Performance

There's a detailed AMD 890GX performance examination and comparison in our MSI 890GXM-G65 review. Testbed configuration and test method are described below.

Testbeds:

• CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 810
• RAM: 2 x 2GB Apacer DDR3-1333 CL9 9-9-9-24-1T for Socket AM3 boards; 2 x 2GB GoodRAM PRO DDR2-1066 CL5 5-5-5-15-2T for Socket AM2+ boards
• HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (SATA, 7200rpm)
• Graphics card: ATI RADEON HD4850, 512 MB GDDR3
• PSU: AcBel ATX-550CA-AB8FB
• OS: Windows Vista SP1 64-bit, Catalyst 9.2, latest chipset drivers

Benchmarks:

• 7-Zip 4.65 x64
• WinRAR 3.80
• XviD 1.2.1
• x264 r1129 x64
• FarCry 2 (Ranch Medium)
• Crysis (DX10, HOCbenchmark, VGA test, built-in demo)
• Devil May Cry 4 (built-in benchmark)
• World in Conlict (built-in benchmark)

To assess performance we measure time required to archive a 297MB set of 277 files of various types and convert a 636MB MPEG2 video using XviD and x264. We also measure frames per second in game demos. In FarCry 2 we run tests in 4 modes: low, medium, high and very high quality. The first three modes imply the aforesaid quality level, 1280x720 resolution, DX9 rendering, High Performance. The last mode implies: 1680x1050 resolution, Very High setting for both graphics and system, DX10 rendering. In Crysis we also use 4 modes at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 and run tests at Low and High quality in each mode. In Devil May Cry 4 we run two tests: 1280x720 (High DX9) and 1680x1050 (Super High DX10). In World in Conlict we run test in 4 modes: 1280x720 Low, 1280x720 Medium, 1680x1050 High, 1680x1050 Very High.

It's obvious which modes should be used with integrated graphics and which, with discrete graphics. Note that if a motherboard has no integrated graphics, performance tests are only used to check for serious layout or BIOS flaws and can be reduced to minimum. Vice versa, performance tests are indicative for motherboards with integrated graphics. And if a certain motherboard review lacks certain details, we might add respective test results to make up for it.

To assess capabilities of a motherboard and its BIOS, we overclock test CPUs (which ones depends on board's market segment) to a stable maximum with the help of Zalman CNPS9700 AM2 and Cooler Master Hyper Z600 coolers. At that we use all motherboard features, like CPU core voltage adjustments and, if needed, bus multiplier and clock adjustments (Hyper-Transport, CPU NB, etc.) For RAM we select a clock rate typical for this class of modules by adjusting its multiplier, or clock rate needed to maximize CPU core clock rate. The stability of an overclocked machine is assessed in Windows Vista with the help of AMD OverDrive stability test (all tests are run for 5 minutes). Note that since overclocking potential somewhat varies from one board to another, we are not focused on finding board's exact overclocking potential accurate to 1MHz. We just try to find out if a board hampers in CPU overclocking (due to insufficient voltage stabilizer power, etc.) and see how it performs in atypical modes, including automatic BIOS recovery in cases of overclocking issues (not requiring CMOS reset) and such.

Power consumption is assessed in the light-load mode (with text editor running) and in the heavy-load mode (FarCry 2, high quality, 1280x720). Processor's standard power-saving features are enabled. Also if a board has proprietary power-saving features, we examine their efficiency separately.

Since all motherboards have video buffers and those work at standard frequencies by default, performance is almost identical. Formally, ASRock 890GX Extreme3 did a bit worse, but that could only be seen in the most sensitive archivers and video decoding tests.

Performance with a discrete graphics card is similar. ASRock 890GX Extreme3 is formally a bit behind. And something also prevented ECS A890GXM-A from showing the typical result in FarCry 2, although there were no issues in other games. Anyway, due to the similarity of results performance tests have long ceased to be the deciding factor in choosing a motherboard.

Enclosure power consumption

We measured power consumption with the wattmeter built into the PSU.

Foxconn A9DA-S, the simplest in terms of features, showed the best result. ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3 and ECS A890GXM-A followed, but MSI 890GXM-G65 suddenly turned out to be less power-efficient than expected, although mATX boards are usually more economical than full-size solutions. Of course, it's not the form factor that affects power efficiency, it's what motherboard has onboard and what voltage stabilizer there is. By the way, MSI 890GXM-G65 is very similar to full-size counterparts in terms of the latter. Apparently that's why it has a similar appetite for power. Formally, it could've looked better thanks to the dynamic phase control feature, enabling which did affect power consumption. Other motherboards also have it in specifications, ECS A890GXM-A even has LED indication, but none of that provides actual benefits. But it still turns out that the mentioned ECS A890GXM-A is more power-efficient on average.

The situation changes when a discrete graphics card is installed. Though Foxconn A9DA-S remains the leader, it shares the first place with the aforementioned MSI 890GXM-G65. ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3 and ECS A890GXM-A follow.

Overclocking

From overclockerer's point of view, Gigabyte GA-890GPA-UD3H is the best choice. It provided the highest stable clock rate for our test processor, it had everything for comfortable overclocking by means of BIOS. ASRock 890GX Extreme3 also has a very convenient overclocking section in BIOS, but if you overdo it and the machine locks up, you'll have to reset it a few times (better just turn it off and on) to force the automatic recovery of default values. While Gigabyte's automatic recovery is, well, automatic. As a rule, it suggests entering BIOS to adjust values right away.

Speaking of the highest clock rate, motherboards formed three groups, results in each being identical to the megahertz. Note that overclocking our AMD Phenom II X4 810 CPU we set the reference frequency to 285MHz for ASRock 890GX Extreme3 and ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3, to 260MHz for ECS A890GXM-A, Foxconn A9DA-S and MSI 890GXM-G65 (increasing it further resulted in BSOD and prevented Windows 7 x64 from booting up). Anyway, grouping by overclocking abilities is obvious. For example, ECS A890GXM-A and Foxconn A9DA-S just don't seem to be overclocker products. Only the relatively low result of MSI 890GXM-G65 was a surprise, since this model was positioned as an advanced mATX solution, overclocking included.

Conclusions

As you could expect, the evolutional rollout of AMD 890GX caused a matching evolutional rollout of motherboards from all major companies. The collective image of such a board is quite attractive. It's a mid-end feature-rich full-size ATX model with two graphics slots, SATA 6Gbps support and an optional but nevertheless provided USB 3.0 controller. Besides, MSI demonstrated that the same functionality could be compacted into the mATX form factor as well.

Foxconn A9DA-S is the simplest in terms of features, but it's also the most power efficient and affordable. Speaking of features, it's still hard to name a definite leader. It would be justified to give the first place to ASRock 890GX Extreme3 and ECS A890GXM-A. The former can boast of USB 3.0, 2 eSATA ports and FireWire, while the latter offers the most complete set of video interfaces and 2 LAN ports. ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3 has no exotic features, but it still seems to be an average user's choice. Finally, Gigabyte GA-890GPA-UD3H is a better foundation for a powerful gaming rig with a good CPU overclocking potential.

Write a comment below. No registration needed!