DFI CFX3200-DR: ATI RD580 Tweak Attack
by Wesley Fink on May 8, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Overclocking
Maximum overclock data was added to our performance graphs to allow a visual comparison of the overclocking capabilities of tested boards. The values represent the highest stable overclock achieved with a standardized air-cooling setup on an AMD 4000+ CPU. For more details on the specific overclocking abilities of a specific board please refer to the Overclocking and Memory Stress Test section of individual board reviews.
The overclocking performance of the DFI CFX3200-DR was what we have come to expect from DFI, in a word outstanding. Overclocking reached 315 at a 1T Command Rate at the reduced multiplier. We were able to run SuperPI and all 3D tests at the 315 setting without crashes. While this is not the highest overclock we have ever achieved, we consider boards that reach 300 or above to be essentially the same in our tests. As memory has moved from Samsung TCCD in 512MB DIMMs to other memory chips in 1GB DIMMs, the DDR overclock needs have moved downward. Any board that can do 280 or so at a reduced multiplier can probably run a current 2GB DDR memory kit at the fastest "1:1" speeds it can achieve.
Note that we don't conduct extensive testing at reduced memory multipliers, due to time constraints. It is possible that boards will reach higher HTT bus speeds with lowered memory bandwidth, and that's something we've discussed in a couple socket 939 overclocking articles. Lower memory ratios are particularly useful when using 1GB DDR DIMMs or when simply trying to increase CPU speed while using value RAM. In general, higher CPU speeds have more of an impact on AMD socket 939 system performance than increased memory bandwidth or lower timings. Balancing timings, memory bandwidth, and CPU speed to achieve maximum performance is something that requires a lot of time and testing for each individual CPU/system. However, with AM2 around the corner the performance/overclocking rules will change again.
Performance at the stock 12X multiplier matched the highest stock overclock of 246 we have tested with this CPU. This is more a test of the limits of this CPU than a test of the overclocking capabilities of the motherboard. Having said that, only a very few boards can squeeze this highest 246 from our test CPU, so performance in this test does reflect the stability of the board as an overclocking platform. Both results are among top of our overclocking results charts. We would expect nothing less from this DFI board. It is possible even higher overclocks can be achieved on air by those who are willing to master the huge array of tweaks on this DFI CFX3200-DR. Frankly we could have spent weeks exploring all the combinations of adjustments that can be achieved. This incredible array of options will likely make setup guides for the DFI CFX3200 some of the most popular articles on overclocking Forums.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
Stele - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - link
IMHO the main disadvantage of using the Sil3114 instead of a newer SATA controller like the 3132 is not so much the 1.5Gbps transfer rate, but the fact that it's PCI-based and hence badly bottlenecked once you fill all four channels. 1.5Gbps is a theoretical maximum and HDDs today are nowhere near that limit - in fact we left ATA-133 without even breaking the ATA-100 limit. Since each SATA HDD gets a dedicated 1.5Gbps channel, arrays won't saturate the SATA interface either - rather, they would saturate the slow PCI interface as previously mentioned. Furthermore, the other significant feature of SATA II - NCQ - is of virtually zero relevance to most users, unless one is using the board in a corporate server; not impossible, but not likely either. Therefore, to harp on a figure that has generally been more a marketing tool (as was ATA-133) than a real necessity says little of the real issues at hand.In return, using the Sil3114 means using a tried and tested product whose characteristics are very well known by now. Board engineers would know how best to design around it - what special requirements (signal integrity, trace lengths, coupling etc), if any, need to be factored in, how the controller performs and behaves and so on. Furthermore, the 3114 provides 4 SATA ports for maximum expansion capability - there is no 4-port version of the 3132 as you alluded to in the review - not yet anyway. You may well be right about having a truckload of 3114s to get rid off, so that's likely a factor too. Perhaps when the 3132 gains a 4-port counterpart (and DFI finishes off 3114 inventory) then we may see newer stuff to come. :)
On another side note, yes there would probably be many people who would appreciate the insane options in BIOS, but I do agree that they should make the UI more user-friendly, e.g. by having Automatic as a choice and/or by placing advanced options in sub-menus to distinguish them from the main options. That would satisfy enthusiasts of all levels, from the mad hatters down to the ones who are just starting out. :)
Generally a review well done! :)
Stele - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - link
Perhaps that statement should be clarified/qualified a little - there is no 4-port version of the 3132 (i.e. PCIe + SATA II + 3.0Gbps) in a single controller IC. The 3132 supports, and hence is expected to be used with, SATA port multipliers - primarily the SII 3726, which can support up to 5 drives. In future, DFI could use a 3132 with one SATA channel routed to an external connector (as in the Asus A8N32-SLI) while the other channel could be connected to a 3726 to provide an additional 4 or even 5 internal HDD channels.
However, this would create two problems - the need for another IC (the board is already very cramped as it is!) and, as already discussed, the need to gain sufficient experience with the new ICs in the lab before they can be confidently implemented and designed around. Cost and time-to-market factors may also have played a role in DFI's choice.
proamerica - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
This is a poor quality review. The reviewer complains too much about variables that actually improve performance when handled by the right person. The overclocking potential of this board is beyond all other 939 boards I have owned, including the A8R32-MVP... People all over the place are reporting the highest overclocks ever achieved for memory and CPUs. You have to know what you are doing I'm afraid, and yes it requires using all the settings in the BIOS. That is the caveat of buying this board, its hard to use, and it takes time to figure it out, but once you do its worth it. I stably OC'ed my X2 3800 to 2940Mhz, and I currently run it 24/7 at 2700Mhz. Is 2940Mhz the highest OC I have ever gotten with this processor? Yes, stably, by far the highest. One of the greatest aspects of this board is that it will overclock really high but it doesn't take a lot of voltage to get things stable.Why does the review say: "but this DFI does make us wonder how many end users will actually devote the time to master 32 levels of drive strength, and DQS skew levels of +/- 0 to 255 in 511 levels." Lets see, an extremely expensive motherboard from a company known for making the most tweakable boards around... And you wonder if end-users are going to bother? Yeah they're going to bother. If they don't, they should have purchased something else.
Bottom line, this board beats the A8R32-MVP hands down, its just harder to use than the Asus.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
The review pointed out what you clearly found. It's a difficult board to master, but the options and performance can be outstanding. Some want to take the time to master it, others would prefer a board that is easier to overclock. The real poiunt is the DFI CFX3200 still needs work. The BIOS does NOT need to be so difficult to master, and it wouldn't be if more intelligent choices were made for auto settings.The CFX3200 is not a bad board, it is just a very difficult board to use and master - even for an experienced enthusiast.
Zoomer - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - link
As mentioned by someone else, the auto (default) settings are nicely choosen - for BH5 memory.Perhaps it would be wise to point that out somewhere, or provide an option of memory: BH5/Normal/Valueram/Manual
ozzimark - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
"Running four double-sided 512MB or 1GB DIMMs is much more demanding than running two DS DIMMs, and like almost every board we have tested the Command Rate needed to drop to 2T with 4 DS DIMMs."using a high dram drive strength should allow for stable opteration at 1T with 4 double rank sticks in.. :)
bigtoe36 - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
From the Tweak guide on the bleedinedge forum."Max async latency - options 7 thru 10 are all you should need, 7 for agressive tight timings 10 for high fsb overclocks. This option HAS TO BE SET MANUALLY
Read Preamble - 4.5 thru 6 is all you need worry about, 4.5 for BH5 etc and 6 for high fsb overclocks. i usually use 5.5 and 6. Again HAS TO BE SET MANUALLY"
http://www.bleedinedge.com/forum/showthread.php?t=...">http://www.bleedinedge.com/forum/showthread.php?t=... for the full guide.
Wesley you have the options posted on page 4 the wrong way round, its easy to do as I often get them confused.
Tony
ozzimark - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
with dfi boards, it's long been my experience that manually setting MAL/RP is a VERY BAD thing.bigtoe36 - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
Normally that would be the case but DFI were setting 4.5 and 5 as hidden defaults. Now if you are running Bh5 you will have no problems, but most everything else would have issues.Thats why i quoted in my guide and on MANY forums you have to set these manually to get the best from the board.
mbhame - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link
Where's the USB/Firewire CPU Utilization and I/O? Where's IDE performance?Throughput is not indicative of real-world performance for any user I know.