DFI 748-AL: Stress Testing

We performed stress tests on the DFI 748-AL in these areas and configurations:

1. Chipset and motherboard stress testing, which was conducted by running the FSB at 212MHz; and
2. Memory stress testing, which was conducted by running RAM at 400MHz with 2 DIMM slots filled and at 400MHz with 3 DIMM slots filled at the lowest memory timings possible.


Front Side Bus Stress Test Results:

As standard practice, we ran a full range of stress tests and benchmarks to ensure the DFI 748-AL was absolutely stable at each overclocked FSB speed. These stress tests included Prime95 torture tests, which were run in the background for a total of 24 hours.

In addition, we ran several other tasks — data compression, various DX8 and DX9 games, and apps, like Word and Excel — while Prime95 was running in the background. Finally, we ran our benchmark suite, which includes ZD Winstone suite, Unreal Tournament 2003, SPECViewperf 7.0, and Gun Metal Benchmark 2. While we were able to boot and run some tests at speeds as high as 217MHz FSB at default voltage on the 748-AL, 212MHz was the highest FSB overclock that we were able to achieve at default voltage with the Asus without encountering any reliability issues.

Memory Stress Test Results:

The memory stress test is very simple, as it tests the ability of the 748-AL to operate at its officially supported memory frequency (400MHz DDR) at the lowest supported memory timings that our Corsair TwinX LL modules support. The SPD timings for the Corsair v1.2 modules is 2-2-3-6, but without any real means to set individual memory timings on the 748-AL, we had to rely on other utilities to report real memory timings. CPUZ (www.cpuid.com) does not recognize the SiS 748 chipset memory controller, and we could not use it to determine memory timings. We had to depend on results reported in SiSoft Sandra Max3 Memory Test for memory timings. Sandra recognized the chipset correctly, but reported memory timings may not be 100% correct.


Stable Dual DDR400 Timings
(2/3 banks populated)
Clock Speed: 200MHz
Timing Mode: Performance
CAS Latency: 2.5
Bank Interleave: 4
RAS to CAS Delay: 4T
RAS Precharge: 5T
Precharge Delay: 4T
Command Rate: N/A


We did some experimenting with the “Normal” and “Performance” selections in BIOS. Normal memory timings are reported to be 2.5-4-4-8 in Sandra. When Performance is selected, CAS settings can be chosen, but CAS 2 would not work with the Corsair 3200LL modules or any other high-speed module that was tested. The lowest setting that works is “Performance”, “CAS 2.5” and Sandra timings are reported as 2.5-4-4-5.

Filling all 3 available memory banks is much more strenuous on the memory subsystem than testing 2 banks. With all 3 banks filled, the DFI 748-AL had no problems with the same timings that worked with 2 dimms.


Stable DDR400 Timings
(3/3 banks populated)
Clock Speed: 200MHz
Timing Mode: Performance
CAS Latency: 2.5
Bank Interleave: 4
RAS to CAS Delay: 4T
RAS Precharge: 5T
Precharge Delay: 4T
Command Rate: N/A


We were pleased to see the DFI run with stability with 3 DDR400 dimms. With the limited Memory Timing options available, we really can't tell you much about memory timings with 2 and 3 dimms. Normally, 3 dimms requires timings a bit slower than 2, but until DFI adds memory timings in the release BIOS, we really can't tell you the fastest timings that will work on the 748-AL. It’s worth stating again that the real world performance difference between aggressive memory timings and more relaxed memory timings, such as SPD, are often very small. That is more than just words in this 748-AL review, as you will see in performance tests using these very slow memory timings.

We tested all these memory timings using several stress tests and general applications to guarantee stability. Prime95 torture tests were successfully run at the timings listed in the above charts. We also ran 3DMark and Super Pi. None of these stress tests created stability problems for the DFI 748-AL at these memory timings.

DFI 748-AL: BIOS and Overclocking DFI 748-AL: Tech Support and RMA
Comments Locked

22 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Thursday, September 4, 2003 - link

    enough with the athlon xp mobos lets see some athlon 64age that you where talkin about wesley.
  • Jeff7181 - Wednesday, September 3, 2003 - link

    Anonymous User = afraid to show who he really is.
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 2, 2003 - link

    Jeff7181 = Simpleton, limited comperhension skills.
  • sprockkets - Monday, September 1, 2003 - link

    The unusual thing is why the 748 has the 963 SB, since the upcoming 741 has the 964. That one has SATA. I would rather get that and use a video card.

    Well, either one can use either southbridge, but value or not, SOMEONE needs to stick SATA on a uATX board for the AMD platform.
  • Anonymous User - Sunday, August 31, 2003 - link

    Most Sis motherboards are aimed at the low end market and performance is often worse than in the reviews. For the guy who wants to use this for a htpc I would steer clear of these chipsets. Their performance is very poor when it comes to media encoding and video capture if you're thinking of adding tivo functionality to your htpc.
  • Evan Lieb - Sunday, August 31, 2003 - link

    Anyone reading a review thinking that the boards included in the benchmark graphs are the best you can get haven't read that review in its entirety or other nForce2 reviews on AnandTech (or around the net period). We can't be faulted for what readers assume based on statements we’ve never made.

    Thanks for sharing your feedback with us Jeff.

    Take care,

    Evan
  • Anonymous User - Sunday, August 31, 2003 - link

    Jeff7181, the conclusion that you imagine to have seen does not exist in that article. You seem to look more at the benchmark graphs than the actual text of the article. That's your problem. Reviewers can't expect everyone to make such mistakes. I'm sure that any critisism would be appreciated if it actually had something to do with the targeted article...
  • Anonymous User - Sunday, August 31, 2003 - link

    Read this http://www.ocworkbench.com/2003/dfi/748al/748al-1.... for another opinion. It is compared to other SiS 748 and NForce2 and KT600 boards.
  • Jeff7181 - Saturday, August 30, 2003 - link

    Wesley, Evan... Sorry to be so rude in my post, but...

    The point of these reviews is to inform the reader correct? If that was an editorial (opinion) and not a review (informational) I wouldn't have a problem with it.
    But the way the article is written, it leads uninformed users to believe that the best motherboard on that chart is the best motherboard you can get. While that may be true, you don't show any proof.

    The review of the DFI 748-AL was great... but the product comparisons are VERY lacking. At least you could point out somewhere in the article that "the popular offerings from Asus and Epox and Abit perform similarly to the DFI nForce2 Ultra 400, but were omitted due to lack of resources." That would at least give the reader an idea of how beneficial it would be to upgrade from their current motherboard to one of these new "Ultra" ones.
  • Wesley Fink - Saturday, August 30, 2003 - link

    #12 - Now corrected.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now