Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old December 18, 2008, 11:39 PM
MAC's Avatar
MAC MAC is offline
Associate Review Editor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 962
Default ASUS Rampage II Extreme X58 Motherboard Review

Hey everyone, we have just posted a review of the drool-inducing ASUS Rampage II Extreme motherboard, which is easily the most impressive X58 model on the market right now.

If you have any comments and questions, you can post them here here, and I will do my best to answer them

ASUS Rampage II Extreme X58 Motherboard Review
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old December 18, 2008, 11:51 PM
CTA's Avatar
CTA CTA is offline
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: surrey (vancouver) bc canada
Posts: 2,012
Default

oh no you forget to install gtx295 :rolls eye:

anyway... nice review...
__________________
---
NEW: customize case, hx100, i7 920, supreme hf, x58 sabertooth, 3gbx2 ram of ripjaws, xfx hd6950 CF. vertex 2 60gb, seagate and hitachi 1tb, dual mcp355 with ek rex v2, 2x koolance ar697, 2x mcr320, 6x zm-f3 fans.
OLD: cm 690, hx620, intel q9450, True Black, ga-ep45-ud3p, 2gbx2 ram of mushkin xp2 8500, xfx 285. wd caviar se16 640gb, 4x zm-f3 fans.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old December 19, 2008, 05:26 AM
MpG's Avatar
MpG MpG is offline
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 3,136
Default

Quote:
Thankfully, Intel are well aware of this fact, and they are working on providing lower QPI multipliers as we speak.
Are you SURE? Because I can't help but think that this has worked out almost perfectly for Intel, giving more determined overclockers a little extra incentive to purchase the higher binned chips.

Overall, very nice review, although I think the gaming benches might have benefited from using a stronger card, instead of the 9800, in that there might have been a little more contrast between the scores. If you can afford this board and CPU, and you're a gamer, you're probably either done with the G92 cards, or you're planning on running a few of them together.

Questions:

The topmost PCI-E slot? Will it work for any other expansion card? I ask this because the one on my Maximus only seems to work for the bundled sound card, and nothing else seemed to even register to the system when it tried it.

You stated that the three PCI-E slots can be run in either 16x/8x/8x or 16x/16x/1x? Is there a BIOS option/jumper somewhere to force one or the other? Or is it determined only by what's plugged in? I looked, but couldn't seem to see any option in the BIOS screens you provided. Also, in 16x/16x/1x, do you know if all the slots are still PCI-E 2.0? Or is the single slot then getting bandwidth from the southbridge?
__________________
i7 2600K | ASUS Maximus IV GENE-Z | 580GTX | Corsair DDR3-2133
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old December 19, 2008, 06:04 AM
MAC's Avatar
MAC MAC is offline
Associate Review Editor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MpG View Post
Are you SURE? Because I can't help but think that this has worked out almost perfectly for Intel, giving more determined overclockers a little extra incentive to purchase the higher binned chips.
From what I understood lower QPI multipliers will be enabled across all models. The BCLK is going to remain the limiting factor for locked Core 7's, so I don't think Intel will feel the need to further limit OC'ing on lower-end models.

Quote:
Overall, very nice review, although I think the gaming benches might have benefited from using a stronger card, instead of the 9800, in that there might have been a little more contrast between the scores.
I agree, we will have to make a little upgrade in graphics department.

Quote:
The topmost PCI-E slot? Will it work for any other expansion card? I ask this because the one on my Maximus only seems to work for the bundled sound card, and nothing else seemed to even register to the system when it tried it.
I don't know, since I don't have any PCI-E cards that are short enough to fit in that slot.

Quote:
You stated that the three PCI-E slots can be run in either 16x/8x/8x or 16x/16x/1x? Is there a BIOS option/jumper somewhere to force one or the other? Or is it determined only by what's plugged in? I looked, but couldn't seem to see any option in the BIOS screens you provided.
Oops, small omission there, yes there is an option to choose x8 x8 or x16 x1 in the BIOS.

Quote:
Also, in 16x/16x/1x, do you know if all the slots are still PCI-E 2.0? Or is the single slot then getting bandwidth from the southbridge?
They are still 2.0, the X58 actually has 36 PCI-E lanes
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old December 19, 2008, 06:05 AM
zlojack's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,057

My System Specs

Default

Dr. Who? from Intel who posts at XS said they are, indeed, working on opening up more QPI multis to allow for higher bclk.

Right now, the jump is too much from 18x to 22x

20x would be good.
__________________
[SIZE=3]
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old December 19, 2008, 06:21 AM
MpG's Avatar
MpG MpG is offline
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 3,136
Default

I thought the issue was that we want a lower QPI multiplier, keep from hitting the current QPI limits as quickly?
__________________
i7 2600K | ASUS Maximus IV GENE-Z | 580GTX | Corsair DDR3-2133
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old December 19, 2008, 08:31 AM
Eldonko's Avatar
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,442
Default

Very nice MAC, I would love one of those suckas.
__________________
Donkeys kill more people annually than plane crashes or shark attacks.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old December 19, 2008, 09:47 AM
zlojack's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,057

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MpG View Post
I thought the issue was that we want a lower QPI multiplier, keep from hitting the current QPI limits as quickly?
There has been some talk about the ratio betweeen uncore and QPI when overclocking.

Since the RAM to Uncore has to be 1:2
And the theory put forth by dejanh at XS is that Uncore to QPI has to be lower 8:9 (which is 0.89999999999 while it should be more like 0.888333 or something like that)

If you want to run 200 bclk right now, your options are

RAM 8x 1600
Uncore 16x 3200
QPI 18x 3600 (which is just slightly out of the above ratio and is why it causes some instability issues)

So if you could up the QPI to 4000 or 20x, then your ratio is ok and you should be more stable. Right now, the next bump in QPI multi is 22x, which is 4400 and too high. QPI needs to be 4000 or less, I suppose.

In theory. Still working on this one as I don't have good enough cooling yet to test it properly, but it seems to be holding true for me on my rig so far.
__________________
[SIZE=3]
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old December 19, 2008, 09:54 AM
MpG's Avatar
MpG MpG is offline
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 3,136
Default

Very interesting. Happen to know the thread? I've been trying to read up on this as much as possible, but it's a little frustrating combing through hundreds of pages, trying to find the useful info. I've caught the part about the uncore:RAM ratio needing to be 4:1, haven't caught anything concrete about uncore:QPI, though.
__________________
i7 2600K | ASUS Maximus IV GENE-Z | 580GTX | Corsair DDR3-2133
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old December 19, 2008, 10:20 AM
zlojack's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,057

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MpG View Post
Very interesting. Happen to know the thread? I've been trying to read up on this as much as possible, but it's a little frustrating combing through hundreds of pages, trying to find the useful info. I've caught the part about the uncore:RAM ratio needing to be 4:1, haven't caught anything concrete about uncore:QPI, though.
Check here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dejanh View Post
Ok, I think I finally have some answers to the 20x multiplier instability and a number of other issues many users are complaining about. You will have to follow me here as this is not that simple, but it makes a lot of sense and all of my testing to date has actually confirmed it. I have spent a lot of time figuring this out and I really hope that this will help people. Indeed, I am now able to predict ahead of time what settings will POST, what settings will not, and approximately which component will need to be juiced up higher to result in a more stable system. Furthermore, this will be a very thorough overview of Core i7 overclocking that will expose some serious limitations, particularly on the i7 920 and i7 940 parts. It is all primarily linked to the Uncore and QPI speeds.
First off, I will use the Core i7 940 for all of my examples. Core i7 920 and i7 940 are for all intents and purposes the exact same chip, but the i7 940 is just factory clocked higher. These are most likely not higher binned chips, and even if they are by some chance it really does not matter. You will soon see why. In essence, same holds true for the i7 965 EE though they are certainly higher binned and quite likely somewhat more forgiving when overclocking. The fact that they can overclock using an unlocked multiplier is a huge bonus for this chip.
For details on each of the CPU specifications see Intel's website and tech specs/data sheets. I'll just briefly mention the specs here, for reference.

Core i7 920 - 2.66GHz, 20x133MHz, 4.8GT/s QPI (2.4GHz), QPI multiplier 18x (18x133MHz)
Core i7 940 - 2.93GHz, 22x133MHz, 4.8GT/s QPI (2.4GHz), QPI multiplier 18x (18x133MHz)
Core i7 965 EE - 3.2GHz, 24x133MHz, 6.4GT/s QPI (3.2GHz), QPI multiplier 24x (24x133MHz)

The key thing to remember here is that for Core i7 processors everything is interconnected, much like in case of AMD processors. Therefore, changing the BCLK speed affects everything from core speed, to QPI link speed, to Uncore speed, to memory speed. The key elements and the limiting ones here are the last three, the QPI link speed, Uncore speed, and memory speed. Particularly, the QPI is the limiting factor for the other elements as the highest stable QPI link speed for the current Core i7 processors is 8.0GT/s or 4.0GHz for 99% of systems out there. Some exceptions have been observed, but these are extremely rare. This may also be chipset dependent limitation and it is possible that newer chipsets supporting Core i7 will not have this limitation. Anyway, enough introduction. Let's get to the details.

First let's look at the relationships between QPI, Uncore, and DRAM speeds.

DRAM speed must be in a 1:2 ratio or less to Uncore speed which in turn must be in 1:1 or less ratio to QPI link speed (8:9 Uncore to QPI or lower is preferred as the more you approach 1:1 the more unstable the system becomes).

So why Uncore to QPI ratio of 8:9?

I derived this ratio from Intel's specifications on Core i7 processors. Highest supported memory for Core i7 is 1066MHz with a QPI of 4.8GT/s or 2.4GHz. According to processor specifications then, Uncore would be running at 2xDRAM (or 2x DRAM multiplier, in this case 16x) which results in an Uncore speed of 2132MHz. When you take the ratio of Uncore to QPI you will get 2132:2400 or approximately 8:9.

I can run my Uncore higher than QPI and I am not seeing any problems. How come?

This is possible. In my testing this proved to be less stable than keeping Uncore speed below that of QPI. However, more importantly I found that running Uncore and QPI in a ratio more than 8:9 and approaching 1:1 made the system quite unstable, especially with added stress when overclocking. Furthermore, it is quite likely that running QPI lower than Uncore results in some performance degradation (I did not test this however). Finally, it is important to note that this flexibility is in a large part not there on the non EE parts as you do not have control over core multipliers to the extent where you could be running Uncore very high and QPI link very low as was shown in this example:

*HOT* | Corsair DOMINATOR GT | 6GB (3x2GB) | DDR3-2000 7-8-7-20 @ 1.65V | *HOT* - XtremeSystems Forums

As a general rule of thumb I did not want to test combinations that fall way outside Intel's specifications, that require voltages approaching critical values according to Intel datasheets, etc. Most users are looking to overclock but still run a long term stable system and not just get the highest benchmark score. Naturally, a lot of instability issues can be resolved by sufficiently increasing voltages to the components experiencing problems but this is very risky and not sustainable for long term use. To be safe I would strongly advise staying within the limits specified by Intel (can be seen here http:// XtremeSystems Forums - Powered by vBulletin /forums/showpost.php?p=3435336&postcount=13) and recommend staying at least a good percentage below the absolute maximums.

Now that we know this relationship, let's dive right into some of the most common issues with Core i7 processors.

1. Why is it that I cannot run my 2000MHz memory in my new Core i7 system?

To understand this note the maximum QPI link speed we mentioned earlier. Using the simple ratio we defined, we can see that with the maximum QPI link speed of 4.0GHz we can have a theoretical maximum Uncore of 4.0GHz and a maximum memory speed of 2.0GHz. These however are only theoretical maximums and are by no means guaranteed. For starters, QPI and Uncore cannot be run at the same speed as any clock oscillations can result in a crash if the ratio of QPI to Uncore ever falls below 1:1. Therefore, Uncore must always be below QPI to avoid this, and preferably below the 8:9 Uncore to QPI ratio to guarantee stability. Consequently, if we cannot achieve 4.0GHz Uncore, this means that we absolutely cannot achieve 2.0GHz memory and we can therefore not guarantee any stability for 2.0GHz memory. Technically, the maximum DRAM speed for a stable system is equal to ((Max. Uncore) / (Safe QPI:Uncore Ratio)) / 2 or (4.0GHz / 9:8) / 2 = 1.777GHz. In between 1.777GHz DRAM and 2.0GHz DRAM you are likely to experience some level of instability over the long term. Past 2.0GHz you are just plain lucky.

2. Why is it that almost none of the X58 boards can reliably clock the BCLK over 222MHz?

The answer to this again lies in the QPI link speed. At default (and lowest possible multiplier) for QPI of 18x the QPI link speed becomes 18x222MHz or 3.996GHz (4.0GHz). As we have already stated earlier this is dangerously close to the maximum QPI link speed and is therefore very unreliable. Anything higher than 222MHz and you have exceeded the current QPI maximum so in 99% of cases you will experience no POST. For this matter, a simple guideline is that any BCLK combined with a QPI multiplier that is at or very near maximum 4.0GHz QPI link speed is a candidate for no POST or instability.

3. What the heck is the deal with the 20x multiplier then?

This one is a real kicker (in a funny way). Yes, 20x multiplier is special, in more than one way, but mostly in the way people are trying to use it. You see, there is nothing wrong with the 20x multiplier. Indeed, it works, just like all other multipliers, perfectly fine. It is the DRAM multiplier and BCLK that people are combining with it that causes problems when combined with the QPI multiplier and the Uncore speed. At 20x200MHz, our default memory multiplier is 8 and our memory is at 1600MHz. The Uncore speed becomes 16x200MHz or 3.2GHz (or 2xDRAM at minimum). Therefore, remembering our (safe) ratios of 8:9 Uncore to QPI we see that the QPI link speed must be a minimum of 3.6GHz or higher. In case of 20x200MHz the Uncore and QPI are exactly in this ratio and with the added stress on the core, cache, IMC, DRAM, etc. this becomes a problem. At this point clock oscillations become much more prominent and if the QPI link speed falls below the 9:8 ratio to Uncore at any point in time combined with the added stress on the components the system can and likely will become unstable. Hence, at 20x200MHz with a default memory, Uncore and QPI multipliers we cannot really have a 100% stable system. So you say "just up the QPI link speed then". Not so fast. Remember our multipliers for QPI? They start at 18x, and the next is 22x, and so on. Unfortunately, 22x200MHz results in QPI link speed of 4.4GHz which results in no POST. Therefore, this cannot be done. Indeed, the highest reliable BCLK for default multipliers when using 20x core multiplier is 181MHz which with a 22x QPI multiplier would result in 3.982GHz QPI link. Even if you could set QPI multiplier to 20x, this would still not work for 99% of the boards out there as your QPI link would still be 4.0GHz. So what is the solution you ask? Memory multiplier. It needs to be lower. 1600MHz DRAM is approaching the maximum stress point for 20x200MHz core settings as it pushes on the limits of Uncore and QPI too much. By using a lower memory multiplier (say 6x if possible) the DRAM speed would become 6x200MHz or 1200MHz, Uncore could then be set at 2.4GHz with a lower multiplier which would then allow the QPI link to stay at 18x and well below the QPI link limits but still in a stable ratio to the Uncore.

So there you go. A couple of answers to some of the most painful Core i7 questions. Unfortunately, if you can read between the lines, this does not bode well for anyone owning a Core i7 940 or a 965 EE. For all intents and purposes Core i7 920 performance and Core i7 940 performance are identical. Core i7 965 EE has more flexibility but only because of its unlocked multiplier which allows it to use lower BCLK speeds and DRAM multipliers to achieve higher clocks. Otherwise, it is no different than a Core i7 920 or a Core i7 940. Like I said before, this may also be a chipset imposed limitation, and the processors themselves may be a lot better but at the moment, the state of the affairs is like this.

I have put a lot of thought and work into this so please if you want to comment do it constructively. I welcome any feedback and I hope that this will help a lot of people. It has helped me now to have a rock solid 4-core/8-thread, full 64-bit instruction set 4GHz air-only overclock on the Core i7 940 combined with a nice 1800MHz on my Corsair Dominator triple-channel sticks while keeping all of the voltages within Intel's recommended settings (i.e., DRAM is below 1.65V, QPI/DRAM is below 1.4V, and Vcore is below 1.39V under 100% load).
__________________
[SIZE=3]
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Video Series - Product Spotlight on ASUS Rampage II Extreme X58 motherboard Linus CPU's and Motherboards 5 December 2, 2008 11:28 PM
Pre-Review OC Report :: ASUS Rampage Extreme SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 104 September 29, 2008 08:18 PM
First Look: ASUS Rampage Extreme Motherboard MAC Press Releases & Tech News 11 July 12, 2008 10:30 AM