So I used the E flip-chip for stability testing while overclocking the bus frequency. Virtually identical results were also obtained after running other programs e. The next step was to try MHz on the front side bus. Unfortunately, at the time of this review, we only had 1 Celeron-2 chip available for testing, so I’m not sure if these results are typical. Unfortunately, even with a core voltage of 1.
|Date Added:||1 March 2009|
|File Size:||39.24 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
With a little more work, Asus could make it a great board.
ASUS CUV4X-E – motherboard – ATX – Socket – ProA Overview – CNET
The Y axis is exaggerated to soujd my point. If you need an external COM 2, then you will need to install a back panel plate with a ribbon cable connection to the motherboard.
I even tried a different power supply, also without effect on the variability. But after repeating the test a few times I noticed fairly wide variations in the results. A typical score after a clean reboot was Norton units. At a bus frequency of 85MHz, the system speed rating was MHz.
ASUS CUV4X-M – motherboard – micro ATX – Socket 370 – Pro133A
I observed no glitches, and the system ran everything without hanging, or dropping to the desktop. The next thing I wanted to test was overclock stability, for which I used the newest version of 3D Mark version 1.
All overclock testing was done with a core voltage setting of 1. The system benchmarks did not increase when going from MHz to MHz on the bus frequency, probably because the memory speed had to be sund. That means when you turn the system on in the morning, it will be almost 20 seconds before you can tell that it has responded!
By simply repeating the Norton benchmark over and over, I got wide variations from one test to another. But I did not see any drop in performance, or variability xsus results, sounv running 3D Mark on that machine. With the Celeron-2, the benchmark numbers were very stable, and almost no variation was seen. The most overclockable Ccuv4x IIIs are the E and E models, which often will run at MHz on the front side bus, if the motherboard and memory can handle it too.
The slow boot times and inconsistent performance results suggest to me that they need to work on the board design some more. It took 57 seconds for a complete warm reboot, and 67 seconds for a complete cold boot. The list below shows the results.
These are very significant performance variations that I could not account for. The chart below shows some of the kinds of variability I observed. All-in-all, the CUV4X is a very nice board. As I’ve said in previous reviews, I’d rather not cub4x an sohnd modem riser, or on-board audio. The system would not boot on the CUV4X. System performance was substantially lower than with a comparably clocked Pentium III system, but as I mentioned earlier, the performance variability seen with the Pentium III was not seen with the Celeron The Y axis is exaggerated in the chart below, to highlight what variability there was.
CUV4X | ASUS Global
You will also notice the dip in the dark blue line at the 4th test above. Finally, I put a new Celeron flip-chip in the system, and tested for variation in the Norton benchmark. The Athlon system running on a VIA chipset motherboard showed very little variability. When you are trying to find the correct settings for overclocking, the added boot time is very unwelcome.
The variability was still quite noticeable, as shown in the chart below. The chart below shows the Norton Benchmark variability at this speed.
The results were quite puzzling. Pentium III overclock stability seemed better than Celeron-2 overclockability, but we did not have extra Celeron-2s around to test, so we can’t say for sure. Unfortunately, at the time of this review, we only had 1 Celeron-2 chip available for testing, so I’m not sure if these results are typical. At this setting, the system was running at MHz, with a memory speed of MHz.
The system ran 3D Mark without a hitch.