<!–#set var="article_header" value="Warp Speed with Rambus:
Six Boards for PC1066″ –>
A Comeback For Rambus? Six Boards With Intel 850E
It never happens like you plan it. This is exactly what concerns many marketing experts at Intel, where decisions of a political nature are often made. The way this company works can be compared to a large political party: consider what the voters want but then allow generous leeway for your decision, as if the voters had never wanted things otherwise. Intel made a political faux pas more than two years ago, when it declared Rambus to be the only capable memory of the future. When all votes were in for the best memory technology, however, it turned out that the majority didn’t support the Rambust faction, but, in a conservative manner, went for the DDR SDRAM camp instead. With this defeat, Intel lost significant ground – with its competing platform, the arch-enemy AMD attained double figures in its percent share of the market. In order to adapt to the latest trend, Intel, the market leader, announced that it was naturally developing on the basis of DDR technology. Still, it got much worse – at official press conferences where the public was not as well-versed in technology, the following mantra was popular: there was never any Rambus memory in question, and above all, not in combination with a processor from the said company. In prayer-wheel fashion, Intel announced to its guests at all events that Rambus was no longer relevant to the market – the development was at a dead end; clearly, the future was DDR! Now this strategy seems totally incomprehensible, especially because Intel’s flagship product, the Pentium 4, only attains its true performance capability with help from RDRAM.
This is what the Rambus roadmap looks like. However, it’s not yet certain whether Intel will be be launching a successor to the 850E chipset with RDRAM support. Also, Rambus has the FTC lawsuit hanging over its head.
A Comeback For Rambus? Six Boards With Intel 850E, Continued
And keep in mind that Intel is only able take the lead over its competitor, AMD Athlon XP, when used together with an RDRAM platform. Otherwise, if DDR RAM is used, Intel’s lead over the Athlon XP is quite minimal, and the company thus couldn’t really talk of a large performance margin above the lower-clocked AMD Athlon.
Currently, the new Intel Southbridge with USB 2 support is only used by Gigabyte. It’s a mystery as to why Intel doesn’t use this on their own boards.
Rambus is certainly not dead, and this is proven by the motherboard makers, who are fond of experimenting. The first manufacturers to present some interesting new developments are Asus and Gigabyte. Asus has integrated a new interface for a 32-bit memory module in its P4T533. As opposed to the standard RDRAM modules, which can only be used in pairs, only a single 32-bit module is needed to run a motherboard. In order to spare the users any difficulty, motherboards that are bundled with RAM are now available. Cost was no concern for Gigabyte – this motherboard maker came out with a completely new board design, which makes it possible to integrate the latest ICH4 Southbridge from Intel. The resulting design gives the user USB 2.0 on all ports.
Comparison of 16-bit RDRAM and 32-bit DDR-SDRAM.
In this latest comparison, there are six boards with the 850E chipset, which Intel will hopefully develop further, because ever since the launch of the Intel 850 more than a year and a half ago (November 2000), pretty much nothing has happened. The Northbridge and Southbridge are identical, and only a few modifications have been made for the new Northwood core.
Rambus Technology: 16 Bit vs. 32 Bit
There’s no end to the confusion: Rambus has introduced RIMM 4200, a marketing label that has nothing behind it but the bandwidth of PC1066 memory. To be exact, the bandwidth of the new 32-bit module is 4.2 GB/s. Dual-channel operation, as with the 16-bit modules, is no longer required. Basically, the new 32-bit technology is the fusion of two modules to form a single module. An advantage in speed is therefore not the point.
The following illustrations show how the signals are transmitted with the two Rambus technologies. With the 16-bit interface, the terminators are positioned at the end of the bus on the motherboard. With the 32-bit version, however, the same terminators are on the memory module. The result of this is that the motherboard manufacturer saves on the cost for one channel, since the resistors are positioned on the C-RIMM of the second channel.
Signalling and terminators with the 16-bit Rambus interface.
Signalling and terminators with the 32-bit Rambus interface.
Rambus Technology: 16 Bit vs. 32 Bit, Continued
Signaling path and termination resistors with the 32-bit Rambus interface.
Serial signalling with a 16-bit module.
Serial signalling with a 32-bit module.
The two variants are mechanically different, so the modules are not compatible to one another.
Mechanically incompatible: the 16-bit interface is based on 184 pins, while the 32-bit interface requires 232 pins.
Comparison of DDR and RDRAM interface. With DDR, the termination resistors are on the motherboard.
Kingston: 256 MB with 32 ns RDRAM
Currently, the fastest RDRAM module is from Kingston. The Kingston module is available with an access time of 32 ns and a capacity of 256 MB, with a clock frequency of 533 MHz, naturally.
Already using 32-bit technology: Samsung memory with 512 MB capacity.
Comparison: Chipsets for Pentium 4
| Chipset | Intel 850E | Intel 845G | Intel 845E | SiS 648 | SiS 645DX | SiS 645 |
| Introduction | May 2002 | May 2002 | May 2002 | November 2002 | March 2002 | November 2001 |
| Processor Plattform | Socket 478 | Socket 478 | Socket 478 | Socket 478 | Socket 478 | Socket 478 |
| Supported CPU | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 |
| Chipset Northbridge | Intel KC82850E | Intel RG82845G | Intel RG8245EES | SiS 648 | SiS 645DX | SiS 645 |
| Chipset Southbridge | Intel 82801 BA | Intel 82801 DB | Intel 82801 DB | SiS 961 | SiS 961 | SiS 961 |
| Front Side Bus Clock | 100/133 MHz | 100/133 MHz | 100/133 MHz | 100/133 MHz | 100/133 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Memory Clock | 400 MHz/533 MHz | 100/133/166 MHz | 100/133 MHz | 400/533/600 MHz | 100/133/166/200 MHz | 100/133 MHz |
| Asynchronous Memory Clock | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| FSB-Overclocking | up to 166 MHz | up to 166 MHz | up to 166 MHz | up to 200 MHz | up to 166 MHz | up to 133 MHz |
| max. # DIMM-Slots | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| max. Memory | 2048 MB | 3072 MB | 3072 MB | 2048 MB | 3072 MB | 3072 MB |
| SDRAM Support | no | yes | yes | no | yes | yes |
| DDR SDRAM Support | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| VC SDRAM Support | no | no | no | no | no | no |
| RDRAM Support (Rambus) | yes | no | no | no | no | no |
| Dual RDRAM Support (Rambus) | yes | no | no | no | no | no |
| Ultra-DMA/33/66/100 | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes |
| Ultra-DMA/133 | no | no | no | yes | no | no |
| Max. # USB | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| USB 2.0 | no | yes | yes | yes | no | no |
| Max.# PCI Slots | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Integrated Graphics | no | yes | no | yes | yes | yes |
| AGP 1x / 2x / 4x | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes |
| AGP 8x | no | no | no | yes | no | no |
| ACPI Features | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Chipset | Intel 850 | Intel 845D | Intel 845 | VIA P4X333 | VIA P4X266 | VIA P4X266A |
| Introduction | January 2001 | December 2001 | July 2001 | May 2002 | August 2001 | December 2001 |
| Processor Plattform | Socket 423/478 | Socket 478 | Socket 423/478 | Socket 478 | Socket 423/478 | Socket 478 |
| Supported CPU | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 | Intel Pentium 4 |
| Chipset Northbridge | Intel KC82850 | Intel 82845 | Intel 82845 | VIA P4X333 | VIA VT8753 | VIA P4X266A |
| Chipset Southbridge | Intel 82801 BA | Intel 82801 BA | Intel 82801 BA | VIA VT8233A | VIA VT8233 | VIA VT8233A |
| Front Side Bus Clock | 100/133 MHz | 66/100/133 MHz | 66/100/133 MHz | 100/133 MHz | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Memory Clock | 400 MHz | 100/133 MHz | 100/133 MHz | 100/133/166 MHz | 100/133 MHz | 100/133 MHz |
| Asynchronous Memory Clock | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| FSB-Overclocking | up to 133 MHz | up to 166 MHz | up to 180 MHz | up to 200 MHz | up to 180 MHz | up to 180 MHz |
| max. # DIMM-Slots | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| max. Memory | 2048 MB | 2048 MB | 2048 MB | 3072 MB | 4096 MB | 3072 MB |
| SDRAM Support | no | no | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| DDR SDRAM Support | no | yes | no | yes | yes | yes |
| VC SDRAM Support | no | no | no | yes | yes | yes |
| RDRAM Support (Rambus) | yes | no | no | no | no | no |
| Dual RDRAM Support (Rambus) | yes | no | no | no | no | no |
| Ultra-DMA/33/66/100 | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes | yes/yes/yes |
| Ultra-DMA/133 | no | no | no | yes | no | yes |
| Max. # USB | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| USB 2.0 | no | no | yes | yes | no | yes |
| Max.# PCI Slots | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Integrated Graphics | no | no | no | no | no | no |
| AGP 1x / 2x / 4x | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes | yes / yes / yes |
| AGP 8x | no | no | no | yes | no | yes |
| ACPI Features | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
The table above lists all of the chipsets currently available for the Intel platform (Socket 478). Older models with SDRAM support (such as the Intel 845) are not taken into consideration here, because boards with these chips haven’t been produced and have not been available on the market for a long time now.
Rambus Boards: Cost Reduction via Four-Layer Design
Four layer design for a board with 16-Bit Rambus.
Four-layer design for a board with 32-bit Rambus.
Most of the P4 motherboard manufacturers use the four-layer technology in order to save on costs. Only Intel and Gigabyte use six layers, and even then, Gigabyte manages to offer its 850E board at a reasonable price. Comparing the two boards from Asus, the latter two images show the circuitry. By using the 16-bit RDRAM interface (Asus P4T533), more space is required than with the 32-bit interface on the Asus P4T533.
Asus P4T533-C: A Close Race With Gigabyte
The Asus P4T533-C package.
View of the Asus P4T533-C, which is only marginally different from its predecessor.
You’ve got to hand it to Asus: whenever a new technology is launched, such as 32-bit RDRAM, this market leader always gets involved. Compared to its predecessor, the P4T-E with the Intel 850 chipset, the layout of this board hasn’t changed much. This is why the ICH2 Southbridge was left where it was — otherwise, a radical change of design would have been necessary. Even though Asus has the new data sheets for the new ICH4 Southbridge, the old model is still used. Here, you should note that the ICH4 supports the older and newer bus protocols (Hub-Link 1.0 and 1.5, respectively). The Asus P4T533-C is manufactured using the four-layer technique, thereby allowing for lower costs. Compared to the P4T533, Asus also does without the innovative new fan controller “Q-Fan.” The integrated network controller and the four USB ports (1.1) on the front of the board are also noteworthy. In addition, the NEC chip provides USB 2.0 support.
Asus P4T533-C: A Close Race With Gigabyte, Continued
Accessories with the Asus P4T533-C.
Two slot brackets for digital audio in/out are included.
As ever, the jumper jungle is strewn across the entire board, confusing things a bit. The CNR is not too interesting for the end user, since there are no components available on the market for this. In the performance benchmarks, this board always lands in the middle, just a nose behind Gigabyte. Ultimately, it’s a solid and, above all, stable board. However, it also is one of the more expensive in its class (approx. $215). The Gigabyte board offers more features and accessories plus marginally higher performance at the same price. Still, this shouldn’t be too surprising, since boards from Asus were never to be had at discount prices. If you decide to do without the network function, the Asus P4T533-C costs a bit less (“only” $159).
USB ports for USB 2.0.
Asus P4T533: The Only Board With 32-Bit RDRAM Support
The Asus P4T533 packaging.
View of the Asus P4T533.
A comparison with the P4T533-C shows that the P4T533 variant is significantly more advanced, especially considering the fact that it has a 32-bit Rambus interface. Because the memory module is not yet available on the market in the 32-bit form factor, Asus generally delivers the board with memory modules. A 256 MB module is bundled with the package, and that’s it. The manufacturer offers the motherboard in two versions. The first version is bundled with PC4200 memory that runs at 533 MHz. The cost for this package is $375.
The accessories that come with the Asus P4T533.
The absolute highlight: the innovative fan controller “Q Fan” enables almost noiseless operation, provided that you have the appropriate cooler.
The second version comes with PC3200 memory with a 400 MHz clock, thereby reducing the cost by about $20. A factory upgrade to 512 MB RDRAM is not possible. The rest of the board’s features make a positive impression: a Promise RAID controller; six PCI slots; an AGP Pro slot; USB 2 functionality; and a six-channel sound chip. In the performance benchmarks, the Asus P4T533 lands just behind its brother, the P4T533-C with 16-bit memory technology. However, you do have to pay a pretty high price for it.
Biostar M7TTB: In The Early Sample Stages
The Biostar M7TTB package.
View of the Biostar M7TTB.
The Biostar M7TTB sample doesn’t exactly leave a flawless impression: it wasn’t possible to operate the board using the fast PC1066 modules (32 ns access time). Usually, this can be remedied with a BIOS update. The homepage didn’t seem too professional, since the date listed for the newest BIOS version (October 2002) is incorrect. Here, the user loses a bit of confidence. Although we updated the board with two of the latest BIOS versions, the board refused to work. And even though we remained in continual contact with the manufacturer, this didn’t help much either – we never received a replacement for the board. Therefore, we omitted this board from the test and the benchmark results.
Interfaces of the Biostar M7TTB.
Which version of BIOS is the latest one? And which one is actually usable? Questions upon questions…
Gigabyte GA-8IHXP: It Can’t Get More Feature-Rich Than This
The Gigabyte GA-8IHXP package.
View of the Gigabyte GA-8IHXP.
Of all the test candidates, Gigabyte’s board was the most impressive: the integration of the new ICH4 Southbridge, which offers USB 2.0 support, is striking. Not even Intel integrated the new Southbridge in its test sample. Gigabyte continues to use six layers, which paves the way for more chips and more features. These include a sound chip (Creative CT85880), network chip (Realtek RTL8100BL), RAID controller (Promise PDC 20276), Dual BIOS and an additional USB 2 function. In total, there are ten ports available for USB 2.0, thus allowing the user to do away with parallel ports entirely. To be on the safe side, Gigabyte equips the Northbridge with an active cooler in order to keep the temperature of the chip as low as possible.
The accessories provided with the Gigabyte GA-8IHXP.
Internal USB-2 cable included.
Interfaces on the Gigabyte GA-8IHXP.
Gigabyte GA-8IHXP: It Can’t Get More Feature-Rich Than This, Continued
Criticism could be directed at the CNR slot, which is meaningless for end users. However, the user can take advantage of six PCI slots. Optionally, the manufacturer offers a Smartcard reader, which should get a lot of attention from the OEM market. In any case, the interface for this is integrated on the board. An extra note about the USB ports: in contrast to its competitors, who do not provide sockets for these ports, Gigabyte decks out its USB ports with colorful plastic, which makes installation much easier. In the performance benchmarks, the Gigabyte GA-8IHXP lands ahead of the Asus P4T533-C, and thus takes first place. In conclusion: with all these features, the complete motherboard package costs only $186. Considering all the functions and generous features offered, we recommend the Gigabyte board as a stable platform for the Pentium 4.
Dual BIOS chips with the Gigabyte GA-8IHXP.
An active cooler for the Northbridge of the chipset.
Progressive: BIOS is available in various language versions.
In the BIOS of the Gigabyte GA-8IHXP, you can select RDRAM with 533 MHz.
Intel D850EMV2: Stability At A High Price
View of the Intel D850EMV2.
Interfaces on the Intel D850EMV2.
In previous tests, boards from Intel were seldom included because their performance wasn’t quite up to that of the competition. Nevertheless, motherboards from the chip giant are still in demand on the OEM market. The reason is that the stability and support (BIOS updates) for these boards are very much valued by companies such as Dell and Gateway. These boards are available for the end user, as well. The D850EMV2 board that we tested consists of six layers, which allows the RIMM slots to be placed next to one another.
Alternatively, Intel also offers the board with network functionality, which our sample did not have. Considering the small number of features provided, this board is a far cry from being a bargain buy: Intel’s asking price is $146. In the end, however, you do get important qualities such as solidity and stability, although these are certainly not the decisive factors for overclocking freaks. In our performance benchmarks, the D850EMV2 takes last place – as a result of unambitious and unalterable timings.
Iwill P4R533-N: Inexpensive, Few Features
The Iwill P4R533-N package.
View of the Iwill P4R533-N.
In order to save on the costs of production, Iwill uses four layers for the P4R533. The sound chip from C3DX and the network chip from Realtek are noteworthy. From the start, Iwill does away with the integration of USB 2.0, thus reducing the features to a small number. Still, the board works together with PC1066 memory and attains average performance levels. In our evaluation, this board takes second to last place.
Accessories included with the Iwill P4R533-N (still in the sample stages).
Connections on the Iwill P4R533-N.
Test Setup and Details
| Hardware | |
| Processor | Intel Pentium 4 2.5 GHz (2533/133 MHz) |
| Memory 1 | 2 x 512 MB, 16 bit, RDRAM, Kingston 533 MHz, 32 ns, PC1066 |
| Memory 2 | 1 x 512 MB, 32 bit, RDRAM, Samsung 533 MHz, 32 ns, PC4200 |
| Hard Disk | 40 GB, ATA100, 7200 rpm, 5T040H4, Maxtor |
| Graphics Card | MSI GeForce 4 Ti 4600 Memory: 128 MB DDR-SDRAM Memory clock: 300 MHz Chip clock: 650 MHz |
| Drivers & Software | |
| Chipset Driver | V4.00.1009 Application Accelerator V2.20 |
| Graphics Driver | Detonator 4 Series V28.32 |
| DirectX Version | 8.1 |
| OS | Windows 2000 SP 2, Build 2195 |
| Benchmarks & Settings | |
| Quake III Arena | Retail Version 1.16 command line = +set cd_nocd 1 +set s_initsound 0 Graphics detail set to ‘Normal’, 640x480x16 Benchmark using ‘Q3DEMO1’ |
| ViewPerf | Version 7 (1280 x 1024 x 16 x 85) |
| mpeg4 encoding | Xmpeg 4.5 + DivX 5.02 Pro Compression/quality: Fastest Data Rate: 780 Kbit Format: 720×576 Pixel@25 fps 150 MB VOB file, no Audio |
| WinACE | V2.11, 178 MB Wave file, Best Compression, Dictionary: 4096 KB |
| SiSoft Sandra 2002 | Professional Version 2002.1.8.59 |
| Cinema 4D XL R7 | Version V7.303 Rendering: 1024×768 |
| PCMark2002 Pro | CPU and Memory Bench only |
| MAGIX MP3 Maker | Platinum V3.03 D |
| Comanche 4 | V 1.0.0.1.18 |
| Lame | Lame 3.92 MMX, SSE, SSE 2, 3DNow! |
Test basis: Intel Pentium 4/2533.
Benchmark Results
| OpenGL Performance | Quake 3 Arena “Demo 1” and “NV15 Demo” |
| 3D Rendering | SPECviewperf Suite 7.0 Cinema 4D XL 7 |
| DirectX8 Games | 3D Mark 2001 Comanche 4 |
| MP3 Audio Encoding | Lame MP3 Encoder 3.92 mp3 Maker Platinum |
| MPEG-4 Video Encoding | XMpeg 4.5 and DivX 5.02 Pro |
| Archiving | WinACE 2.11 |
| CPU and Multimedia Bench | PC Mark 2002 SiSoft Sandra 2002 Pro |
Due to the automatic resource management integrated in Windows XP, we used Windows 2000, as we have done in the past. The only reason for this is that Windows XP optimizes the applications running in the background. Therefore, exact benchmarks with all the nuances are not possible.
We performed a total of 22 different benchmark tests in order to obtain the most complete and well-balanced view of how the Intel 850E chipset performs. We ran four different Quake 3 tests to determine OpenGL performance. A newcomer to the bunch is one of the first games to support DirectX 8, Comanche 4. The different MPEG-encoding benchmarks provide a comprehensive testing environment – the Lame MP3 Encoder and mp3 Maker Platinum were used to encode a 178 MB WAV file into “MPEG-1 Layer 3 format.” Still a classic, our MPEG-4 test converts a file from a commercial DVD-ROM into MPEG-4 format using Xmpeg 4.5 and the Divx 5.02 Pro codec. A regular in our list of benchmarks is determining rendering performance using Cinema 4D XL 7.303. We also ran the new WinACE 2.11 to test how well the CPU performs when archiving files, a common application in the computing world. To determine CPU and multimedia performance, PC Mark 2002 was used. The new SPECviewperf (version 7) benchmark offers a comprehensive 3D benchmark suite. And last but not least, we used the SiSoft Sandra 2002 Pro synthetic benchmarks as well.
OpenGL Performance: Quake 3 Arena
In all four of the Quake 3 Arena time-demo runs, the Gigabyte board is just a nose ahead of the Asus P4T533-C.
DirectX 8 Games: 3D Mark 2001
The 3D Mark 2001 determines DirectX 8’s Direct3D performance under Windows 2000. The results show Gigabyte in the lead.
MP3 Audio Encoding: Lame MP3
The Lame MP3 Encoder was used under Windows 2000 to convert a 178 MB sound file from a WAV format to a “MPEG-1 Layer 3” format. The chart shows that all candidates perform at about the same level.
MP3 Audio Encoding: mp3 Maker Platinum
The mp3 Maker Platinum was used under Windows 2000 to convert a 178 MB sound file from a WAV format to an “MPEG-1 Layer 3” format. Here, Gigabyte and Asus P4T533-C take the lead.
MPEG-4 Video Encoding: Xmpeg 4.5 and Divx 5.02
It’s a similar picture with MPEG 4 encoding: Asus and Gigabyte lead the pack.
SiSoft Sandra 2002 Benchmarks: CPU and Multimedia
The SiSoft Sandra Pro Benchmark 2002 shows that all motherboards with the Intel 850E chipset have a high memory performance. Still, the results shoul be taken with a grain of salt.
CPU und Multimedia Performance: PC Mark 2002
Asus takes top rank in the memory test as well as the CPU test.
3D Rendering Performance: SPECviewperf 7.0
The results of the SPECviewperf benchmark suite are clear: in these tests, Gigabyte leads. However, it is ahead of the Asus P4T533-C by only a marginal amount.
Archiving: WinACE 2.11
Archiving is a very practical application. WinACE 2.11 was used under Windows 2000 to archive a 178 MB WAV file while the clock was running. Here, the Asus P4T533-C and the Gigabyte board take top position.
DirectX 8 Games: Comanche 4
The new gaming benchmark from Comanche 4 uses the DirectX 8 interface. Once again, Gigabyte leads.
3D Rendering: Cinema 4D XL 7
In the Cinema 4D benchmark, Gigabyte leaves the competition in the dust.
Conclusion: Stability and Performance for P4
It’s quite astonishing what the rather outmoded Intel 850E chipset is able to deliver on performance, when used together with Rambus memory. Basically, Intel has not made significant changes to the 850E when compared to its predecessor, the 850. The only adjustments that were made were done in order to tailor it for the new Northwood core of the Pentium 4. In general, we were able to determine that, with help from 533 MHz RDRAM (PC1066), the motherboards in the test were able to squeeze out every last drop of performance from the Pentium 4. Here, there are no restrictions imposed by bandwidth, as opposed to DDR SDRAM. In the test, however, the motherboards revealed their differences: Asus, spoiled by success in the past, is no longer able to take top position, even though the Taiwanese manufacturer integrates support for 32-bit Rambus technology. This allows the Asus board to run using a single module, while the other boards only work with pairs of 16-bit modules. The clear winner of the test was Gigabyte: rich in features and high on performance, the board takes first place in most of the tests. The manufacturer prices the board at $225 for the complete package, which is not unreasonable when you consider all the features that it offers. By contrast, the Asus board is offered at about the same price, while offering a meager number of features and marginally lower performance.
The question that remains at the conclusion of the test is: what will happen to Rambus? After the events of the recent days, where the FTC sued the technology manufacturer Rambus, the future of RDRAM is more than uncertain. In light of the current situation, Intel will not further develop the 850E chipset. Still, the actual Rambus technology leaves no room for complaint: RDRAM offers a large bandwidth of up to 4.2 GB/s and offers the best performance, particularly when used together with the Intel Pentium 4. Intel’s only chance to keep up with the performance level of PC1066 memory (533 MHz) is a new memory interface (chipset). Internal documents from Intel reveal that at the beginning of next year, the successor to the P4 will be launched. Codenamed “Prescott,” it will integrate a dual-channel DDR interface with DDR333.
Here, you should keep in mind that the Intel Pentium 4 has a maximum bandwidth of 4.2 GB/s. In the near future, this will reach well over the 3 GHz limit. Only Rambus memory in the form of PC4200 (533 MHz) is capable of taking full advantage of this bandwidth. By using DDR SDRAM, such as DDR266 or DDR333, the bandwidth remains restricted to 2.1 GB/s and 2.7 GB/s, respectively.
In this comparison, the Tom’s Hardware Guide Award goes to Gigabyte.
