865 v. 875 in 24 Mobo Test

[Keigan]

In the 24 mobo test, THG had the MSI 875 and 865 boards and ultimatley gave the speed award to the 865. What I don't get, is that they had a DOC version in the test. From what I read I gathered this is an OC'ing feature of the MSI boards. But why would they compare an OC'd product? And if the DOC thing is salient enough to include on the 865 in the benchmark, why not on the 875 version of the board?

It would seem that if similiar performance gains were to be had with DOC on the 875 as were found with the 865, that the MSI 875 board would have been the fastest.

Does that make sense? In the end, I have a MSI board, been happy with it. I am looking to upgrade, and just want to know which of the 2 boards is faster. Don't care about price (wish THG would let that go) I just want overall performance. The benchmarks seem... incomplete.

 

[Crashman]

DOC is how MSI cheats on benchmarks. That's why Tom's included non-DOC benchmarks as well. The DOC benches are not valid, they simply show to what extent MSI cheated.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[Keigan]

OK, I guess, that doesn't really answer my question.
Why did they NOT enable it on the 875?
And if they had, wouldn't the MSI 875 board be faster?
And as for MSI cheats... DOC has never been an issue before, and they seem (at least in the article) to be very up front about it being a Lazy man's OC utility.

Thanks for your response tho.

 

[Crashman]

OH, you don't seem to understand...

If a person doesn't want to overclock, they shouldn't be forced to...

And if a person wants to overclock, they should be able to controll the speed...

And if you show an overclocker the benchmarks for two boards at two different speeds, how is he going to know which one will perform better at the max speed for a given CPU?

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[Scoobs]

Very interesting review of mobo's by Tom. I am about to by a new mobo/CPU/memory so thsi review was very helpful. However, my question is actually the same as Kiegan's. I am not an overclocker but would like to squeeze some extra performance out my system, so MSI's Dynamic Overclocking Technology is right up my alley. So it would be interesting to see performance between MSI's 865PE and 875P with MAT/PAT and DOC turned on. However, here is what I am particularly curious about. I cannot find any reference on MSI's web site to DOC being supported in their 875P mobo's. I have thoroughly searched their web site and even searched in their manual for their 875P mobo. It doesnt seem to be in the BIOS at all...or am I missing something?

 

[Syndil]

Guys, I have your answers. First, we all jumped to the same concluson because of how THG wrote it's bit on the MSI mobo's. DOC was only mentioned in the writeup of the 875, but it was only tested on the 865, why?

The reason: THG screwed up. DOC is ONLY available on the MSI Neo-2 with the 865PE chipset. I too checked the MSI site, and the only mention I could find regarding DOC at first was the BIOS update section, in which it is briefly mentioned as an addition. However, there is actually a FAQ for DOC, or D.O.T. (dynamic overclocking technology), as MSI actually refers to it:

<A HREF="http://www.msi.com.tw/html/e_service/techexpress/tech_column/6728/page4.htm" target="_new">http://www.msi.com.tw/html/e_service/techexpress/tech_column/6728/page4.htm</A>

It's at the bottom of the page. The notable excerpts:

Q: Will MSI™ implement this feature in mass production products? When is that? And with what models?

A: Yes, MSI™ will implement this exciting technology with full spec version 865PE Neo2-FISR first. We will depend on response from customer and users, before determining the range of implementation in future.

Q: Is this feature going to be extended to future motherboards? (e.g. 865G, nForce2 Ultra 400etc.)

A: We have organized plan for D.O.T. (Dynamic Overclocking Technology). But, we will collect response from customer and users, before determining the range of implementation in future.

As for why D.O.T. was allowed into THG's test results, I believe that is also explained by MSI here:

<A HREF="http://www.msi.com.tw/html/e_service/techexpress/tech_column/6728/page3.htm" target="_new">http://www.msi.com.tw/html/e_service/techexpress/tech_column/6728/page3.htm</A>

Oh, and Crashman, you may want to read the entire column. It explains that OC'ing can be done in the traditional, "manual" manner, if you wish, or be completly disabled. Also after having read it myself, I can say that it is certainly NOT just a benchmark cheat, which I think THG has proved with the game demo FPS tests. You could expect the same performance gains playing the actual game.

Excerpt:

Captain: 3rd level of overclocking, also the default value of "Load High Performance Defaults".

Somewhat astonishingly, D.O.T. is enabled by default! I have no problem with the OC'd results being included... I think if OC'ing is brought to a level that even an utter novice can understand, which is clearly what MSI was after by using a simple ranking system to represent the different OC levels, then it should indeed be included, especially if it's enabled by default (at least for hi-perf mode, which is probably where most of us would begin our BIOS tweaking anyway). And from what I gather, that is exactly why the MSI's OC results were included, but no one else's. Kudos to MSI for a terrific idea and execution. The fact that the OC'ing is only enabled "on-the-fly" when it is warranted is brilliant.

My question is, in some tests, such as the Comanche 4 demo, why did the non-DOC board outperform the DOC board? This is counter-intuitive to say the least. Any ideas? Perhaps THG could monitor the FSB/CPU speeds while the test is running to see what is going on.

Just a stab in the dark, but is there a chance that the DOC is actually lowering the speeds beyond normal in reponse to extreme heat? This would account for the performance drop, although it would then raise the question as to what qualifies as extreme heat and why it was present in the first place. Perhaps the DOC OC'd too much, creating the extra heat, and had to back off? Again, I'm just guessing. However a smart system that could automatically cripple itself in order to cool things down is not a bad idea, IMO, as long as some sort of alarm or other notification would let you know that it is happening. It would certainly take the worry out of frying silicon as a result of attempting to build a nearly noiseless (fanless) PC.

_________________________________________________
Armadillo[TcC] at Lanwar and MML

 

[Crashman]

I read everything I needed to read to come to this conclusion: If you test any overclocked motherboard against any standard clocked motherboard, the results are unfairly scewed in favor of the overclocked motherboard. MSI originally hid the fact that this overclocking even existed, wanting us to believe that MSI's boards were simply better performers. So yes, it is simply a way for MSI to steal benchmarks.

Using DOC in any comparative test is nothing more than cheating. This is because you're comparing an overclocked system to a stock clocked system. The only way to get a fair comparison on any overclocked system is...to overclock the other system by the same amount.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[Syndil]

I can see your point. Without OC'ing the other boards, we are comparing one apple amongst a group of oranges. But from a different perspective, if Joe Schmoe can install this board, load the BIOS performance defaults, and see the same results... does it really matter that the board is OC'd? Yes or no, I suppose it's really just a matter of opinion. Either way, I think the DOC is a very cool feature.

But, even with DOC disabled, the board still performed very well, consistently ranking near the top of the group. The DOC feature is just icing on the cake, as far as I am concerned. Sure, any board can be OC'd full time, including the MSI. And if the rest of the boards in the group were OC'd, a different one might have come out as the performance leader. But only the MSI can automatically detect when OC'ing would be beneficial, and do it on the fly. That, to me, and apparently to THG, was worth the award.

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML

 

[camieabz]

My 2 cents?

Anyone who throws in a "revolving LEDS as a possible future feature" joke or not is laughing alone.

It's a joke of a review. I looked at it to get an idea of what's what with the latest chipsets, with a view to looking at a P4 setup sometime, and to be honest all I know is that I shouldn't go for Intel or Soyo, and that MSI and Gigabyte are contenders (apparently falsely in the case of MSI according to the above posts).

That should have been done in two reviews, a week apart, perhaps with comparisons of the top three in each week as an after thought. I have been told that out of 24 mobos, there are one or two that are extra nice, and that one or two are extra nasty.

Perhaps a more indepth look at the abilities of all under certain siuations of overclocking (no reference to the MSI boards intended) and stock speeds would have been more informative. If the differences between products are that small, then skip the crap and give a report on the best 12, naming the others but stating that "they didn't get even close". That way, we all waste less time.

After all, if the reviews are going just scratch the surface of the info we could have had (possibly because THG readers are considered to be able to work it all out for themselves?) then please do a few things which those who know better can get some <b>real</b> info.

I came to this forum because the main site and the members were informative (often one complimenting the other). It's a sad day when I get everything from the members and nothing from the reviews. I worry about newbies trying to interpret the review.

<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>

 

[Keigan]

Crashman, that's what I said. What you said on 7/10 made no sense and must be responding to someone else. They included the DOC benchmarks, and then said it was the FASTEST. If THG knew it was a cheat, why say it was fastest? For the love, READ the article in its entirety and read someone's post completely BEFORE you answer.

If you are going to test ONE board with it why not ALL.
Why give the speed award to someone "cheating."
Thank-you to syndil for actually answering my question instead of completely missing my point and then restating it later in the thread.