Epox 9NDA3+: A New Socket 939
by Wesley Fink on October 25, 2004 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
General Performance and Encoding
The Epox 9NDA3+ results are reported in orange through all the benchmarks. In General Performance and Encoding, the Epox was certainly competitive with other Socket 939 boards, but the performance was generally at the low end compared to other nForce3 Ultra boards. We suspect that this will improve as the BIOS matures, since we had other issues with the current BIOS in the review. Given the outstanding DirectX 9 gaming performance of the Epox, we can see no reason other than the BIOS that might be holding back performance in Winstones, PCMark04 and Encoding.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
TrogdorJW - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
Wes (#23) - I'm not 100% positive, but I'm almost sure that UT2K3/UT2K4 are DX8.1 in terms of the 3D code, but they require DX9 in order to run. Sort of like how Doom 3 is an OGL game but requires DX9 for input/output functions. AFAIK, no Unreal engine game has shipped with DX9 features, but that will probably change soon.You could even make the argument that most of the UT engine is still DX7, with only a few DX8 additions. What does that mean? That pixel and vertex shaders are not absolutely necessary to get great graphics. Useful? Yes. Required? Nope. :)
AtaStrumf - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
I had 2 Epox nForce 2 Ultra 400 boards (got a new one after I RMA-ed the first one) and not one worked perfectly. That was reason enough for me to stay clear of Epox boards from that moment on. After reading tihs review, it seems that they still send out unfinished/not properly tested products, so I sugest to all to pick some other brand, because something is systematicly wrong at Epox. They are just not a good choice for the enthusiast anymore.ABIT seems to have improved a bit though, but I don't garantee anything.
NedFlanders - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
any new info on the FSB for the ep-9nda3+ when using 4 sticks? Epox's website has no owner's manual for this board on ANY of their worldwide websites. No BIOSs either.Wesley Fink - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
#22 -My UT2004 package says "DirectX version 9.0b or higher required." The website says DirectX 8.1. If someone can provide a definitive answer and a link I will change the category.
CrystalBay - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
Hi Wes, I'm just curious why UT2k4 is considered a DX9 benchmark ?Bonesdad - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
I think the review was quite good. I did not get the sense that this is a "positive" review or even a wholly "negative" review. I think you did an admirable job of giving readers your observations and letting them make the final purchase decision. Which is the goal of a good review.Based on current information about this board, I will skip it too. I'll stick with my 8RDA+ until the field is more populated with 939s.
NedFlanders - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
my Epox 9kda3+ is en route. The whole reason why i waited for 939 was to use all of my RAM sticks (4). Should I just return this thing un-opened to newegg or is there the potential that i can run 4 256 hyperX's at 400?Thanksdidilyanks
Gholam - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
Does Cool'n'Quiet work on this board with four DIMMs? Because 8KDA3+ has this annoying problem with Cool'n'Quiet not working with two or three DIMMs present...ksherman - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
Thanks for changing the article title Wesley! Now its more representative of the review ;)LocutusX - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
This board seems like "too little, too late". Still, I think AT has done a good job on this review as it has indicated where most of the problem areas lie so people can decide for themselves if its an important issue or not. As for me, I`d skip this one.