Testing out the GeForce 8200 chipset...(ASUS M3N78-EMH HDMI)

All about them.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
Mikael
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Testing out the GeForce 8200 chipset...(ASUS M3N78-EMH HDMI)

Post by Mikael » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:47 am

Okay, as I said a few days ago, I have bought an ASUS M3N78-EMH HDMI which is equipped with the massively delayed GeForce 8200 chipset. I don't know what promted ASUS to release their boards ahead of most others, but they've been available for some time and I decided to have a go at it.

I will not test HD playback capabilites and I will not go over the board's features. HD playback has been tested by Anandtech and the features are available on ASUS' site. What I will do is measure the power consumption of the system, compare it to the Gigabyte GA-G33M-S2H (Intel G33) and also provide 3DMark06 scores for both setups. Let's roll...

Setups

Both setups are identical, except for the motherboards and CPUs.

AMD

Corsair HX520W
ASUS M3N78-EMH HDMI (beta BIOS 222)
Athlon64 X2 4400+ Brisbane rev G2 (default VID 1.300V)
2GB DDR2-800 5-5-5-15-2T
Samsung SpinPoint HD321KJ 320GB
Netgear WG311v3 WLAN PCI card
Scythe S-Flex 120mm 1200RPM

Intel

Corsair HX520W
Gigabyte GA-G33M-S2H (BIOS F3)
Pentium Dual Core E2160
2GB DDR2-800 5-5-5-15-2T
Samsung SpinPoint HD321KJ 320GB
Netgear WG311v3 WLAN PCI card
Scythe S-Flex 120mm 1200RPM

NOTE: SpeedStep and C'n'Q disabled for all tests.


Power consumption tests

The best result in each test will be marked green.

Both setups stock

AMD: 2.3GHz (11.5*200) (1.312V idle, 1.344V load)
Intel: 1.8GHz (9*200) (1.280V idle, 1.264V load)

Idle:

AMD: 67W
Intel: 61W

Load (Orthos):

AMD: 109W
Intel: 91W

Load (3DMark06):

AMD: 107W
Intel: 83W

Load (3DMark06+Orthos):

AMD: 115W
Intel: 93W


Both setups on stock clocks and max undervolt

AMD: 2.3GHz (11.5*200) (0.992V idle, 1.008V load)
Intel: 1.8GHz (9*200) (1.072V idle, 1.056V load)

Idle:

AMD: 56W
Intel: 59W

Load (Orthos):

AMD: 79W
Intel: 79W

Load (3DMark06):

AMD: 79W
Intel: 77W

Load (3DMark06+Orthos):

AMD: 83W
Intel: 83W


Both setups overclocked to ~2.7GHz

AMD: 2.66GHz (11.5*230) (1.10V idle, 1.10V load)
Intel: 2.7GHz (9*300) (1.312V idle, 1.280V load)

Idle:

AMD: 60W
Intel: 67W

Load (Orthos):

AMD: 92W
Intel: 109W

Load (3DMark06):

AMD: 88W
Intel: 99W

Load (3DMark06+Orthos):

AMD: 99W
Intel: 109W


Minimum power settings

Note: The Intel couldn't run on lower voltage, but the AMD possibly could. The CPU voltage used for the 4400+ was the lowest available in Crystal CPUID.

AMD: 1.0GHz (5*200), DDR2-400, (0.816V idle, 0.832V load)
Intel: 1.2GHz (6*200) (0.960V idle, 0.960V load)

Idle:

AMD: 52W
Intel: 55W

Load (Orthos):

AMD: 60W
Intel: 69W


Power consumption tests conclusions

Intel wins easily at stock settings, it's a tie with stock clocks and undervolting and AMD wins easily at the overclocked settings. Now, the overclocked results aren't entirely fair, since the Intel CPU is considerably faster, but they're still interesting. It's also interesting to see how much the power consumption of the AMD system is affected by the undervolt. This 4400+ seems to be an unusually good undervolter, though.

Although hard to tell from these figures, the GeForce 8200 chipset doesn't seem all that power hungry under graphics load. The full load figures with the undervolted (stock clock) setup are pretty impressive, I think. It should also be mentioned that the heatsink gets hot, but not extremely so. At the end of the 3DMark test, I could still keep my fingers on the heatsink indefinitely, although it was a bit uncomfortable. The test system was not assembled in a case, though, so actual temps in a closed system may be a bit different.


Performance in 3DMark06

Please note that the Intel G33 doesn't support Shader Model 3.0, so the final 3DMark score isn't directly comparable to the GeForce 8200.

Both setups stock

AMD : 2.3GHz (11.5*200) (1.312V idle, 1.344V load)
Intel: 1.8GHz (9*200) (1.280V idle, 1.264V load)

AMD:

3DMarks: 840
3DMark06 SM2.0: 294
3DMark06 SM3.0: 294
3DMark06 CPU: 1761

Intel:

3DMarks: 304
3DMark06 SM2.0: 140
3DMark06 SM3.0: N/A
3DMark06 CPU: 1507


Both setups overclocked to ~2.7GHz

AMD : 2.66GHz (11.5*230) (1.10V idle, 1.10V load)
Intel: 2.7GHz (9*300) (1.312V idle, 1.280V load)

AMD:

3DMarks: 972
3DMark06 SM2.0: 339
3DMark06 SM3.0: 342
3DMark06 CPU: 2030

Intel:

3DMarks: 400
3DMark06 SM2.0: 183
3DMark06 SM3.0: N/A
3DMark06 CPU: 2249


Final conclusions

Neither drivers nor BIOS are finalized for the GeForce 8200 yet, so performance may change down the line. All-in-all it looks good and the board works quite well. The BIOS is lacking a little at the moment, having some quite cryptic features and no CPU vcore setting. The voltage can however be changed using Crystal CPUID, which is what I used during my tests.

Finally, I should mention that my board exhibits a slight buzzing during certain CPU loads. This buzzing seems to increase in volume as CPU power consumption increases. Due to this, I will ask for a replacement or possibly a refund. We'll see how things work out.

I hope you enjoyed this little sneak peek of the GeForce 8200. :)
Last edited by Mikael on Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:16 am, edited 5 times in total.

Palindroman
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:00 am

Post by Palindroman » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:09 am

Fantastic, Mikael! 8)

Questions:
-What OS did you use?
-How about Speedstep and Cool 'n quiet?
-How do the CPUs compare (you say overclocked E2160 is faster, what about stock speed)?
-What was AMD power consumption when undervolted and underclocked all the way?

Mikael
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Mikael » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:33 am

Palindroman wrote:Fantastic, Mikael! 8)
Thanks!
Palindroman wrote:-What OS did you use?
WinXP SP2
Palindroman wrote:-How about Speedstep and Cool 'n quiet?
Both disabled. Should have mentioned that.
Palindroman wrote:-How do the CPUs compare (you say overclocked E2160 is faster, what about stock speed)?
The 4400+ is faster at stock, which actually means the undervolted stock AMD setup has the best performance/watt. Generally speaking, the E2160 is 15% faster than the Athlon64 X2 at the same frequency.
Palindroman wrote:-What was AMD power consumption when undervolted and underclocked all the way?
I'll get back to you on that one.

Mikael
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Mikael » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:08 am

Palindroman wrote:-What was AMD power consumption when undervolted and underclocked all the way?
Figures are now added to the original post.

Maverickâ„¢
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:38 am
Location: Italy

Post by Maverickâ„¢ » Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:08 am

Great job, i whish so much to know the power consumption difference between the 8200 and the 780g, and also in comparison with previous chip 7050 and 690g

if someone could... :roll:

Mikael
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Mikael » Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:18 am

Maverickâ„¢ wrote:Great job, i whish so much to know the power consumption difference between the 8200 and the 780g, and also in comparison with previous chip 7050 and 690g

if someone could... :roll:
Yeah, I'd like to know too. From what I've seen, it seems as if the GF8200 is close to the 780G and maybe slightly more efficient. We'll hopefully know once Anandtech posts their µATX roundup (which should be pretty soon).

loimlo
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Formosa

Post by loimlo » Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:10 am

Excuse me, would you mind sharing fan controlling with us? It's also an important role in silent computer. I hope it's a typical ASUS mid-range board which has 2 controllable fans with three silent/performance/optimal settings. By the way, did M3N78-EMH HDMI support 3pin fan or it was limited to 4pin fan? As for Anandtech, the long overdue 690G/GF7050 round-up was really let me down. I'll just wait and see this time.

Sorry to disturb you so eagerly.

Mikael
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Mikael » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:02 pm

I returned the board today for a refund, so I can't answer your questions, sorry. The board has a 4-pin connector for the CPU fan, but I don't know how the fan control function is affected by the use of a 3-pin vs a 4-pin fan.

I probably should have tested the fan control function, but since I never use such functions it slipped my mind. I thought about getting the board replaced for one that hopefully wouldn't buzz, but I decided to wait for the more feature packed Gigabyte boards.

loimlo
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Formosa

Post by loimlo » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:17 am

Thanks, you are welcome. :D
I hope more and more 780G & GF8200 boards will come in the near future. Gigabyte dominated the market right now, and its boring to see only one competitor on the shelves.

oberbimbo
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:18 am

Post by oberbimbo » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:52 pm

Fan control works pretty well, on lowest settings my Freezer 64 Pro runs at 1000RPM on idle, 1300 under load and 1500 with CPUburn (cooling a BE 2400).

It does run fans with 3 pin just fine, can't remember whether fan control worked (I believe it did) with those though. I just hooked the two case fans to 5V and left it at that.

All in all the board is decent but the BIOS is really sparse. No undervolting, no nothing.

And it won't boot with my Seasonic S12 II 330.

Using the Etasis EFN300, 1GB RAM and a 1GB Kingston stick, it draws about 35W AC (230V) in idle and 93W under cpuburn. That is in Ubuntu 8.04, using cool and quiet.

smilingcrow
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
Location: At Home

Post by smilingcrow » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:28 am

Interesting review. 8)
Why did you choose to test with Speedstep & CnQ disabled? It seems an odd choice for a test looking at power consumption.

Mikael
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Mikael » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:05 pm

smilingcrow wrote:Interesting review. 8)
Why did you choose to test with Speedstep & CnQ disabled? It seems an odd choice for a test looking at power consumption.
Personal interest/habit, really. I always have them disabled, for the simple reason that they make so little difference compared to having the system run unervolted at stock clocks. For example, there's a 4W difference in idle power consumption between the 4400+ @ 2.3GHz and 1.0GHz.

I guess I should have included it for completeness, but with four tested setups you hopefully get a pretty clear picture of it anyway.

smilingcrow
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
Location: At Home

Post by smilingcrow » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:22 pm

Mikael wrote:Personal interest/habit, really. I always have them disabled, for the simple reason that they make so little difference compared to having the system run unervolted at stock clocks.
I tend to see the baseline as being with Speedstep/CnQ enabled, the next level is with software undervolting and the final level is with BIOS under-volting.
That wouldn’t add another stage to your testing either but bring it more into line with real world scenarios as commercial systems tend to ship with Speedstep/CnQ enabled.

Mikael
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Mikael » Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:19 am

smilingcrow wrote:I tend to see the baseline as being with Speedstep/CnQ enabled, the next level is with software undervolting and the final level is with BIOS under-volting.
That wouldn’t add another stage to your testing either but bring it more into line with real world scenarios as commercial systems tend to ship with Speedstep/CnQ enabled.
Maybe so, but I just didn't think of it at all. If it had entered my mind I probably would have tried it.

Anyway, with the already tight idle ranges, it's easy to see where the numbers would be for Cool'n'Quiet/SpeedStep. Not very scientific, but it works:

AMD: 56-58W
Intel: 57-59W

I'll try to include the numbers next time.

oberbimbo
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:18 am

Post by oberbimbo » Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:37 am

I tend to see the baseline as being with Speedstep/CnQ enabled, the next level is with software undervolting and the final level is with BIOS under-volting.
Well there are no adjustments for undervolting I can find in the BIOS of this board. Asus has really skimped on BIOS features. As for software undervolting, I can't seem to find the patches against Linux enabling it to undervolt AMD K8 :(

Interestingly, I probably do not really need it with the BE 2400 when considering that I idle at 35W vs Mikael's 56W... And I presume his PSU is actually more efficient than mine.

Mikael
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Mikael » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:34 am

oberbimbo wrote:Interestingly, I probably do not really need it with the BE 2400 when considering that I idle at 35W vs Mikael's 56W... And I presume his PSU is actually more efficient than mine.
It's probably a combination of a RAM stick less, no WLAN card and more efficient PSU (yes, your PSU is actually more efficient at low loads). I don't think the CPU is the main source of the difference. At 1.0GHz and 0.8V, neither of these CPUs should pull more than 5W.

oberbimbo
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:18 am

Post by oberbimbo » Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:42 am

Maybe lm-sensors is wrong, but mine idles on 1.1V I believe.

What I really don't like is the fact that my PSU draws 20W in soft off :( So I'm not so sure about its efficiency at very low loads, really.

badkarma
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post by badkarma » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:09 pm

You been able to get HD hardware acceleration working well? How about heat? I heard the 8300 was being delayed due to heat. Curious if the 8200 suffers heat problems but at a lesser degree. How about multichannel LPCM via HDMI? Have you been able to test that?

Also what Bios version are you running?

oberbimbo
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:18 am

Post by oberbimbo » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:49 am

Sorry, no idea about HD acceleration (not supported under Linux) and LPCM I can't test because of lack of support for it in my receiver :(

badkarma
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post by badkarma » Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:06 am

oberbimbo wrote:Sorry, no idea about HD acceleration (not supported under Linux) and LPCM I can't test because of lack of support for it in my receiver :(
Do you have a blu-ray or hd-dvd drive? Curious if your cpu/mobo combo can handle full bitrate bluray/hddvd rips in linux via eac3to.

oberbimbo
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:18 am

Post by oberbimbo » Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:45 am

Some guy in a German forum had it running HD DVD on a X2 4400+ (Windows) without problems. Not sure what audio codec he was using, though.

There's NO way you can do full bitrate 1080p in software on Linux right now. Not even on a 3.0 GHz Wolfdale, for all I'm told. I can barely do low bitrate 1080p and even then, pans are stuttering.

badkarma
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post by badkarma » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:50 pm

oberbimbo,

Do you mind doing me a favour if you have some time? I'm looking for the PCI:ID for the onboard ethernet on that mobo. Can you run lspci and find the ethernet card. Then lspci -n -s <###> where ### is the first few digital from the beginning of the line like 00:0a.0 or something. Trying to see if I can modify the bios and integrate gPXE into the mobo.

Thanks!

badkarma
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post by badkarma » Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:36 pm

oberbimbo wrote: Well there are no adjustments for undervolting I can find in the BIOS of this board. Asus has really skimped on BIOS features. As for software undervolting, I can't seem to find the patches against Linux enabling it to undervolt AMD K8 :(
There's a new bios dated April 10th version 0404 you may want to try.

smilingcrow
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
Location: At Home

Post by smilingcrow » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:00 pm

There’s a review of power consumption for the 780G, GF8200 and G35 chipsets at idle and whilst playing HD video formats at Anandtech.

ldoodle
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 4:32 am

Post by ldoodle » Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:21 am

Am I missing something?

The article is about the NVIDIA 8200 chipset, but the link to HD capabilities points to a review of the AMD 780G chipset?

badkarma
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post by badkarma » Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:59 am

ldoodle wrote:Am I missing something?

The article is about the NVIDIA 8200 chipset, but the link to HD capabilities points to a review of the AMD 780G chipset?
Actually, no the article is a review of the AMD 780G chipset, but has comparisons to the 8200.

badkarma
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post by badkarma » Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:32 am

badkarma wrote:oberbimbo,

Do you mind doing me a favour if you have some time? I'm looking for the PCI:ID for the onboard ethernet on that mobo. Can you run lspci and find the ethernet card. Then lspci -n -s <###> where ### is the first few digital from the beginning of the line like 00:0a.0 or something. Trying to see if I can modify the bios and integrate gPXE into the mobo.

Thanks!
oberbimbo,

What distro are you running? I tried my backtrack CD and the ubuntu 8.04 cd installer and both won't boot my Giga-byte Nvidia 8200 mobo properly. Trying to find the PCI:ID for the onboard ethernet.

Post Reply