Performance Test Configuration

We have dropped P4 comparisons from our A64 benchmarks and brought back a high speed Athlon XP as many have requested. Since the Athlon 64 is single-channel and we have tested Socket 754 boards with a 3200+ (2.0GHz), we have also removed test results with the Dual-Channel 2.2GHz FX51. This should make charts comparing Socket 754 motherboards much easier to understand.

If you are interested in more information comparing the Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX, Prescott, P4, and P4EE, please see our in-depth comparisons in the recent Prescott/3400+/3000+ launch reviews:

Intel's Pentium 4 E: Prescott Arrives with Luggage
Athlon64 3400+: Part 2
AMD's Athlon 64 3400+: Death of the FX-51
Athlon64 3000+: 64-bit at Half the Price

 Performance Test Configuration
Processor(s): AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (2.0GHz)
AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz, 400MHz FSB)
RAM: 2 x 512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II OR
2 x 512MB OCZ PC3500 Platinum Ltd
Hard Drive(s): Seagate 80GB or 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer)
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: SiS AGP 1.17 (10-07-2003)
VIA 4in1 Hyperion 4.51 (12-02-2003)
NVIDIA nForce version 3.13 (11-03-2003)
Video Card(s): ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB (AGP 8X)
Video Drivers: ATI Catalyst 4.4
Operating System(s): Windows XP Professional SP1
Motherboards: AOpen AK89 Max (nVidia nForce3-150)
nVidia nForce3-250 Reference Board
AOpen AK86-L (VIA K8T800 3200+)
ECS 755-A2 (SiS 755 A64 3200+)
SiS 755 Reference Board (A64 3200+)
Abit KV8-MAX3 (VIA K8T800 A64 3200+)
ChaintechZNF3-150 (nForce3-150 A64 3200+)
MSI K8T Neo (VIA K8T800 A64 3200+)
DFI NFII Ultra (nForce2 U400 Athlon XP 3200+)

Tests on Socket 754 Athlon64 motherboards and Socket A Athlon XP used either Mushkin PC3500 Level II or OCZ PC3500 Platinum Ltd memory modules. Both memories use Winbond BH5 chips and perform virtually the same in our benchmarks.

All performance tests were run with the ATI 9800 PRO 128MB video card with AGP Aperture set to 128MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32 unless otherwise noted.

Additions to Performance Tests

We have updated to Veritest Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 and Veritest Business Winstone 2004 for system benchmarking. Some earlier board tests used the earlier Winstones 2003/2002, which are not results comparable to Winstone 2004. We have, therefore, dropped those results from our graphs.

Game Benchmarks

We have added several benchmarks to our standard Gaming tests. These include Halo, Microsoft's Direct X 9.0b game; Splinter Cell, a DX9 game; X2 Benchmark, a DX 8.1 game that includes Transform and Lighting effects; the DX9 Aquamark 3; and the DX 8.1 Comanche 4 benchmark using the 4X anti-aliasing setting to differentiate system performance better using our standard ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card. We will be reporting more results at 1280 x 1024 resolution in future system and motherboard benchmarking where that resolution provides useful performance data. We have included results of these tests wherever they were available. Older benchmarks did not include some of the newer tests.

AOpen AK89 Max: Tech Support and RMA Content Creation, General Usage and Encoding
Comments Locked

23 Comments

View All Comments

  • cowdog - Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - link

    I have had a very different tech support experience with AOpen and my AK89 Max. I have filled every online tech support option through the AOpen website over the past 4 weeks or so and have yet to receive any kind of reponse. I have additionally sent email and posted on the AOpen support forum.

    My negative AOpen customer service goes back to buying the board with an AOpen rebate. After numerous calls trying to obtain the rebate form, I twice talked to someone at AOpen who took my email and promised to reply. They never replied.

    I have to wonder about your glowing comments about AOpen's tech support. Either that or I have simply had the worst possible luck.
  • Pumpkinierre - Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - link

    Good review Wesley. You should include 3mark 2001 results for the FSB275 (1:1) and 347 async.. I suspect the asynchronous would be disappointing as the RAM is the bottleneck not the ondie mem. controller. Also the FSB200 and 250 results should be run at the same mem. latency (the looser one- CAS3) so that we can see how FSB increase alone affects performance on the a64. Sorry if I sound like your mother but you were missing her anyway.

  • Pumpkinierre - Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - link

    test again

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now