Epox 9NDA3+: A New Socket 939
by Wesley Fink on October 25, 2004 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Final Words
The Athlon 64 Socket 939 was introduced on June 1, so it has taken the Epox 9NDA3+ about 4 months to make it to the market. Epox can be forgiven on many fronts because the only choices for Socket 939 until the last few weeks started at $400 for the cost of the processor alone. However, with recent AMD price cuts and the introduction of 90nm Socket 939 3000+, 3200+ and 3500+ processors, the Socket 939 has become the "hot" platform. Put another way, Epox has timed the introduction perfectly. Just at the time when more people are shopping for a 939 motherboard, the Epox 9NDA3+ is available to buy. It is a good thing that new 939 motherboard choices are finally appearing.How does the Epox compare to other 939 boards?
In performance, the Epox is competitive with the best 939 boards that we have tested, but it doesn't break any new ground in performance. You will find it just as capable as any other nForce3 Ultra or nForce4 motherboard, but it doesn't rise above the others. Perhaps with the memory controller on the Athlon 64 chip, that is the best we could expect anyway.
In the overclocking area, the Epox 9NDA3+ does stand out though. The Epox matches the fastest 939 that we have tested in the maximum overclock we could achieve and in the highest clock speed that we could reach. Matching the MSI K8N Neo2 in overclocking is no small feat, but the 9NDA3+ proved up to the task in every overclocking test.
The last area is memory performance and here, the results are clearly disappointing. The Epox is a fine board with 2 DIMMs, but when we tested with 4 DIMMs, the 9NDA3+ sets the memory speed at DDR333 no matter what we set in the BIOS. This is the first Socket 939 board we have tested that has been so restrictive in performance with 4 DIMMs. This limitation is so severe that we cannot really recommend the Epox if you plan to use 4 DIMMs now or in the future. Choose another Socket 939 board for four DIMMs. We suspect that Epox can fix this limitation in a BIOS update, but until we see this problem corrected, performance with 4 DIMMs will be a disappointment.
It should also be mentioned that when we first received the Epox 9NDA3+, we could only run memory at 1T in slots 3 and 4. Any attempt to run at a 1T or Auto Command Rate setting failed boot. Epox supplied us an updated BIOD that did fix this problem, but the new BIOS did not fix our other concern. About 50% of the time, the Epox board with either BIOS would fail on reboot and freeze at the first BIOS screen. We were always able to continue a boot by hitting reset or turning the computer off first, but these failed reboots were time consuming and very annoying for a production board. Epox needs to fix this issue with a BIOS update or they will get many complaints from end users.
To sum it up, the Epox is a mixed bag right now. It is full of potential with outstanding overclocking capabilities. The 9NDA3+ performance is competitive with any 939 board that we have tested - as long as you run just 2 DIMMs. However, the immature BIOS makes performance with 4 DIMMs a problem. We also find the freezes on reboot very annoying. Consider the Epox 9NDA+ to be a Socket 939 board with lots of potential and a few warts. We are confident that Epox can fix the problems with BIOS updates, but for now, the warts prevent our waxing enthusiastic over the 9NDA3+.
The Epox is a decent 939 choice now if you will only run 2 DIMMs and you can deal with the annoying reboot problems. Once the BIOS has matured, the Epox will likely move to be among the better 939 boards that you can buy, but it just isn't there yet.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
morkys - Monday, December 20, 2004 - link
Wednesday, 24 November 2004ECN 30824
EP-9NDA3+
9ND34B10.BIN
6800h
** Solve USB device resume fail from S4 mode.
** Patch system cole booting fail (hang up at POST FF h)when FSB over clock on SATA PHY M/B.
** Support DDR400 for double banks DIMM.
Has this improved anything for anyone?
I was stoked to get this or the MSI Neo2 Plat but there's always problems with new stuff. There's always problems with most stuff, but I may just go socket 462 for now if Epox or MSI nForce3 isn't trouble free. I was thinking of the Gigabyte but the NXP is too expensive and the non- NXP is still troublesome for some people.
?
staypuffmarshallowman - Thursday, December 9, 2004 - link
I purcased this mobo a week ago and it is defective....sent back as RMA yesterday. I could not achieve any higher than 20Kbps internet connection over my dsl! Furthermore, i had several (10-20) different post codes and i haven't done any overclocking at all. While this is EXTREMELY frustrating, I am hoping my replacement board will be fine. I am really concerned about your findings with the 4 dimms running only at 333!!! Please let me know if they are able to fix this.I don't want to give up on epox yet. My last board or thiers rocked. But this experience has sent me close to the end of our relationship.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 28, 2004 - link
Ned -I suspect you are working at 200 with 4 dimms because your 256MB are single-sided dimms. Those are usually no issue for any of the boards. Our standard 4-dimm memory test is with 4 512MB DS dimms or a total of 8 sides. That still is not working on the Epox which overrides the DDR400 and resets the speed to DDR320 with 4 DS dimms.
Just to be sure I have just retested the same CPU and the same 4 dimms on 3 other 939 boards. All 3 handled DDR400 with 4 dimms just fine, as confirmed with CPU-Z and SiSoft Sandra.
NedFlanders - Thursday, October 28, 2004 - link
Mine board worked out of the box with four DIMMS and with the new BIOS too. I am using 4*256 Kingston HyperX. Even though BIOS says 200 it boots at 202 (RAM 404, FSB at 2020 mhz). I have confirmed the speed with CPUID & SAndra. I OC's it to 220 but just to try it. I'm not really into that. It worked fine.in addition to the parts i already mentioned,
i have 6800GT, 2 WD120 (IDE0, IDE1) and a 450watt PSU, athlon 64 3200.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 28, 2004 - link
I have tested with the new 10/26 and 10/28 BIOS and the issues still are not fixed. Results remain the same as reported in this review.Below is the email I sent to Epox:
"I have retested the Epox 9NDA3+ with the new BIOS and the 4 dimm issue is NOT fixed. No matter what I set in BIOS with 4 dimms the system boots at DDR320 at 2T (The BIOS states on boot DDR400@166, but CPU-Z reports actual CPU speed as 160x2). I have tested with:
4x512MB Corsair 3200XL v1.1
4X512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev.2
4X512MB G. Skill TCCD
4X512MB Corsair CMX512-4400C25PT (DDR550)
I also tested each of the 4 memories at SPD timings at DDR400 and at a forced 3-3-3-10 at DDR400, even though all 4 are rated at DDR400 2-2-2-5. Same results in both sets of tests. In addition the Epox still hangs on reboot more than 50% of the time. The PS is a OCZ PowerStream 520W. Memory Timings were checked with CPU-Z version 1.24 which is a free download at www.cpuid.com. Memory Speed was confirmed in SiSoft Sandra 2004.
Do you have any further suggestions?"
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
Epox has just sent a revised BIOS dated 10/26 and called 9ND34A26 to correct the 4-dimm issue and reboot issues with the Epox. As I soon as I complete tests with the new BIOS I will post an update to the review.NedFlanders - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link
my ep-9nda3+ is in. it overclocks well, cpu is cool and no problems with 4DIMMS at 200ThePlagiarmaster - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link
Wesley,If divx 5.1.1 is so optimized for Intel, why does hardocp show Intel losing by 20%?? You need to run tests with two different frontends. DVD2AVI for AMD and Xmpeg for Intel. Unless someone has a better suggestion for Intel (Xmpeg always caused them to win no matter what encoder was used). It's a small change and would give a MUCH more accurate picture of what we'd see in the realworld. Nobody comes home with a shiny new PC and runs they crappiest frontend they can find for their given cpu. Especially when they are both free for the taking.
Did a bit more reading, it appears AutoGK is the only difference between your article and hardocp's usage. You should NOT be using this for AMD if it throws away a 20% victory and hands the lead to Intel. Nobody would do that at home. That big of a margin is akin to throwing away 3-4 cpu speed grades these days! I'd further say you shouldn't be using it for Intel either. It appears to slow them down compared to Xmpeg (who even link to Intel on their website).
With all of these being free, why wouldn't the user want to pick the fastest for their chosen cpu? I see no reason why you couldn't run the same chapter with the same settings on each frontend for the different cpus. It's not like your adding a test, you're just changing a frontend for ONE of the tests. Right now, you're showing us a situation none of us would come home and run. We'd all take the faster route with different front ends for BOTH cpus.
Divx 5.1.1 is NOT heavily optimized for Intel or they would win no matter the frontend. Using this codec and DVD2AVI as a frontend Intel loses by 20% (as shown at hardocp's article). Clearly it's more about the frontend in this case than the codec.
thebluesgnr - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link
I think this review is very well written. Only disagree with one thing:"The locations of the SATA connectors are a huge improvement over the locations on the nF3-250 Reference Board."
I think this location is the opposite of that. On the reference board it's probably harder to install SATA drives, but this is something you do once or twice; the location used by EPoX makes it impossible to use the SATA ports with some graphics cards.
Term - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link
#26, are you 100% positive that Doom3 requires DX?If i remember correct I don't have DX installed and it runs just fine.