EVGA 680i LT SLI: NVIDIA's 680i Cost Reduced
by Gary Key on March 28, 2007 4:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Synthetic Graphics Performance
The 3DMark series of benchmarks developed and provided by Futuremark are among the most widely used tools for benchmark reporting and comparisons. Although the benchmarks are very useful for providing apples-to-apples comparisons across a broad array of GPU and CPU configurations they are not a substitute for actual application and gaming benchmarks. In this sense we consider the 3DMark benchmarks to be purely synthetic in nature but still very valuable for providing consistent measurements of performance.
In our 3DMark06 test, each platform score is basically the same although we see the DFI RD600 based motherboard trailing slightly which we attribute to the slightly lower memory and video performance results in our latest BIOS release. Our EVGA board tops the chart and offers the best video performance of our test boards in this benchmark.
In the more memory and CPU sensitive 3DMark01 benchmark we see our EVGA 680i LT board trailing all boards but the RD600, although boards performed slightly better than the other 680i or 650i solutions in our Sandra benchmarks. Given the tight clustering of the scores, however, it is difficult to truly call any of the test candidates "faster" in these particular benchmarks.
General System Performance
The PCMark05 benchmark developed and provided by Futuremark was designed for determining overall system performance for the typical home computing user. This tool provides both system and component level benchmarking results utilizing subsets of real world applications or programs. This benchmark is useful for providing comparative results across a broad array of graphics, CPU, hard disk, and memory configurations along with multithreading results. We consider the PCMark benchmark to be both synthetic and real world in nature and again provided for consistency in our benchmark results.
The EVGA 680i LT board tops our charts in this very competitive benchmark and we are starting to see a pattern emerge with the latest NVIDIA board release performing slightly better than our previous champ, the MSI P6N SLI Platinum. The 650i and 680i chipsets scored very well on the single task disk benchmarks with the 680i performing slightly better in the graphics subsystem tests where they led the field. However, our 975X and P965 chipset boards won the multi-tasking tests while the RD600 offered middle of the road performance in most of the tests.
The 3DMark series of benchmarks developed and provided by Futuremark are among the most widely used tools for benchmark reporting and comparisons. Although the benchmarks are very useful for providing apples-to-apples comparisons across a broad array of GPU and CPU configurations they are not a substitute for actual application and gaming benchmarks. In this sense we consider the 3DMark benchmarks to be purely synthetic in nature but still very valuable for providing consistent measurements of performance.
In our 3DMark06 test, each platform score is basically the same although we see the DFI RD600 based motherboard trailing slightly which we attribute to the slightly lower memory and video performance results in our latest BIOS release. Our EVGA board tops the chart and offers the best video performance of our test boards in this benchmark.
In the more memory and CPU sensitive 3DMark01 benchmark we see our EVGA 680i LT board trailing all boards but the RD600, although boards performed slightly better than the other 680i or 650i solutions in our Sandra benchmarks. Given the tight clustering of the scores, however, it is difficult to truly call any of the test candidates "faster" in these particular benchmarks.
General System Performance
The PCMark05 benchmark developed and provided by Futuremark was designed for determining overall system performance for the typical home computing user. This tool provides both system and component level benchmarking results utilizing subsets of real world applications or programs. This benchmark is useful for providing comparative results across a broad array of graphics, CPU, hard disk, and memory configurations along with multithreading results. We consider the PCMark benchmark to be both synthetic and real world in nature and again provided for consistency in our benchmark results.
The EVGA 680i LT board tops our charts in this very competitive benchmark and we are starting to see a pattern emerge with the latest NVIDIA board release performing slightly better than our previous champ, the MSI P6N SLI Platinum. The 650i and 680i chipsets scored very well on the single task disk benchmarks with the 680i performing slightly better in the graphics subsystem tests where they led the field. However, our 975X and P965 chipset boards won the multi-tasking tests while the RD600 offered middle of the road performance in most of the tests.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
16 Comments
View All Comments
Stele - Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - link
It boils down to the engineering headroom put into the PWM design. Let's say the maximum supply current anticipated from a generation of CPUs is 50A (usually from datasheets and/or design guidelines from the CPU manufacturer). Motherboard designers can design their PWM to be just sufficient for this - most notably, the MOSFETs chosen may be those that can handle around 75A - or they can build some headroom in and choose MOSFETs capable of, say, 100A.
The former design philosophy saves cost, and after all it gets the job done. However, since the components would be running near their design limit, they would generate quite a bit of heat... especially during spikes of load and/or when new CPUs with even higher current draw (e.g. quad-core CPUs) show up.
The latter design philosophy is more expensive, but because the components would be running well below their rated spec, they fare much better in terms of thermal dissipation (and hence efficiency, as less power is lost as heat). The lower running temperatures also help improve the reliability of the components since less thermal stresses are present. Furthermore, when current loads increase - be it due to sudden load spikes and/or power-hungry CPUs and/or overclocking - they still have a lot of headroom, and so are able to handle the extra load without breaking a sweat. This results in better stability and again, lower heat dissipation compared to lower-spec'ed components at the same load.
In view of this, perhaps one other area that Anandtech could look at when reviewing motherboards is to have an IR thermometer handy (the ones that you can point and measure temperatures of surfaces remotely with) and perhaps measure the temperatures of the chipset and PWM (or at least the temperatures of their heatsinks) at idle and load. It may not be perfect (especially when heatpiped, and a hotter heatsink could also mean that the heat flow from the component to the heatsink is good due to good thermal contact) but imho at least it would give a useful ballpark figure.
Stele - Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - link
Pretty good review, critically assessing the chipset in light of theory (paper specs) as well as reality (actual value for money based on real-world prices and competiting products).IMHO, Nvidia's attempt to create a lower-cost version of the 680i SLI by limiting BIOS options and tossing the odd feature out (like passive chipset cooling and two USB/one network port) seems a little clumsy at best... Instead, I think the hybrid chipset combination used in, for example, the Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus is a more elegant solution. As this review demonstrated, the BIOS options do not necessarily cap the LT's overclocking capability enough to prevent it from being a threat to the 680i SLI's exclusive turf. Indeed, it might well turn out that the latter's sales would not be jeopardised by the LT anyway - not because of the arbitrarily imposed limitations, but because of the almost non-existent price difference between boards based on the two chipsets, considering the lost features.
Meanwhile, other reviews of the P5N32-E SLI Plus have noted that the MCP used is that from the AMD-platform 590 SLI chipset. I wonder if, other than the slight rearrangement of PCI-Express lanes, there are any real differences (e.g. revised/improved networking/disk controller engines etc) between the two MCPs? Or are these blocks nothing more than carried over directly from the 590 SLI? It would be great if Anandtech could look into that.
Lastly, a tiny note - it's a little amusing to note how it must be a bit pedantic to have to spell out the full name of the 'solid' capacitors used... at least Anandtech strives hard to get it right! :) Really, though, for the kind of 'solid' capacitors that we're talking about on most motherboards, "aluminium solid electrolytic capacitors" or even just "solid electrolytic capactitors" (vs. 'regular' (liquid) electrolytic) would do perfectly. Conductive polymer capacitors are generally (though not restricted to) the little rectangular ones such as the ones seen on Asus RoG boards as well as the P5N32-E SLI Plus. Just a thought :)
yyrkoon - Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - link
Well, about the capacitors, I know as per some OEM, anandtech was calling them 'solid state capacitors', which you sound like you know enough about electronics to know this is wrong. Anyhow, several readers, including myself called 'foul', and there you have it . . .JarredWalton - Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - link
There were a few complaints when he used "solid capacitors", so I guess the full name is the safe way to go. LOLStele - Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - link
Oh very true! "Solid capacitors" and "solid state capacitors" (as yyrkoon rightly commented) are both commonly used on many hardware sites, and are both inaccurate. One reason for the repeated complaints, iirc, is that we were simply oscillating between one inaccurate term and another. :P"Solid electrolytic capacitors"... now that is perfectly acceptable, despite a difference of one word. The devil, as they say, is in the details. ;)
yyrkoon - Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - link
You did the right thing Jarred, you know how picky 'us' readers are ;)