EPoX EP-5P945 PRO: Budget 945P Performance
by Gary Key on September 11, 2006 4:45 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
FSB Overclocking Results
This board is a decent overclocker for the price and we were pleasantly surprised considering the previous limits we have seen on other boards with the 945P chipset. At these settings the system was able to complete our expanded benchmark test suite three consecutive times along with Dual Prime95 and Dual SuperPI 32M without issue.
In order for our board to operate properly at 319FSB we had to set the memory to a 1:1 ratio and were able to even post at 323FSB but the system was not stable. When we changed our memory to the 4:5 ratio (DDR2-667) our FSB capability dropped to 307FSB and we had to change our memory timings to 4-4-4-12 for stability. We tried different memory modules from our value memory roundup with the same results so it appears there is a limitation with the chipset or BIOS.
Memory Stress Testing
Memory Tests
Our memory stress test looks at the ability of the EPoX EP-5P945 PRO to operate at the officially supported memory frequencies of DDR2-533 at the best memory timings we can achieve. Our DDR2 memory is from Transcend and was utilized in some extensive HTPC testing for our upcoming Intel DHCAT article. The memory features average 5-5-5-12 latencies at DDR2-667 but was able to perform at much lower latencies in our testing with increased voltages at DDR2-533 and DDR2-667, and it only costs around $70 for a 1GB kit.
The EPoX board was perfectly stable with 2 DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel at the settings of 3-3-3-9 at 1.9V. We were able to hold 3-4-3-10 at 2.07V at DDR2-667 but could not overclock the board at this memory speed without increasing to 4-4-3-12 timings. We will now install all four available memory slots that result in more strenuous requirements on the memory subsystem than testing 2 DDR2 modules on a motherboard.
The EPoX board was completely stable with four DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel operation at the settings of 3-4-3-10 at 2.02V. We tried several combinations of memory settings and memory modules at lower timings but the board was not stable enough to complete our test suite. Overall, our recommendation would be to utilize DDR2-533 memory that offers low latency memory timings at reduced voltages on this board.
| EPoX EP-5P945 PRO Overclocking Testbed |
|
| Processor: | Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Dual Core, 1.86GHz, 2MB Unified Cache 1066FSB, 7x Multiplier |
| CPU Voltage: | 1.3125V (default 1.3V) |
| Cooling: | Cooler Master X-Dream P775 |
| Power Supply: | OCZ GameXStream 700W |
| Memory: | 2 x 512mb Transcend JetRam DDR2-533 Tested at 3-4-3-9 1.95V, 1:1 Ratio |
| Video Cards: | 1 x EVGA 7600GS |
| Hard Drive: | Seagate 320GB 7200RPM SATA2 16MB Buffer |
| Maximum OC: (Standard Ratio) |
319x7 (3-4-3-9, 1:1), CPU 1.3125V, MCH - 1.60V 2233MHz (+20%) |
| . | |
This board is a decent overclocker for the price and we were pleasantly surprised considering the previous limits we have seen on other boards with the 945P chipset. At these settings the system was able to complete our expanded benchmark test suite three consecutive times along with Dual Prime95 and Dual SuperPI 32M without issue.
In order for our board to operate properly at 319FSB we had to set the memory to a 1:1 ratio and were able to even post at 323FSB but the system was not stable. When we changed our memory to the 4:5 ratio (DDR2-667) our FSB capability dropped to 307FSB and we had to change our memory timings to 4-4-4-12 for stability. We tried different memory modules from our value memory roundup with the same results so it appears there is a limitation with the chipset or BIOS.
Memory Stress Testing
Memory Tests
Our memory stress test looks at the ability of the EPoX EP-5P945 PRO to operate at the officially supported memory frequencies of DDR2-533 at the best memory timings we can achieve. Our DDR2 memory is from Transcend and was utilized in some extensive HTPC testing for our upcoming Intel DHCAT article. The memory features average 5-5-5-12 latencies at DDR2-667 but was able to perform at much lower latencies in our testing with increased voltages at DDR2-533 and DDR2-667, and it only costs around $70 for a 1GB kit.
| EPoX EP-5P945 PRO Stable DDR2-533 Timings - 2 DIMMs (2/4 slots populated - 1 Dual-Channel Bank) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 266MHz (1066FSB) |
| Timing Mode: | 533MHz - Default |
| CAS Latency: | 3 |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 3 |
| RAS Precharge: | 3 |
| RAS Cycle Time: | 9 |
| Voltage: | 1.90V |
The EPoX board was perfectly stable with 2 DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel at the settings of 3-3-3-9 at 1.9V. We were able to hold 3-4-3-10 at 2.07V at DDR2-667 but could not overclock the board at this memory speed without increasing to 4-4-3-12 timings. We will now install all four available memory slots that result in more strenuous requirements on the memory subsystem than testing 2 DDR2 modules on a motherboard.
| EPoX EP-5P945 PRO Stable DDR2-533 Timings - 2 DIMMs (4/4 slots populated - 2 Dual-Channel Bank) |
|
| Clock Speed: | 266MHz (1066FSB) |
| Timing Mode: | 533MHz - Default |
| CAS Latency: | 3 |
| RAS to CAS Delay: | 4 |
| RAS Precharge: | 3 |
| RAS Cycle Time: | 10 |
| Voltage: | 2.02V |
The EPoX board was completely stable with four DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel operation at the settings of 3-4-3-10 at 2.02V. We tried several combinations of memory settings and memory modules at lower timings but the board was not stable enough to complete our test suite. Overall, our recommendation would be to utilize DDR2-533 memory that offers low latency memory timings at reduced voltages on this board.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
yacoub - Monday, September 11, 2006 - link
I find it... I dunno... strange that you break out a zero-anchor graph for the gaming tests when normally in reviews you guys use a tighter graph that does not start at zero and thus makes the difference between performance seem great.I guess what I find funny is that if you used that type of graph in all of your reviews, many parts reviewed would show their true improvement which is often very very little. This reviews shows how this board barely performs any worse than the other boards charted, yet if you'd used the older method of a graph starting at, say, '60' instead of '0' people would think OMG there's a HUGE difference.
Maybe what I'm trying to say is thanks for finally using a zero-anchored graph to show true performance delta instead of a zoomed in graph where the same charts would appear to have wide difference between part performance when they really don't.
yacoub - Monday, September 11, 2006 - link
Here's what I'm talking about in comparison if anyone is wondering:http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2826&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2826&am...
Gary Key - Monday, September 11, 2006 - link
Hi,We do listen (sometimes the message takes a while to sink in) and decided to do away with the non-zero based graph or even a zoom in in this case. Although we clearly stated our purpose with the non-zero based graphs and provided one (if clicked) it appeared from comments this offering was not satisfactory either. Hopefully, we will have an updated graphing engine in the near future so this type of information can be presented in a different fashion. Thanks for the comments!
:)