SiSoftware Sandra 2003
Although a synthetic benchmark, it's a popular one, freely available if you wish to make comparison benchmarks. We will be testing the CPU, MMX, and memory speeds.
CPU Arithmetic Benchmark

At 133FSB and 166FSB, the 8RDA+ scores closely with itself, but pulls away from the KT400 board by a noticable margin. At 189FSB, the 8RDA+ really pulls away from the pack.
CPU Multimedia Benchmark

As with the CPU Arithmetic benchmarks, the 8RDA+ maintains its lead over the KT400, albeit by a small margin. Naturally, at 189FSB, the Epox 8RDA+ pulls way ahead.
Memory Benchmark
Edit: Please note that these numbers reflect the change in ram since the original publication of the review. The benchmarks shown are with Corsair TWINX PC3200.

Given the hoopla over DualDDR, this part of testing is where the nForce2 is supposed to flex its muscle. Although it does hold an advantage over the KT400, it isn't much of a lead as I had expected it to be. Keep in mind that you'll have to put your ram in the right place to get this performance, which we'll see next.

Here it's a little more apparent with what kind of performance you can expect with ram placement. Ideally, you'll want to occupy two spots, though it doesn't seem to make much difference which two ram slots you use. What is supposed to happen with slots 2 & 3 used is 64-Bit mode. I ran the benchmark several times, and the performance seems just fine, but I do suggest you follow the manual's guidelines, and enable 128-Bit mode by using slots 1 &2, or 1 &3. Using just slot 2 or 3 severely limits performance (64-Bit), and although slot 1 by itself is supposed to allow for 128-Bit, performance suffers here as well.
PC Mark 2002

In both the CPU and Memory benchmarks, the nForce2 powers by the KT400, save for the instance where the KT400 is running at 166FSB vs the nF2's 133FSB.
Previous Page - Overclocking and Test Setup
Next Page - PiFast and Gaming Benchmarks
|