ABS Ultimate X9: Core 2 Extreme Hits a Speed Bump
by Jarred Walton on August 18, 2006 1:35 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Benchmarks Setup
Anyone serious about spending over four grand on a computer for gaming probably isn't planning to run games at low resolutions. We tested the ABS system in both stock and 20% overclocked modes, with and without audio. We feel a lot of people buying a high-end system will have high-end monitors as well, so we paired up the ABS Ultimate X9 with a Dell 2405FPW and tested at 1280x1024, 1600x1200, and 1920x1200, with 4xAA/8xAF enabled at all resolutions.
We will provide comparative results at 1600x1200 from our recent motherboard reviews. Note that the motherboard reviews used an E6700 CPU, so we expect the ABS system to be faster in all cases where we are not GPU limited, and substantially faster when overclocked. They are provided more as a baseline measurement, as we do not have an extensive backlog of X6800 results. In order to provide an apples-to-apples look at performance, we also underclocked the X6800 to 2.66 GHz and ran our test suite.
Note that the test configurations are not identical, as we are comparing a system vendor configuration against our standard motherboard testbed. We used the BIOS settings that ABS selected, which included 5-5-5-15 memory timings at DDR2-960.
We have several other Core 2 Duo/Extreme system reviews coming in the near future, and they will show other performance vs. price options. A system similar to the ABS with an E6600 and a single GPU will be slower, but it will also cost quite a bit less. The ABS is really at the top of the performance pyramid, and the only way to substantially improve gaming performance beyond what it offers will be to overclock your GPUs or wait for faster GPUs to become available.
Anyone serious about spending over four grand on a computer for gaming probably isn't planning to run games at low resolutions. We tested the ABS system in both stock and 20% overclocked modes, with and without audio. We feel a lot of people buying a high-end system will have high-end monitors as well, so we paired up the ABS Ultimate X9 with a Dell 2405FPW and tested at 1280x1024, 1600x1200, and 1920x1200, with 4xAA/8xAF enabled at all resolutions.
We will provide comparative results at 1600x1200 from our recent motherboard reviews. Note that the motherboard reviews used an E6700 CPU, so we expect the ABS system to be faster in all cases where we are not GPU limited, and substantially faster when overclocked. They are provided more as a baseline measurement, as we do not have an extensive backlog of X6800 results. In order to provide an apples-to-apples look at performance, we also underclocked the X6800 to 2.66 GHz and ran our test suite.
Note that the test configurations are not identical, as we are comparing a system vendor configuration against our standard motherboard testbed. We used the BIOS settings that ABS selected, which included 5-5-5-15 memory timings at DDR2-960.
| Motherboard Test Configurations | |
| Processor | Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (X2, 2.67GHz, 4MB Unified Cache) |
| RAM | 2 x 1GB Corsair Twin2X2048-8500C5 Tested at DDR2-800 3-3-3 2.2V |
| Hard Drive(s) | Hitachi 250GB SATA2 enabled (16MB Buffer) |
| System Platform Drivers | Intel - 8.0.1.1002 NVIDIA - 6.86 |
| Video Cards: | 2 x EVGA 7900GTX - SLI on NVIDIA 2 x ATI X1900XT (Master+Standard) - CF on Intel |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA 91.31 ATI Catalyst 6.6 |
| CPU Cooling: | Tuniq Tower 120 |
| Power Supply: | OCZ GameXstream 700W |
| Motherboards: | ASUS P5W-DH Deluxe (Intel 975X) Intel 975XBX (Intel 975X) ASUS P5N32-SLI (nF4 SLIX16 Intel) DFI Infinity 975X/G (Intel 975X) |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| ABS Ultimage X9 Configurations | |
| Processor | Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz 4MB Cache 1.300V) 20% Overclock (3.52 GHz 4MB Cache 1.475V) "E6700" Underclock (2.67 GHz 4MB Cache 1.300V) |
| RAM | 2 x 1GB Corsair CM2X1024-6400C4 DDR2-960 5-5-5-15 2.2V for Overclock DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 2.0V Stock/Underclock |
| Hard Drive(s) | 2 x 150GB Raptor in RAID 0 (16MB Buffer) |
| System Platform Drivers | Intel - 8.0.1.1002 |
| Video Cards: | 2 x ATI X1900XT (Master+Standard) CrossFire on Intel 975X |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 6.7 |
| CPU Cooling: | Gigabyte GH-WIU01 Liquid Cooling |
| Power Supply: | Enermax Libery 620W |
| Motherboard: | Intel 975XBX (Intel 975X) |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
We have several other Core 2 Duo/Extreme system reviews coming in the near future, and they will show other performance vs. price options. A system similar to the ABS with an E6600 and a single GPU will be slower, but it will also cost quite a bit less. The ABS is really at the top of the performance pyramid, and the only way to substantially improve gaming performance beyond what it offers will be to overclock your GPUs or wait for faster GPUs to become available.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
Future1investor - Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - link
I bought this unit in Oct 2006 except instead of the ATI video it has the GF7950GX2-1GB NVIDIA card. I also have a Depot or Onsite 3yr Warranty, which is the issue here.After the liquid cooling pump went out and I started experiencing various problems likely to be related, ABS would not give me onsite service. Instead they wanted me to remove the Liquid Cooling unit, and ship me an air-cooled replacement. After much pain in communications, they then expected me to send it back and then ship me another liquid cooler. But I said with the other problems the whole system needs to be diagnosed properly on the bench.
I shipped the whole computer back at my expense of $87 through UPS. When they received it they again balked saying that they "don't do that" which I interpreted as bench diagnostics. This was confusing because under warranty, the risk of the average user damaging something can be rather high if they are asked to do their own diagnostics and replacements (even given phone assistance). But what of the 3Yr Onsite warranty?
Anyway, long story short; they agreed to bench test and fix what was needed. They told me after a week that they had replaced the liquid cooling unit and the graphic card. I also had a problem with the OS recognizing an additional 4GB Ram same timing, same brand. They said that they'd test for that too but I havn't heard the results. They have closed the RMA and I assume the computer is on route back across the country to me.
Communication has been poor. I don't know if my additional 4GB Ram will be utilized. They changed the Onsite warranty to Depot only. I had to pay for packaging and shipping back to their dock at $87. A few months ago, a phone call to support, to talk about the Ram was met with odd laughter. The person on the phone said it was to be expected for buying that operating system (Windows XP Professional) the only thing available at time of purchase.
This was my second computer purchase from ABS. The first with a 3Yr Onsite Warranty. The tech support is sketchy. They will only call you back from an unidentifiable phone number. They want you to pay for shipping along with any replacement parts, saying that they'll reimburse you once they receive the defective pieces. They want you to do your own repairs. And only if you push the issue to the wall will they attempt normal customer satisfaction (though I paid for it with additional costs to me).
Perhaps ABS' business is not as good as it used to be, and perhaps they are cutting corners and cutting up warranties at the expense of future business.
Considering ABS for a future purchase looks doubtful. Like customer service from Dell. It is a customer nightmare scenario. Though Dell is much much worse! I will be focusing more attention on the warranty service given though Digital Storm. They have one of the absolute highest customer service ratings of any boutique computer retailer. Though I will still monitor the rating in this area for ABS, as perhaps things will improve greatly?
appu - Saturday, August 26, 2006 - link
Just came across this yesterday - http://www.velocitymicro.com/">http://www.velocitymicro.com/How about test-driving one of their systems (although I think we can hazard guesses at the results for the most part)?
These guys also seem like a really nice alternative to building your own box if you don't like generic OEM stuff and don't have the time to put one together yourself. I was definitely impressed with the 15-20 mins I spent on the site looking at various options.
Justin Case - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
One month ago all articles around here were saying what a brilliant combination Core + Crossfire was. Now AMD buys ATI, and all of a sudden the conclusion changes to "Crossfire is immature". Interesting...yyrkoon - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
"The second item worth nothing is that the NVIDIA SLI solution outperforms all of the X1900 CrossFire configurations, including the 20% overclocked ABS, even when using a slower CPU. Other games might perform better on CrossFire, but there certainly appears to be plenty of room for improvement in the ATI drivers, particularly when it comes to Core 2 optimizations."Saying that ATI needs to iron out thier drivers for core 2 duo is hardly concluding thats 'Crossfire is immature'. Of course, I can pretty much twist something someone says in any dirreciton I want to also. However, I think taken in with the rest of the context, they are trying to say something along the lines that performance wise right_now, Crossfire boards seem to underperform the nVidia varients, but this doesnt mean its going to hold true in the future.
JarredWalton - Sunday, August 20, 2006 - link
On AM2/939, CrossFire often beats out 7900GTX SLI. On Core 2 *right now* it doesn't, at least in the tests I looked at. (I don't have a full SLI 775 Core 2 setup right now, unfortunately.) I've *always* felt CF left a bit to be desired, and I'd say the same thing about .NET and CCC. For whatever reason, some of the issues with CF were magnified on this ABS system. Seriously, THIRTY SECONDS after XP shows the desktop before CCC is finished loading. That's terrible. It's also about 3X as long as a 939 ASUS A8R32-MVP for the same thing, which is why I conclude that CF on C2E has some issues. Of course, the 6.8 drivers may have just addressed a bunch of my concerns - I have to retest that before sending the system back.yyrkoon - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
I will agree with you that 1 minute OS load times is terrible, hell even my budget Asrock AM2NF4G-SATA2 / 3800+ system boots XP in 18 seconds, and thats from IDE. Not that its cutting edge technology either . . .JarredWalton - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
It's about 18 seconds to load the OS, but it's 33 seconds of POST codes and 35 seconds of ATI/.NET after XP is basically loaded. With RAID 0 Raptors no less. And people wonder why we at AnandTech often say NVIDIA seems to have more robust solutions....yyrkoon - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
Well, when I said 18 seconds, its 18 seconds to boot to desktop, and about 1-2 seconds more and its ready to use, however, I just installed the 2.0 framework for microsoft web dev express, and havent rebooted yet. so perhaps it'll take a little longer now. I still dont have 1.1 installed, but on this machine (my gaming rig) I dont plan on installing it, thats what my dev box is for :)JarredWalton - Monday, August 21, 2006 - link
.NET should only affect load times when it is used - i.e. by the ATI CCC drivers. I don't think just installing it really impacts performance. I have it installed on most of my PCs - both 1.1 and 2.0 - and have never noticed any delays on booting, except when using an ATI card.KrazyDawg - Monday, September 4, 2006 - link
I never really noticed that the ATI drivers utilizing .NET was the cause of a longer boot time. In the past, I used omega drivers for my Radeon 9800 Pro but stopped using them when the latest release failed to install properly. I haven't tried other drivers since but a driver review would be interesting and beneficial to many.