| Test System Configuration | |
|---|---|
| CPU | AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition |
| RAM | Kingston KHX16000D3ULT1K3/6GX |
| Graphics | Zotac GeForce GTX260² 896MB |
| Hard Drive | WD VelociRaptor WD30000HLFS |
| Sound | Integrated HD Audio |
| Network | Integrated Gigabit Networking |
| Power | Coolermaster RS850-EMBA |
Software | |
| Operating System | Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 |
| Graphics | Nvidia Forceware 182.08 WHQL |
| Chipset | Catalyst Chipset 03.00.0699 |
Our best DDR3 memory was shipped in triple-channel kits, so we divided these into dual-channel kits for Socket AM3 compatibility. AMD supplied the processor.
Western Digital’s 10,000 RPM 300 GB VelociRaptor kept load times low and write performance high.
Today’s benchmark suite has several 64-bit updates, but readers should look for additional improvements once all of our editors have reached a consensus towards standardization.
| Benchmark Configuration | |
|---|---|
3D Games | |
| Call of Duty: World at War | Patch 1.1, FRAPS/saved game |
| Crysis | Patch 1.2.1, DirectX 10, 64-bit executable, benchmark tool |
| Far Cry 2 | DirectX 10, Steam Version, in-game benchmark |
| World in Conflict | Patch 1009, DirectX 10, timedemo |
Audio/Video Encoding | |
| iTunes 8 | Version: 8.1.0.52 (x64) |
| Lame MP3 | Version: 3.98 64-bits (07-04-2008) |
| TMPGEnc 4.6 | Version: 4.6.3.268 |
| DivX 6.8.5 | Encoding mode: Insane Quality |
| Xvid 1.2.1 | Display encoding status = off |
| Mainconcept Reference 1.6.1 | MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264), MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2), Audio: MPEG2 (44.1 kHz, 2 Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kbp/s), Mode: PAL (25 FPS) |
Productivity | |
| Autodesk 3ds Max 2009 | Version: 11.0, Rendering Dragon Image at 1920x1080 (HDTV) |
| Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus 8 | Version: 8.0.134, Virus base: 270.4.5/1,533, Benchmark: Scan 334 MB Folder of ZIP/RAR compressed files |
| WinRAR 3.80 | Version 3.80, WinZip Commandline Version 3.0, Compression = Best, Dictionary = 4,096 KB, Benchmark: THG-Workload (334 MB) |
| WinZip 12 | Version 12.0, Compression = Best, Benchmark: THG-Workload (139 MB) |
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
| 3DMark Vantage | Version: 1.02, GPU and CPU scores |
| PCMark Vantage | Version: 1.00, System, Memory, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks, Windows Media Player 10.00.00.3646 |
| SiSoft Sandra | Version 2008.5.14.24, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / Multimedia, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark |
- 790FX Is Still The King
- Socket AM3 Motherboard Features Comparison
- Asus M4A79T Deluxe
- DFI LANParty DK 790FXB-M3H5
- Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P
- MSI 790FX-GD70
- Test Settings
- Benchmark Results: 3D Games
- Benchmark Results: A/V Encoding And Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Synthetic
- Overclocking, Power, And Heat
- Conclusion


(2.80 GHz, 86.0 MB Cache)
I never knew any AMD processors had that much cache!
Super CPU!
1.66% better than the worst performer in the tests. :-)
Not much point in throwing that much GPU horsepower at a motherboard review; the card Thomas used is our current reference--and it's more than ample for showcasing the differences between these boards.
If you want to see quad-CrossFire for any specific reason, feel free to let us know and we can put together a story idea!
Consistent would have been better if not for the fear of people pointing out ever tiny inconsistency. Just remember, if you're 5'11" tall it's clear to just about everyone that you're not 6'!!!
Could you clarify that a bit Chris? Are you saying you would not expect any difference in crossfire between the MBs? If so, that's OK. However, if there's going to be a difference, that is the main reason to buy a 790FX. If you aren't going to crossfire might as well get a GX.
I suspect the chipset isn't the whole story and the various manufacturers could still screw up the PCI-E voltages or something
It depends on the numbers you're looking for. I interpreted the OP's request to mean he wanted performance results with 4870 X2s, which are overkill for comparing these boards. If it's a matter of comparing PCI Express scaling (the reason for going FX instead of GX), check out this piece: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-pci-express,2095.html. It isn't on the AMD platforms, but it still illustrates fairly well how much/little performance you'd lose with PCIe 2.0 x8 vs. x16.
Granted my request isn't based on the real needs of the consumer, it's more of a scientific curiosity behind it. But I remember a while back tom's had an article about nvidia's SLI with 2, 3 or 4 cards in different configurations and that was an interesting read.
PS: Just to clear something up in the 2 x 4870X2 vs. 4 x 4870 or other versions. I know that 4x4870 are more $$ then 2x4870X2 but if you buy a 4 slot PCIe motherboard what if you start out with a single 4870 or 4890 and just add in cards over the period of a year since prices change and people might not have all the cash to get 4 cards at the same time.
"We guys" just made a suggestion since Chris stated he's opened to ideas. The asrock X58 article a few days back is another good example of a story that can be looked at from a more technical perspective. Since that board and these two AMD ones share 4 PCIe ports and ATI & Nvidia cards support ATI STREA/CUDA one would be inclined to have a look beyond the "can it run crysis" comment. And I'm sure finding 4 identical cards isn't an issues since the time that takes to right an article wasn't up for debate.