Biostar TF560 A2+: Overclocking NVIDIA's new nForce 560
by Gary Key on August 2, 2007 12:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Quick Thoughts
Looking at our first overclocking test results from the Biostar TF560 A2+, it is clear that NVIDIA's new nF560 chipset is a worthy contender in the mainstream AM2 market. We expect continued performance enhancements from the NVIDIA 7050 and AMD 690G boards through future BIOS updates and new driver releases and will display those new capabilities shortly. For now, the nF560 is the performance leader in the $80 AM2 market.
We firmly believe the nF560 chipset on this particular Biostar board will more than satisfy the overclocking appetites of most AMD users. While it doesn't offer the absolute performance or features of the more expensive nF590/570 SLI products, the Biostar TF560 A2+ does provide fairly impressive overclocking capabilities for under $80. In fact, its ability to maintain a stable HTT setting of 350 puts it in the same overclocking company as the majority of those nF590/570 SLI boards. The BIOS tuning options do not match those of an ASUS CrossHair as an example, but the majority of options needed to properly tune the chipset and memory are available.
As far as the new performance oriented 0801 BIOS goes, there are not any additional settings when compared to the 0612 BIOS utilized in our preview article. In fact, in early testing we have not found any substantial performance improvements but we have been able to run lower voltages at the same settings and have finally broke the 355 HTT barrier.
Truly, what we found to be most impressive at this time is the ability of our $65 X2 65W 3800+ or $84 X2 45W BE2300 to easily reach 3.0GHz. While it's not always as fast as the top of the line X2 6000+ due to its only having half the L2 cache (and some other minor differences), our two budget AM2 processors certainly come close enough that we would not hesitate to spend our money on buying either CPU and this board if you're willing to overclock. That might allow the use of the extra funds for the purchase of a top tier graphics card.
As for the competition between the budget AMD and Intel processors, it's amazing how evenly matched they are. Top clocks are similar, performance is similar, and only cost is really different. If you want maximum performance, one of the better Core 2 chips will invariably win out, but for good performance on the cheap AM2 still has some life left in it.
Looking at our first overclocking test results from the Biostar TF560 A2+, it is clear that NVIDIA's new nF560 chipset is a worthy contender in the mainstream AM2 market. We expect continued performance enhancements from the NVIDIA 7050 and AMD 690G boards through future BIOS updates and new driver releases and will display those new capabilities shortly. For now, the nF560 is the performance leader in the $80 AM2 market.
We firmly believe the nF560 chipset on this particular Biostar board will more than satisfy the overclocking appetites of most AMD users. While it doesn't offer the absolute performance or features of the more expensive nF590/570 SLI products, the Biostar TF560 A2+ does provide fairly impressive overclocking capabilities for under $80. In fact, its ability to maintain a stable HTT setting of 350 puts it in the same overclocking company as the majority of those nF590/570 SLI boards. The BIOS tuning options do not match those of an ASUS CrossHair as an example, but the majority of options needed to properly tune the chipset and memory are available.
As far as the new performance oriented 0801 BIOS goes, there are not any additional settings when compared to the 0612 BIOS utilized in our preview article. In fact, in early testing we have not found any substantial performance improvements but we have been able to run lower voltages at the same settings and have finally broke the 355 HTT barrier.
Truly, what we found to be most impressive at this time is the ability of our $65 X2 65W 3800+ or $84 X2 45W BE2300 to easily reach 3.0GHz. While it's not always as fast as the top of the line X2 6000+ due to its only having half the L2 cache (and some other minor differences), our two budget AM2 processors certainly come close enough that we would not hesitate to spend our money on buying either CPU and this board if you're willing to overclock. That might allow the use of the extra funds for the purchase of a top tier graphics card.
As for the competition between the budget AMD and Intel processors, it's amazing how evenly matched they are. Top clocks are similar, performance is similar, and only cost is really different. If you want maximum performance, one of the better Core 2 chips will invariably win out, but for good performance on the cheap AM2 still has some life left in it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
View All Comments
chesterman86 - Sunday, August 5, 2007 - link
any one knows which boards will work with am2+ processorsi've a evga 590sli, with a x2 4200. it will be great if i could upgrade to a phenom =D
anyway, even if i do the bios update, i'll not have ht3 right?
lopri - Saturday, August 4, 2007 - link
Thanks for the great review. The board reviewed looks solid and the coverage is, as usual, complete and clear. I always liked BioStar's boards and felt their products are not getting much spotlight among enthusiasts. The board and NV's new chipset looks solid and it's really amazing that how much computing power we get for the dollars these days.Said that, I'd like to know if Gary thinks the review samples are representative enough for retail products that one can buy, when it comes to overclocking? I haven't kept up with AMD's latest steppings and the overclocking performance of the reviewed CPUs is simply amazing. I remember the time when a 3.0GHz A64 was considered a golden.
lopri - Saturday, August 4, 2007 - link
Forgot to ask: What is the thing that going for NF560? There was a brief mention regarding GPU optimazation and PCI-E lane configuration, but overall it looks almost identical to NF550. If one were to buy a either similarly priced NF550 board or NF560 board, what would differentiate 560 from 550?CrystalBay - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
That is some incredible value right there .Thanks for the article G.K.!!!
Powered by AMD - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Why do you use a U$S 100 Motherboard with the Intel setup and a U$S 80 one for the AMD?If we are in the cheap setup, i would like to make a comparision apples to apples.
I think if you use the U$S 85 JetWay J966GDAG-PB, the tables should be much different.
yyrkoon - Friday, August 3, 2007 - link
You try finding a decent enough Intel motherboard for under $100. Most people I know wouldnt even settle for less than a $150 + board concerning an Intel system. In-expencive/good AMD motherboards with a decent feature list have been around for a while, open your eyes, and do a product search of your own . . .crimson117 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Good point!
Also, the processors costs are not equal... (newegg prices)
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ costs $65
AMD X2 BE-2300 costs $90
Intel E2160 costs $95
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ costs $170
So the AMD setup would be $50 cheaper for about equal performance.
DeepThought86 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
2 PATA ports supproted but only one implemented on this board. Boo, hiss. So Biostar saves $0.50 and we're out $100 buying a new driveelpresidente2075 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
All I have to say is: You've gotta move forward sometime. PATA is OK if you like slow, bulky, and outdated interfaces, but if you're into the whole "having a decent computer" thing, you're gonna have to spend the money anyway.And if you mean that you've just purchased a large PATA drive and don't want to purchase a new SATA one, I pity you and your short-sightedness. PATA is going the way of the Dodo, and SATA is the future for now.
Good luck with the new drive!
LoneWolf15 - Saturday, August 4, 2007 - link
This one made me laugh.
Not because PATA isn't an old interface. But, compare the speeds of a modern PATA drive to an SATA drive, and you'll find almost no difference. The interface isn't the bottleneck; the drive mechanics are. For that reason, an UltraATA Seagate 7200.10 and a SATA Seagate 7200.10 are within a hairsbreadth in performance.
SATA certainly cables nicer than PATA, and getting rid of the whole master/slave configuration is a great thing too. But you're buying into the hype a little too heavily. Until we can improve drive mechanics to both increase data throughput and decrease latency in more than tiny incremental steps, the interface won't matter all that much.