above 200MHz). Good innovations like Q-Fan and Instant Music are not free from minor drawbacks, too. I don’t list the memory-related problems here, as I consider them to belong to the chipset rather than the mainboard. They need further detailed examination. And they are going to receive it in our upcoming reviews.

On the other hand, if you just want an average mainboard for less money, this one may do. Its functionality can satisfy an undemanding user (I don’t think that the lack of FireWire support is a critical thing). The price of the product – about $85 – may help it find a way to the customer’s heart, especially among ASUS aficionados.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 12
Discussion started: 09/11/03 07:31:54 AM
Latest comment: 04/05/07 01:16:04 AM

View comments

Add your Comment




Latest materials in Mainboards section

Article Rating

Article Rating: 8.5714 out of 10
 
Rate this article:
Excellent
Average
Poor