Subsystem Testing

The first thing we'll check is the audio. We downloaded and installed to test its CPU utilization.

Like the other Realtek solutions we've used in the past, CPU utilization was fairly high thoughout the DirectSound3D tests, though a little lower than we're normally used to seeing. CPU utilization never got to 8%, but it did average in the 2% - 8% range, which is a lot higher than the <2% averages we've seen with the nForce 2.

It's not the end of the world, given that the slowest CPU you would be using with the K8T is an Athlon 64 3000+, but we would have liked to have seen lower numbers. This is a synthetic benchmark though, and since I know all of you enjoy a game or two, let's see how the sound will affect Quake 3 performance.

Quake 3 Sound Tests

For our Q3A tests, we ran demo_four benchmarks at 640x480, minimum detail with sound on and off. This was repeated at 1024x768, but with maximum detail. The reasoning is at low detail and resolution, the work will fall on the CPU and motherboard subsystem. Higher resolution is more representive of actual gameplay for most users

With sound enabled, the ABIT KV8-MAX3 takes a 153.6 frames per second hit at 640x480. Needless to say, ouch. At a higher resolution and detail levels, the onboard sound's CPU utilization is less of a factor, dropping 12FPS.

In terms of sound quality, I found gaming to be very acceptable, as was the case with movie and MP3 playback. There was some slight distortion when running disk intensive tasks though, as slight static came from my Logitech Z-560s while playing a MP3 off the hard drive.

For recording tests, I used a small microphone that came with my Audigy Platinum, and recorded a few sentences. I wasn't too impressed with the quality, as a constant buzz could be heard in the recordings. Certainly, the Realtek is not the best choice for musicians if using the onboard sound is in the plans.

Hard Drive Performance

We used HD Tach to gauge read and write performance with our Western Digital SE 120GB HDD, and read performance with our Seagate 120GB SATA drive. Unfortunently, I don't have an identical drives to perform RAID testing, but we'll try to follow this up when I can acquire a second drive.

Tests were done using freshly imaged disks, split into partitions of 40GB, 50GB, 30GB (roughly), and benched on both the VIA and Silicon Image controllers.

PATA Performance

Controller	Read (kps)	Write (kps)
Silicon Image	49356.1	28178.4
VIA	50419.2	29187.5

For both read and write, we see the VIA controller slightly outperforms the Silicon Image controller. The Silicon Image does edge out the VIA in CPU usage, eating 17.9%, compared to VIA's 18.5%.

SATA Performance

Controller	Read (kps)
Silicon Image	45347.2
VIA	45126.5

On the VIA controller, the maximum read speed with the Seagate SATA drive was about 59MB/sec, with 45MB/sec being the average. CPU usage was 19.6%, similar to PATA performance. The Silicon Image averaged a slightly higher read speed, and the CPU usage was also lower at 19.2%.

Network Performance

We used to test the networking speed, and Windows Task Manager for CPU usage. We copied a variety of install files, totalling 758 MB, varying in sizes of 300kb to as much as 60MB per file from the ABIT KV8-MAX3 machine, to our K8T Neo-FIS2R box, which uses a Realtek 8110S controller. We also performed the same test with an ISO image, totalling 761MB.

Both systems were connected via a CAT-5E crossover cable, which should prevent any bottlenecks that would arise with our standard 10/100 router.

Small Files Test - 758MB Total

	Download Time (sec)	Upload Time (sec)
Small Files (758MB)	00:26.7	00:18.5
Large File (761MB)	00:22.5	00:17.8

The 3Com Gigabit NIC did a good job with the file transfers, and was about eight seconds faster at uploading the files than it was downloading in the small files test. However, CPU usage was quite high while uploading... about 53%, whereas downloading averaged 32% according to Task Manager.

With a large, single file, times were improved in both the upload and download tests when compared to the smaller files. CPU usage mirrored the small file tests, but on average, about 4% less.

Final Words

ABIT did a good job with their implementation of the K8T800 chipset, taking advantage of almost all the features available. With the K8T800, the additional RAID controller, as well as the onboard sound and Gigabit Ethernet, the board provides a lot of headroom for future growth as we head into Q2 2004.

The Softmenu grants access to a number of tweaking options, though we've run into many of the same limitations as we have in the past with VIA based boards. The dividers are automatic, and although they do a decent job of trying to keep your AGP/PCI within specs, there is no way to manually adjust them, let alone lock them down. Like we've mentioned though, this issue is specific to the K8T800, and not to the motherboard manufacturer.

Another issue experienced during testing was the need for a floppy disk during Windows installation if you are using the VIA SATA. With the Silicon Image controller, the need for the driver disk is to be expected, but even if you are not planning to use RAID, the disk is needed to activate the VIA SATA. Nothing is needed for the PATA, but seeing how Intel managed legacy support out of their SATA, I feel VIA should have as well.

One warning for fans of PC4000 ram, the KV8-MAX3 is very picky about it. Though the memory controller is on the A64, with previous K8T800 boards, I did have some success with Kingston's HyperX PC4000. On the KV8, this was not the case, as the ram just would not work when simply plugging it in. The workaround was to install PC3200 ram, and manually set the timings, power off, install the PC4000, and all was well. Granted, the board officially supports PC3200, but as we've experienced in the past, other boards automatically scaled back our PC4000's ram speed. Given the K8T800's overclocking history, I doubt any of you would use PC4000 with the intention of overclocking it, but this is something to keep in mind.