Performance results So we'll be seeing results from 2 points with our graphs: As far as the board itself goes, it's usual EPoX fare. Starting in the top left area we have the main ATX power connector and the 3-phase power regulation circuitry and components that feed the CPU socket with power and in turn the rest of the board. Thumbs up to EPoX for that connector placement. The results are higher than any KTA results we've seen, although only by very small amounts which again highlights something we'll touch on in the conclusion so keep reading. ep-8k3a+ treiber

Uploader:	Faugor
Date Added:	25 April 2012
File Size:	58.2 Mb
Operating Systems:	Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X
Downloads:	72211
Price:	Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Epox International Network Drivers Download

That leads us nicely onto a general observation about the platform. Would have been better to see it across both boards however. Not a blue screen throughout testing, no instability unless at the very ragged edge and pushing it to the extreme. The board enjoys the 3-phase power circuitry treibe provide stable overclocks. We see that here treibrr it's as we expected.

Here's a cropped screen grab from Sandra showing the effect that a MHz memory and host clock has.

Epox EP-8K3A+ Free Documentation Download (Official)

AC'97 audio via the southbridge is also supported however I'm a fan of proper hardware solutions since I've found VIA southbridge provided solutions tend to degrade under high system load whereas a dedicated solution tends not to.

DDR memory is happiest running at the same clock as the host bus front side bus so that wait states between the two are minimised.

More performance at stock clocks and our little increase when running asynchronous. The graph just shows the CPU is working properly.

Given a fast graphics card, you are able to see the effect that memory bandwidth has on the system when you use Quake3. There would be no point in VIA releasing a chipset that's intended to replace the KTA if it didn't offer increased performance in some areas leaving people with no incentive to buy a KT board. Sure it leaves some free for the rest of the system to utilise, but by and large the headroom doesn't make much difference.

It's quite obvious that Athlon XP could do with a front side bus hike to let it use more memory bandwidth. On a DDR system, matching memory clock to CPU host clock front side bus is ideal and latency can be as low as possible.

Also, our asynchrous runs show the little increase we need to validate the mode. AMD seems to have shot itself in the foot however by not increasing front side bus clock or doing some of the other things to help out a lack of bandwidth like a large on die L2 cache.

Moving to the right past that circuit and componentry we see the socket itself. As far as overclocking the board went, large front side bus was easy.

The 3-phase power solution is said by EPoX to improve stability, especially in high speed situations when overclocked.

Most focus on the chipset will be in the asynchronous memory mode where you run the board in KT and in future, KT will give the system some more memory bandwidth as processor speed marches on but is it enough? Otherwise layout is identical. Of course you are also free to run your clocks synchronously and indeed this can possibly be advantageous since running asynchrously increases memory latency on a DDR memory subsystem.

We'll have to wait and see with the processors themselves but reliance on a MHz front side bus isn't helping the platform as a jump to MHz would.

The effect isn't pronounced you need a combination of extra bandwidth and an overclocked host bus to take proper advantage of it but the increase does have an effect.

Latency on DDR memory subsystems actually increases when you run asynchronous to the front side bus, negating some of the performance, but on the whole performance rises. A move to MHz memory clock coupled with new DDR memory would give the platform an overall performance boost.