I observed no glitches, and the system ran everything without hanging, or dropping to the desktop. The variability was intermittent, and did not occur after every reboot, or after every run of a 3D application. The slow boot times and inconsistent performance results suggest to me that they need to work on the board design some more. At this setting, the system was running at MHz, with a memory speed of MHz. All overclock testing was done with a core voltage setting of 1. I canceled the benchmark, went to Windows, and ran the Norton benchmark. It took 57 seconds for a complete warm reboot, and 67 seconds for a complete cold boot.
|Date Added:||5 April 2013|
|File Size:||52.87 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Athlon system running on a VIA chipset motherboard showed very little variability.
The initial setup included: But I did not see any asys in performance, or variability of results, after running 3D Mark on that machine. I timed the interval between power-on and POST initiation, and this came out to be 19 seconds for a cold boot, and 15 seconds for a warm boot.
All overclock testing was done with a core voltage setting of 1. Overclocking with the Celeron-2 was rather disappointing. If you can put up with the slow boot times, the board will do a very good job of overclocking Pentium III processors. The other trace, labeled “After full 3D Mark” was obtained after running 3D Mark through an entire benchmark. 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 This was not the case.
While I’m really glad that Flip-Chip-capable motherboards are finally becoming more commonplace, I hope that in the future, they have a little more polish than the original release of the Asus CUV4X. One thing I hadn’t tried at this point was changing aasus CPU.
ASUS CUV4X-M – motherboard – micro ATX – Socket 370 – Pro133A
I tried that with a core voltage of 1. I canceled the benchmark, went to Windows, and ran the Norton benchmark.
With the Celeron-2, the benchmark numbers were very stable, and almost no variation was seen. The system was very stable at this bus frequency. At first I thought the system wasn’t going to boot. I tried higher and lower core voltages, but the system refused to boot.
CUV4X | ASUS Global
The system would not boot on the CUV4X. At a bus frequency of 85MHz, the system speed rating was MHz. Asks then set the 3D Mark demo to a continuous loop, and left it running overnight.
I even tried a different power supply, also without effect on the variability. I rebooted and got better numbers, but later, after running 3D MarkI noticed increased variation in the Norton benchmarks again. As I’ve said in previous reviews, I’d rather not see an audio modem riser, or on-board audio. I tried out a new Celeron-2 flip-chip.
The variability was still quite noticeable, as shown in the chart below. Finally, I put a new Celeron flip-chip in the system, and tested for variation in the Norton benchmark.
So that extra 20 seconds in the beginning carries through the entire boot process. A typical score after a clean reboot was Norton units.
ASUS CUV4X-E, Socket 370, Intel Motherboard
I just wanted to do a quick check and see what kind of system rating I would get with Norton Utilities Lack of Celeron-2 performance variability: The Y axis is exaggerated again. At MHz, that is probably acceptable behavior. One thing that irritated me about the overclock settings was that they did not go in order in the BIOS menu, but rather, jumped all around, forcing you to scroll cuv44x long list to find the dound you wanted. By simply repeating the Norton benchmark over and over, I got wide variations from one test to another.
The next step was to try MHz on the front side bus.