Tom's Motherboard/Memory Test

I find the conclusion and the rest of the article somewhat in conflict with each other, in regards to the Asus motherboard.

First off, the article clearly show that the Asus motherboard passed the tests with all the memory modules.
The conclusion says only two motherboards did this (Asus not one of them), while all others had some form of error.

As a point of confusion, I'm not so sure why they give Asus the cold shoulder.
Sure it's memory timings were 2.5-5-5-8, but the boards that they championed ran at 3-4-4-7.
Not much of an improvement.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the first timing (cas latency) was the most important.
It probably doesn't make up for loosening all the other timings, but it certainly doesn't warrant a cold shoulder from me.

In any case, I'm waiting for the nForce3 250Pro.
We'll see what the motherboard manufacturers do by then.

53 69 67 6E 61 74 75 72 65 20 69 6E 20 48 65 78 21

As a rule I would never fault a CPU they are smarter then me.

No really I would always fault the manufacturers trying to build the supporting motherboards to the specifications that the CPU manufacturers give them.

CAS 3.0 is very stable and in a proper set-up will perform at the same speeds as CAS 2.5.

In the case of the ASUS nforce2 A7N8X Deluxe models you can crunch the BIOS into an AGGRESSIVE setting that pumps all timings out higher then the readable settings.

Also in the case of the ASUS nforce boards as the others you can install the Nvidia overclocking software they provide to set BIOS settings and save them to a file right at the desktop again maxing out performance of installed hardware.

I had a specifically made Dual Channel Kit From Kinston made specifically for the A7N8X Deluxe and yes it ran as far as we could tell perfectly in AUTO detect mode and in User Define set-ups but in Aggressive mode the ram folded in other words the ram was unstable so badly in CAS 2.5 that it could not function.

Now Hardware Boss runs that type of Kinston Ram in his Intel board and has no problem but yet again his Intel board as far as I know does not have the overclocking option in the BIOS to set the system overclocked to Aggressive.

He never replied to the posts we were talking back and forth on yet in another link so I would need to hear back from him yet to know.

In either case the CPU manufacturers are not at fault in design it will always be the guys that have to reveres engineer the specifications so they can provide the hardware to run the CPU's.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 Crucial DDR 400 PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x

I find the article stupid. THG was caught in a lie with the recent benchmarks. They are playing at cover your assets. Again though, half the data was taken from the same posh work that was done in November for the A64 3200. Funny thing is that the other sites seem to have avoided the problem. Maybe because they did a burn-in at higher latancies. Maybe it was the booze intel sent over with the EE.