abit KV7 - Page 7

..:: SiSoft SANDRA ::..

Well, first off I have to apologize for the lack of any comparing AMD based motherboards. We currently have a few in house, but the main board we planned on using has been giving us fits like no other, and Chris has been having some problems on his end too. Must be a bad month, heh. So for this review, I’ll be comparing our Abit KV7 against our high performance Intel D875PBZ combined with the 3.00GHZ Pentium 4 “C”. I’ve been meaning to do a direct comparison of the system performance between these two for some time now, so I guess this is it in a roundabout sort of way.

First we’ll get into the performance benchmarks, starting off with SiSoft’s SANDRA. Here we see that, as expected, the Intel Pentium 4 “C” comes in with higher marks in both the arithmetic and multimedia benchmarks, although this is merely due to our enabling of Hyper-Threading Technology for maximum performance. With Hyper-Threading disabled, our 3200+ holds an edge over the Pentium 4 in these benchmarks. The KV7 puts up some pretty nice memory scores, nearing the 2.9GB mark for integer performance.

..:: MBReview.com PriBench v1.04 ::..

This is a new benchmark that we’ll be adding to our list from now on in our motherboard and processor reviews. PriBench v1.04 is much like SuperPI in that it is computationally intensive. PriBench is a system level benchmark, and relies solely on the performance of the processor and memory subsystem. Unlike many of today’s synthetic benchmarks which rely on other aspects such as hard drive speeds, etc. PriBench does not rely on any “exterior” devices for the tests. PriBench was coded in house and utilizes a computationally intensive algorithm to compute primes well into the 100’s of millions for the current version. The program is extremely precise as we have seen time fluctuations of around +/- .03 or so seconds. In the PriBench tests, we can see that the 3.00GHz Pentium 4 based system overpowers the XP 3200+ Abit KV7 system by quite a ways. I was expecting a much closer battle between these two chips, although the compiler used for this seems to be slanted towards Intel processors from some of our other testing.

..:: SuperPI ::..

In the SuperPI tests, we run the program four times, once at one million, once at two million, once at four million, and you guessed it once at eight million. The numbers in the graph above show the time in seconds that it took the system to calculate pi to the set number of digits. In this benchmark, we can clearly see that, as one would expect, both of the boards put up nice numbers very much in line with each other. The AthlonXP 3200+ is able to keep pace with the 3.00GHz Pentium 4 “C” up until the four million digit calculation where is begins to fall back by six seconds, and in the eight million digit calculation by fourteen seconds. For reference, I’ve also posted scores on the Abit KV7 with a 2500+ 333MHz FSB “Barton” AthlonXP. The numbers put up by this chip match very closely in line with previous tests off the competing Pentium 4 2.4GHz “C” processor.

..:: Specviewperf 7.0 ::..

In the SPECviewperf 7.0 benchmarks, I have chosen to throw out two of the benchmarks due to the fact that we are beginning to experience some graphics adapter bottlenecks. As we have seen throughout the previous benchmarks, once again the Intel Pentium 4 3.00GHz “C” powered system manages to edge on past our AthlonXP 3200+ / Abit KV7 setup. The KV7 is able to put up a good battle, better than some of the results we’ve seen so far, but what we are seeing here is why many other hardware reviewers agree that the XP 3200+ should more or less be renamed so something along the lines of a 2800+.

..:: FutureMark 3DMark2001SE ::..

FutureMark’s 3DMark2001 SE is first off on today’s list of multimedia application benchmarks. Here we are seeing results portraying the same story that we have been reading all day long. The Intel D875PBZ paired with a 3.00GHz Pentium 4 “C” holds the overall lead in both 16-Bit and 32-Bit resolutions, although the 3200+ does manage to keep up at a decent rate. Here, we are seeing a performance lead by the D875PBZ system of roughly 11% for both of these benchmarks. As we raise the resolution, this gap would quickly close down to 2-3% I would suspect, a much better margin than the 11% we are experiencing in lower resolutions.

..:: Quake III Arena ::..

Well, the story that has held up so far continues on in the Quake III Arena benchmarks. Here again we see that the Intel D875PBZ, Pentium 4 2.00GHZ “C” system is able to easily ward off the 3200+, Abit KV7 setup. These numbers that are achieved by the KV7 are not bad by any means, although to be honest I was expecting to see slightly better marks shown from some results we have obtained in other testing. For these low resolution tests, the Intel system holds quite a large lead, which will remain even when the resolutions are raised, although it will of course become more compact. This is to be expected as Pentium 4’s have been known for their Q3A performance.

..:: Unreal Tournament 2003 ::..

Last up for today we have yet another real world performance benchmark for our motherboard reviews, Unreal Tournament 2003. We are using the built-in benchmarking utility with custom .ini files to make sure all settings are at high quality to allow for optimal benchmarking results for comparison. In these tests, although the performance difference between all of the boards is once again noticeable. This time around though, the 3200+, Abit KV7 system is able to keep up far better than what we saw with the Quake 3 Arena benchmark results. In UT2003, we are only seeing a performance lead for the Intel system by roughly 7-8% overall. Factor in the increase in resolution for the common gamer and this lead will quickly dwindle down to the 2-3% area that we would expect.

As it stands, we find it rather difficult to give off a realistic conclusion to the overall performance of the Abit KV7. As I personally have yet to review any competing KT600 based motherboards, we cannot give you a true judgment as to the KV7’s performance. From the numbers I have received during tests of other KT600 motherboards, the KV7 appears to fall in the middle of the pack with some faster and slower motherboards. After taking a look at other various reviews this seems to be a pretty conclusion, although we’ll wait until we have posted final reviews to make any real assessments. For now I’d say that the Abit KV7 puts out some nice performance, especially when you factor in how cheap the motherboard is, but only time and reviews will tell just how well the KV7 does against the competition.