What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified LGA1366 Motherboard Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

3oh6

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
1,049
Location
Edmonton, AB
System Benchmarks

System Benchmarks



SuperPi Mod v1.5<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>When running the 32M benchmark of SPi, we are calculating Pi to 32 million digits and timing the process. Obviously more CPU power helps in this intense calculation, but the memory sub-system also plays an important role, as does the operating system. SPi 32M has been a favorite amongst benchmarks for these very reasons and is admittedly the favorite benchmark of this reviewer.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/evga/x58sliclassified/sys_bench-1.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">We were almost expecting a bit more difference in the 32M SuperPi calculation between the two bottom setups. At exactly the same CPU clock, memory frequency, and uncore frequency, the only difference between the two is primary memory timings. Seven seconds in 32M SuperPi at 4.1GHz is rather substantial but something just made us think it would be a wider margin. Perhaps, with a completely tweaked system we would see more than a 1% gain.</p>

PCMark Vantage<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>The latest iteration of the popular system benchmark is PCMark Vantage from the Futuremark crew. The PCMark series has always been a great way to either test specific areas of a system or to get a general over view of how your system is performing. For our results, we simply run the basic benchmark suite which involves a wide range of tests on all of the sub-systems of the computer.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/evga/x58sliclassified/sys_bench-2.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">PCMark Vantage isn't going to show a huge difference between similarly clocked setups, regardless of memory frequency and timings. What this might indicate, however, is that our two overclocked setups are going to be quite similar in results with the real world benchmarks we are about to look at.</p>

Cinebench R10<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Another benchmarking community favorite, Cinebench renders an intense 2D scene relying on all the processing power it can. Cinebench R10 is another 64-bit capable application and is likely the most efficient program tested today at utilizing all cores of a processor. We will be running both the single threaded and multi-threaded benches here today.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/evga/x58sliclassified/sys_bench-3.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Cinebench is the last synthetic benchmark we look at before the real world stuff, and because our two overclocked setups are identical in CPU frequency, the results here are no surprise. Cinebench is pretty much 100% reliant on CPU frequency and very little, if at all, dependent on memory.</p>

DivX Converter v7.1<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Next up is a real life benchmark where we simply time a common task done on the computer. Encoding DVDs for viewing on the computer or other devices is an increasingly important task that the personal computer has taken on. We will take a VOB rip of the movie Office Space, and convert it into DivX using the default 720P setting of DivX converter v6.8.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/evga/x58sliclassified/sys_bench-4.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">We have finally arrived at what we were really interested in with this comparison and the first round appears to show the cheaper, more domestic, memory being the clear winner here. The eight second better average time for encoding the movie isn't going to be determined a win as it is well within the margin of result differences, but the simple fact that the results are even close eliminates memory from being a factor in DivX encoding.</p>

Lame Front End<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Un-like the DivX conversion we just looked at, Lame Front End is not multi-threaded and only utilizes a single core of a processor. This will obviously limit performance but we should still recognize significant time savings going from the stock settings to the overclocked results. We will be encoding a WAV rip of the Blackalicious album, Blazing Arrow and converting it to MP3 using the VBR 0 quality preset.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/evga/x58sliclassified/sys_bench-5.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Round two also goes to not bothering to run high performance memory or adding the extra voltage to get the memory to run at tighter timings. Both setups were virtually identical in the encoding time here during all the runs. When it comes to encoding, CPU is king...period.</p>

Photoshop CS4<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Adobe Photoshop CS4 is fully x64 compliant and ready and able to use every single CPU cycle our processor has available including the implementation of GPU support utilizing the GTX 280 in our test system. It is just a shame it can't fully utilize all 8 threads of the i7 processor yet. We have changed our Photoshop benchmark to more of a standardized test configured by DriverHeaven.net. Their Photoshop benchmark utilizes 15 filters and effects on an uncompressed 109MB .JPG image that will test not only the CPU but also the memory subsystem of our test bench. Each portion of the benchmark is timed and added together for a final time that is compared below.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/evga/x58sliclassified/sys_bench-6.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">With the last two benchmarks showing very little preference to the tighter timings, we thoroughly expected a bit more of a difference but that wasn't the case. It really is looking like the added pressure on the memory to run 6-7-6 instead of 8-8-8 at 900MHz isn't worth it at all.</p>

WinRAR 3.80<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>We all know what WinRAR is and does. It is a compression and decompression tool that has a built in benchmark, a way to tell just how fast a system can do this programs given task. We simply run the benchmark up to 500MB processed and time how long it takes.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/corsair/tr3x6g1866c7gtf/sys_bench-7.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">When WinRAR doesn’t' show a lick of difference, it is all but game over. The encoding didn't really surprise us, the Photoshop results were not mind boggling, but at least a couple seconds difference should have shown up in WinRAR. Of the six runs between the two setups, there was a single run at one minute and fifty seconds. The rest of the runs were all one minute and fifty-one seconds. Let's wrap this benchmarking up with a quick look at some gaming results. Based on what we have seen on this page, we don't expect much difference at all.</p>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

3oh6

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
1,049
Location
Edmonton, AB
Gaming Benchmarks

Gaming Benchmarks



Futuremark 3DMark Vantage<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>We have forced ourselves to step up to 3DMark Vantage results for all reviews because the public demands it. 3DMark Vantage is the newest in a long line of 3D benchmarking software from Futuremark and is the most elaborate to date. Featuring multiple presets for various system configurations, Vantage is the culmination of all 3DMarks past relying on system and GPU power for its results. We will stick to the Performance preset as it seems to be the most popular at this point in time.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/evga/x58sliclassified/3d_bench-1.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">After the two pages of benchmarks we just looked, we aren't likely looking at much difference between the two similar setups. Both Vantage and 06 show about the same results, we did experience some inconsistency in 06 with scores varying as much as 300 points from one run to the next. Running 06 in Vista is likely the culprit as it is much better suited for Windows XP.</p>

Crysis - Sphere benchmark<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>We all know what Crysis is and how much it beats up systems but we wanted to add it to the gaming benchmarks to see how system changes can improve performance on a mid-level system. Detail levels are all set to Very High with the resolution at 1680x1050 with 4xAA. We ran the benchmarks with a demo of the Sphere level in DX9 and 64-bit. The game looks great with this setup and plays just well enough to keep us happy.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/evga/x58sliclassified/3d_bench-2.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Crysis is as Crysis does showing virtually no difference amongst any of the setups outlining one thing. Even with a 3.3GHz quad core i7, a single GTX 295 is the bottleneck at 1680x1050 with detail levels set pretty high. The game is obviously 100% playable at these settings so it just goes to show that overclocking doesn't always have a benefit and GPU power still rules the roost in demanding games.</p>

FarCry 2<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Another new fall release of this past silly season Far Cry 2 has some beautiful scenery but does lack that buttery smooth game play in places. A lot of moaning and groaning has occurred with Far Cry 2 but acceptable frame rates are much easier to achieve than Crysis and the game play is plenty smooth enough to enjoy. We were really able to crank up the settings with this benchmark on this setup.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/evga/x58sliclassified/3d_bench-3.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">The results tell the story so there is no point repeating what was just said above for Crysis.</p>

Left 4 Dead<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>The newest game in our testing sweet, Left 4 Dead was just added after we were asked to include a Source powered game in our memory benchmarks. Being based on the Source engine, there is definitely a chance that system performance will heavily influence the results. We used FRAPs to measure frame per second on a custom time demo of the rooftop level.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/evga/x58sliclassified/3d_bench-4.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Left 4 Dead is the only game that we found to show some discrepancy amongst the three setups, but of course, the two equally clocked setups show absolutely no difference. In fact, the stock clocked system performed almost equally well despite the substantially lower maximum. Obviously there is a portion in the time demo we recorded that requires substantial CPU power to reach the 250FPS+ maximum that the two overclocked systems reached. The average and minimum FPS were about equal though.</p>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

3oh6

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
1,049
Location
Edmonton, AB
Voltage Regulation

Voltage Regulation

<p style="text-align: justify;">Past motherboard reviews here at Hardware Canucks have always investigated the difference between voltages chosen in the BIOS to what is actually being supplied. Our readers appreciate this as there always seems to be some confusion in support forums where users ask about the voltage being shown and what they selected, and why they are different. Consider this section more of a voltage investigation section if you will. We will do some load testing of our 24/7 stable overclock and do some voltage measuring with a digital multi-meter and compare those readings with the E-LEET software readings.</p><center>
setup-7.jpg
<p style="text-align: justify;">Like the EVGA X58-SLI, the Classified has a whole host of easy to access onboard voltage read points as we saw earlier and pictured above. We will be using a calibrated UEI DM393 True RMS multi-meter to measure the voltages at these read points both at idle and under load, then chart those with what was set in the BIOS, and what E-LEET reports. Again, the settings we used to test at is our stable 24/7 overclock with exactly the same voltages as we used for our stability testing at this overclock. This means we have vDROOP enabled which explains the discrepancy between the vCORE readings from idle to load.</p><center><table border="0" bgcolor="#666666" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" width="697"><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="99px"></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="99px"><b>BIOS Set</b></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="99px"><b>BIOS Report</b></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="99px"><b>E-LEET<br />Idle</b></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="99px"><b>E-LEET<br />Load</b></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="99px"><b>DMM<br />Idle</b></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="99px"><b>DMM<br />Load</b></td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">CPU vCORE</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.475v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.45v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.47v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.41v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.459v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.408v</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">vDIMM</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.750v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.76v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.78v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.77v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.765v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.754v</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">CPU vTT</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">+300 (1.50v)</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.56v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.62v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.60v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.481v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.475v</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">IOH PLL</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.500v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.502v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.502v</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">CPU PLL</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.500v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.492v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.491v</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">QPI PLL</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.100v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.090v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.089v</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">IOH/ICH I/O Voltage</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.500v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.502v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.502v</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">IOH vCORE</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.100v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.12v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.12v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.12v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.114v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.105v</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">ICH vCORE</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.050v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">x</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.057v</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#ececec" width="99px">1.055v</td></tr>
</table></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Overall the Classified seems to really hold its voltages well going from idle to load. vDIMM droops ever so slightly and so does VTT which are the two most important but less than a .020v droop between the two of them from idle to load is extremely impressive. The vCORE droops as it should well within Intel spec doing what it is designed to do.

The actual voltages being supplied to the various components based on what we have selected in the BIOS is very accurate but VTT is slightly under volted as is the vCORE. Running with vDROOP is the reason for the vCORE difference though so on the whole, we are quite pleased with the Classified voltage selections. The one large discrepancy is with VTT, in particular, what E-LEET and the BIOS report for VTT compared to the actual voltage measurement. We noticed that E-LEET (and the BIOS) reported much higher vDIMM and VTT on the original X58 3X SLI and that trend seems to have been carried over to the Classified with VTT. vDIMM is close enough to the actual voltage readings we were pulling from the board to consider it accurate, but keep the higher than actual VTT in mind when you get your board up and running. What you select in the BIOS for VTT is a lot closer to the actual VTT than what E-LEET is reporting.

Here now is a pair of OCCT vCORE charts illustrating the effectiveness of the EVGA vDROOP control on the X58 3X SLI Classified.</p><center><table cellpadding="10px" cellspacing="0"><tr><td width="50%"><b><center>vDROOP Chart from OCCT - vDROOP Enabled</b>
voltage-2.png
</center></td><td width="50%"><b><center>vDROOP Chart from OCCT - vDROOP Disabled</b>
voltage-3.png
</center></td></tr></table></center><p style="text-align: justify;">vDROOP is always a hotly debated item in enthusiast forums as to whether or not vDROOP is good, bad, necessary, or not. Intel has specified vDROOP for the CPU as it allows a bit of a "cushion" for vCORE when switching between idle and load. When you use your computer the CPU load is always spiking and dropping and this equates to vCORE doing the same. vDROOP is designed to help soften this effect. Running without vDROOP obviously eliminates the drooping of vCORE under load and allows for a lower overall voltage to be set but has been known to cause adverse effects.

We aren't trying to argue for the use or lack of vDROOP, we are simply reporting here that the vDROOP elimination option in the BIOS of the Classified appears to be working quite well at doing its job of eliminating vDROOP of vCORE under load.</p><center>
voltage-5.png
voltage-6.png
voltage-7.png
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">Software voltage readings should not be considered accurate reproductions of the actual voltage supplied but they can be used to get a reasonably accurate representation of what is going on. We simply present these charts to you because we have access to them. They show a fairly consistent reading of vDIMM and VTT but do indicate that VTT seems to bump up slightly under load. This seems to contradict what we measured with the digital multi-meter. We measured a number of times throughout the twenty minute test with the digital multi-meter and consistently saw the results we presented in the chart higher up on the page. Again, this is just another example of having to take software voltage readings with a grain of salt.</p>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

3oh6

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
1,049
Location
Edmonton, AB
Heat & Acoustical Testing

Heat & Acoustical Testing

<p style="text-align: justify;">We are going to be limited to simply testing the PWM temperatures of the EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified despite many public cries for EVGA to implement NB temperature monitoring from within Windows. The same was the case with the original EVGA X58 board but the BIOS engineers either couldn't, or couldn't have been bothered to allow the NB temperatures - which can be monitored in the BIOS - to be available for monitoring by software in Windows. The NB temperature sender shares time with the off-die CPU temperature sender and only one can send data to the system in Windows. In the BIOS, the system alternates reading between CPU and NB temperature. All of us EVGA X58 users have been asking for an option in the BIOS to select either NB or CPU temperature data to be read while in Windows but to no avail.

Before we get into testing, we will have look at the passive NB, and PMW heat sinks that EVGA has designed for the Classified, let's get started.</p><center>
heat-1.jpg
heat-2.jpg
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">As soon as EVGA started to release pre production images of the Classified cooling, it became apparent that they spent a lot of time in designing the heat sinks. The north bridge is covered by a large, but not too large as seen during the installation section, mass of cooling fins connected with a small network of heat pipes. The heat pipes lay over top of the north bridge and the south bridge heat sink conglomerating within the mass of cooling fins transferring the heat from the motherboard to the cooling fins for dissipation. As we can see in the photos above, the thermal paste application is quite good on the heat sinks.

As mentioned, the south bridge is connected to the north bridge cooling assembly through a single heat pipe. This design is very efficient and allows more than adequate cooling for the south bridge and NF200 chip while maintaining a low profile to accommodate a collection of large double slot cooled video cards. The thermal paste EVGA used is not the dry hard crusty stuff but a seemingly good quality paste that was still soft when we took the heat sink off. Although it is applied a little thick on the NF200 chip, the NB and SB had just the perfect amount.</p><center>
heat-3.jpg
heat-4.jpg
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">The PWM heat sink is similar in idea to the original X58 SLI, but significantly different in design. The larger heat pipe travels across the PWM area and instead of folding up in a U shape, it curls through the entire assembly of cooling fins providing much more contact with the cooling fins to dissipate the heat. This design has also allowed for a shorter heat sink on the PWM area allowing much more room around the CPU socket for large CPU coolers. We never had problems with the original X58 3X SLI motherboard, but it did slightly limit some fan placement on the Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme cooler. This new PWM heat sink is completely out of the way and a much nicer design in our opinions.

Let's now have a quick look at the two different fan configurations we will be testing with to see just how good the passive cooling on the Classified is with, and without additional cooling fans.</p><center>
heat-5.jpg
heat-6.jpg
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">On the left above we have a single 120mm fan pushing air through the Ultra 120-Extreme, and on the right we have our normal three fan setup with the TRUE utilizing two fans in push/pull, and a third ventilating the memory at the same time as the north bridge heat sink. We utilized our 24/7 overclock again for the PWM testing to push the board and quickly found out that the passive cooling might not be enough for a completely static setup.

With only the single fan pushing air through the TRUE, we actually had stability issues and couldn't even finish the 20 minute OCCT test we were running to gather our PWM temperature data. Without a NB sensor being able to be read in Windows, we had no way of telling whether the NB temperatures were getting out of hand or not. We attempted lowering the voltage and loosening the timings on the memory to eliminate it as the culprit but that didn't help either. There is the possibility that the CPU didn't like the extra 4-5C that it got up to with the single fan but our guess is that the PWM and/or NB, just couldn't handle the heat loads. It was a bit of a disappointing test to be honest. As it stands, we have two graphs of the PWM temps to show. One of 20 minutes with our triple fan setup and a 15 minute graph of our single fan setup as that seemed to be about as long as we could get the system to run for with just the one fan. Here are the OCCT charts taking the temperature reading from Everest.</p><center><table cellpadding="10px" cellspacing="0"><tr><td width="50%"><b><center>PWM Temperature - 3 Fan Setup</b>
heat-9.png
</center></td><td width="50%"><b><center>PWM Temperature - 1 Fan Setup</b>
heat-10.png
</center></td></tr></table></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Obviously the fact that we couldn't run the 20 minute stability test without the additional fans tells the whole story. The PWM charts above simply cement the fact that the passive cooling really does take a beating when pushed on the Classified. Ambient temperature was around 23-24C the entire time during testing so we aren't even in a hot case where temperatures could be much higher. It really does indicate that at some point, there needs to be air flow going over the NB/PWM heat sink assemblies if you are really pushing a system. This is again pretty disappointing because the entire culture behind this motherboard is overclocking. The EVGA forums are already in an uproar about having to add additional cooling to the north bridge heat sink so head over there for some tips if you run into an overheating situation.

We have to recall the X58 3X SLI for a minute and point out that it had an active fan on the NB. There were many users who complained about this and wanted passive solutions like the DFI or ASUS motherboards. If you read our DFI X58-T3eH8 review, it too suffered from exponentially higher PWM temperatures when additional cooling to the heat sink assemblies was removed. In the end it simply looks like the X58 chipset requires some form of active cooling to keep temperatures in check. With the slightest bit of airflow, however, the chipset cooling won't hold back even the largest of overclocks. This is going to be quite evident in a few short minutes when we release the hounds and let the Classified do what it was designed to do...bench!</p>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

3oh6

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
1,049
Location
Edmonton, AB
Extreme Overclocking & Benching

Extreme Overclocking & Benching


<center>
xoc-1.jpg
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">The EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified is not only a feature rich motherboard that is an easily tamed beast for overclocking with air or water cooling. The Classified is an all out monster designed to not only handle, but excel at extreme loads on highly overclocked i7 processors. This section is really what the Classified is all about and where it gets to spread its wings and show everyone what it is capable of. Before we get to the results, let's first go over insulation preparation and the setup we will be benching with in this section as it varies slightly from our 24/7 testing.</p><center>
xoc-2.jpg
xoc-3.jpg
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">Currently there are a couple predominant schools of thought on insulation for sub-zero benching. We ran both methods on the Classified with excellent results. Insulation was quite easy using either method so no matter how you prefer to insulate, the Classified shouldn't give you any headaches. The first - shown above - involves using armacell neoprene sheets to insulate the motherboard from condensing air. With this method we remove the CPU socket hold down in order to get a better air tight seal around the socket. Our base layer using a 1/2" thick layer was simply cut to fit the CPU socket area then measured to cut holes for the few capacitors it needed to accommodate.

We then stack another 1/2" thick layer with only a cutout for our CPU pot in the middle. On top of this layer is where our CPU pot insulation mates providing an air tight seal all around the CPU socket. You'll notice we don't use any dielectric grease in the socket or nail polish/liquid electrical tape on the motherboard first. This is because we are only insulating for single sessions, not 24/7 use. Although sometimes a session can go for 12 hours or more, without constant cooling down and heating up of the CPU, measures don't need to be taken that would be for 24/7 use. We like to keep motherboards clean and this method is 100% removable in about 10 seconds with no signs left behind.

Again, insulating was very easy and took a total of maybe ten to fifteen minutes. The PWM heat sink did not get in the way at all and neither did the north bridge heat sink. At this point, we will now look at another increasingly popular method of insulating using kneaded rubber eraser.</p><center>
xoc-4.jpg
xoc-5.jpg
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">For those un-familiar with the extreme overclocking scene, kneaded rubber eraser began gaining popularity as an insulator well over a year ago. I was personally at the forefront of this method using an HVAC duct sealing material back in the summer of 07. That material was very sticky and was a nightmare to remove, some other members of the community came up with artists kneaded rubber eraser. It is a little stiffer and comes off clean with no residue or particles left behind. In the photos above you can see we retain the CPU hold down bracket and simply pack in and around the socket underneath the hold down with eraser. Some may wonder how eraser insulates the motherboard which is a great question. Keep in mind, we aren't trying to prevent the motherboard from getting cold - the cold transfers from the CPU anyway - we are simply trying to prevent warm air from contacting the cold motherboard and condensing. The kneaded rubber eraser is brilliant in this task as we can jam it into the tiniest of spaces and cracks.

The rubber eraser essentially takes up any space that air can occupy and prevents any moisture from condensing air. In the second photo above, we can see that the eraser covers the entire area with no chance of air contacting anywhere near the socket to condense and create motherboard killing moisture. Again, we are happy to report that the kneaded eraser method works extremely well with the Classified and provided a leisurely 10 hour session to go incident free at temperatures ranging from -60C to -80C on the pot. Here now is a quick rundown of the hardware used for our sub-zero benching section.</p><center><table border="0" bgcolor="#666666" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tr><td colspan="2"><b>Test Platform:</b></td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>Motherboard:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>Processor:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">Intel Core i7 965 Extreme Edition (3836A287)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>Processor Cooling:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">MMouse Rev 3 CU LN2/Dry Ice Pot<br>w/Liquid Nitrogen</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>North Bridge Cooling:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">Stock</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>South Bridge Cooling:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">Stock</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>PWM Cooling:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">Stock</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>Memory:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">Corsair Dominator-GT 3x2GB PC3-15000 7-8-7 (TR3X6G1866C7GTF)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>Power Supply:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">Corsair HX1000W</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>Video Card:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">EVGA GTX 295<br>BFG GTX 295</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>Additional Fans:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">Scythe Ultra Kaze 120MM 2000RPM 87.6CFM (DFS123812L-2000)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>Hard Drive:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">Seagate 7200.9 80GB SATAII 8MB cache</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc9999" width="25%"><b>OS:</b></td><td align="left" bgcolor="#ececec" width="75%">vLight'd Windows Vista SP1<br>nLight'd Windows XP Pro SP3<br>vLight'd Windows 7 (build 7057)</td></tr></table></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Let's now see what this powerful setup is capable of. We have broken down the results into single card, dual card, and then 2D results. The 2D results are obtained through the use of a PCI video card as opposed to the GTX 295's that are used in the 3D benchmarks. Let's first look at the single GTX 295 results in 03/05/06.</p><center>
xoc-6.jpg
xoc-7.jpg
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">The single card results are mainly focused on 3DMark 06 but some time was spent on 03 and 05. All of the benchmarks for single card are from Windows XP as they score significantly higher than Vista. Without further adu, here are the Single GTX 295 Results.</p><table align="center" bgcolor="#666666" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tr><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" width="50%">3DMark 03
click for full size...
xocss-1.png

HWBot.org - Compare</td><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" width="50%">3DMark 05
click for full size...
xocss-2.png

HWBot.org - Compare
FutureMark Orb</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" colspan="2" width="50%">3Dmark 06
click for full size...
xocss-3.png

HWBot.org - Compare
FutureMark Orb</td></tr></table><p style="text-align: justify;">There are no top 10 HWBot or ORB results but this was just a warm up. The 06 result is in the top ten of single GTX 295 results and 14th overall, however, keep in mind that we are also working with a GTX 295 on the stock cooler. Had a K|ngp|n Tek9 5.0 been available, these results would be much different. As it stands, things are looking very good thus far. We are able to bench at 4900MHz for the single core benches of 03 and 05, and over 4800MHz in 06 which shows excellent promise for Vantage with dual cards. Next up, we go for the dual cards...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SKYMTL

HardwareCanuck Review Editor
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
12,840
Location
Montreal
Extreme Overclocking & Benching Part II

Extreme Overclocking & Benching Part II


</p><center>
xoc-8.jpg
xoc-9.jpg
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">Adding the second card sure fills the space on the motherboard nicely. This setup just looks hot with dual GTX 295's. As we can see in the photo above to the left, we are below -70C and the CPU is benching rather nicely. Here now are our Dual GTX 295 Results.</p><table align="center" bgcolor="#666666" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tr><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" width="50%">3DMark 03
click for full size...
xocss-4.png
</td><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" width="50%">3DMark 05
click for full size...
xocss-5.png

HWBot.org - Compare
FutureMark Orb</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" width="50%">3DMark Vantage w/PhysX
click for full size...
xocss-6.png

FutureMark Orb</td><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" width="50%">3DMark Vantage wo/PhysX
click for full size...
xocss-7.png

HWBot.org - Compare
FutureMark Orb</td></tr></table><p style="text-align: justify;">Here is where we got things really cooking. The Vantage score without PhysX is ranked as the 12th best Vantage Performance result on HWBot.org at time of posting the review. The above 05 result is also good for a 4th place for dual GTX 295's on HWBot.org. Take a look at the memory clocks for the 05 run, 1080MHz 7-8-7-20 1T...this board loves this memory. The key for these benches is the fact that we consistently benched this CPU higher than we could on any other board so far. The motherboard was more consistent under LN2 than we have had a motherboard since the Rampage Extreme using a C2D chip. The Classified is really in a class by itself for benching. Recovering from getting too cold (AKA cold bug) is painless and the board didn't have a misfire once during our two 10 and 12 hour sessions. The results get even better when we switch to 2D benching.</p><center>
xoc-10.jpg
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">The last of the results we will look at today are referred to as 2D results as they aren't 3D benchmarks. They include WPrime, SuperPi, and CPU-Z validations.</p><table align="center" bgcolor="#666666" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tr><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" width="50%">WPrime - 32M
click for full size...
xocss-8.png

HWBot.org - Compare</td><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" width="50%">WPrime - 1024M
click for full size...
xocss-9.png

HWBot.org - Compare</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" width="50%">Super Pi 32M
click for full size...
xocss-10.png
</td><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" width="50%">Super Pi 32M
click for full size...
xocss-11.png

HWBot.org - Compare</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#ececec" colspan="2" width="50%">CPU-Z Validation
click for full size...
xocss-12.png

CPU-Z Validation</td></tr></table><p style="text-align: justify;">The 2D results are where this board really took this CPU to another level. wPrime is a multi-core benchmark that puts a beat down on cooling and power delivery. This CPU would choke out at hundreds of MHz lower on other boards. On the Classified, it would run wPrime near what it could with single core benches like SuperPi. This is a testament to just how good the PWM on this Classified is.

Speaking of SuperPi, the EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified absolutely rocked this setup. The Dominator-GT memory showed how much it loves the Classified during some of the 3D benches but it thoroughly excelled at 32M powering us to a sub 7 minute run. Good enough for a global top 10 on HWBot.org in 32M at the time of posting. This isn't just a good result, this is among the absolute best out there. We also tossed in a quick 32M at 230BCLK and a CPU-Z validation at 235BCLK with our last few liters of LN2 during the last session.

There really is nothing else to say. We couldn't be happier with the EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified for benching. Whether it was multi-core 3D benches or single core 2D benches, the Classified simply pushed our hardware faster than it has gone on any other board. It handles long sessions with ease and was simply the best motherboard we have benched LN2 under. The only problem is that our LN2 bill has increased drastically because benching is just too easy and fun with this board.</p>
 
Last edited:

3oh6

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
1,049
Location
Edmonton, AB
Conclusion

Conclusion

<p style="text-align: justify;">We are well into the life cycle of the Intel X58 chipset and have seen a good number of motherboards hit the market. Most of the X58 segment is directed at the high-end and thus, most of the motherboards have been in the $300+ range offering plenty of power, features, and abilities. At the beginning of the review today we described the Classified as the man that the X58 3X SLI grew into. This couldn't have been stated any better. It offers more features, more power, and more abilities. The EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified is everything that EVGA had wanted it to be...the best motherboard the X58 chipset has been on.

The layout of the Classified is not only as good as the DFI X58-T3eH8 and the EVGA X58 3X SLI, but better. The ability to offer 3X SLI (or Crossfire for that matter) with an available 1X slot and additional 16X slot for dedicated PhysX is not something anyone else can claim. The location of all connectors and buttons couldn't be placed any better. The CPU socket allots plenty of space for large CPU coolers, and the rear I/O panel is packed to the gills. Physically, the Classified is a mature Intel X58 based motherboard with very little room for improvement.</p><center>
conclusion-1.jpg
</center><p style="text-align: justify;">That little room for improvement - in our opinions - would be active cooling on the north bridge heat sink assembly, or at least the option for active cooling out of the box. We understand the spot EVGA is in trying to develop a passive solution to avoid cries of active cooling, but at the same time, we also understand the end user. Opening the box of a $500+ motherboard to find that you have to go out and buy a 40mm fan in order to get the most out of your new purchase is not exactly a good feeling. Like waking up Christmas morning to your new remote control car but your parents didn't realize you need a 9V battery for the remote control. The motherboard performs admirably without active cooling, and with the smallest amount of active air the Classified turns into a monster. It is a small oversight but an oversight in our eyes none the less.

Aside from the passive cooling assembly, the Classified really couldn't have impressed us any more than it did. Our 24/7 testing on standard air cooling kept up to every single motherboard we have tested and surpassed them all in clocking our i7 965 Extreme Edition. Switching over to bench mode was a piece of cake with simple insulation and the LN2 results speak for themself. This motherboard has quickly become the go to motherboard for professional benchmarkers because it is built like a tank. It pushes hardware like we haven't seen before, and it keeps coming back for more. As much as I hate to quote Charlton Heston, if you want to take the EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified away from me, you will have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

The question we asked at the beginning was not whether the motherboard was worth its price tag to me, a benchmarker. We asked if the price tag was worth it for everyone. Unfortunately we can't stand here and say the Classified is worth the money for everyone. It won't turn your air cooled 920 into an LN2 cooled 965. The Classified won't allow you to magically crank your BCLK up to 250 allowing more overclocking on 920 processors. The Classified won't transform your PC3-12800 CL8 6GB kit of memory into Corsair Dominator-GTs running at DDR3-2000 7-8-7. What the Classified will do is allow you to actually find the limit of your processor under sub-zero conditions. The Classified will allow you to push your memory as far as any other board. The Classified will look unbelievably sexy in a red lit black interior case with a water cooling loop and a kit of Dominator-GTs. For the extra $150~$200 you are going to pay over the original X58 3X SLI, there are some people who will read this review and find it worth it for them. For the average user though, it is definitely difficult to justify unless you have the money and have one of the specific needs that only the Classified fills.</p>

<b>Pros:</b>
  • Layout...better than the original which was great to start with
  • Stands tall above all others when it comes to overclocking on air or LN2
  • Feature rich with the best software money doesn't have to buy, E-LEET
  • Flexibility for any kind of setup, no matter how many expansion cards you have
  • A color scheme modders will drool over for their next build

<b>Cons:</b>
  • The passive cooling needs help from a fan, like other passive X58 motherboards
  • The best motherboard money can buy, but also the most money you can spend on a motherboard


<center><table><tr><td><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dam_good.jpg" alt=" " /></td></tr></table></center>

<center><b><i>We would like to thank all of the folks over at EVGA for their continued hard work in the forums and behind the scenes.</i></b>


Please click here to proceed to the EVGA X58 Classified Review Comment Thread</center>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top