When you are trying to find the correct settings for overclocking, the added boot time is very unwelcome. One thing I hadn’t tried at this point was changing the CPU. The Norton scores went from an average of about , to an average of about However, there was almost no variation in Norton benchmark numbers from run to run. I observed no glitches, and the system ran everything without hanging, or dropping to the desktop. This was not the case. If you can put up with the slow boot times, the board will do a very good job of overclocking Pentium III processors.
|Date Added:||20 November 2017|
|File Size:||35.6 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
When I returned the next morning, the demo had dropped out to the desktop, but the system had not hung. The first thing I checked was if the system resources were declining.
Still, MHz on the front side bus is very respectable. Asks I used the E flip-chip for stability testing while overclocking the bus frequency.
CUV4X-E | ASUS Global
I just wanted to do a quick check and see what kind of system rating I would get with Norton Utilities If you can put up with the slow boot times, the board will do a very good job of overclocking Pentium III processors. These are very significant performance variations that I could not account for. This was not the case. The overall boot time was also longer than normal for a clean system.
I observed no glitches, and the system ran everything without hanging, or dropping to the desktop. All overclock testing was done with a core voltage setting of 1.
ASUS CUV4X-E, Socket 370, Intel (CUV4X-E/WOA) Motherboard
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 the long list to find the speed you wanted. The next step was to try MHz on the front side s.
However, overclocking stability was very good with the CUV4X. The slow boot times and inconsistent performance results suggest to me that they need to work on the board design some more. In fact, the system showed normal, low variability most of the time, but on occasion, would show increased variability in benchmark results. At a bus frequency of 85MHz, the system speed rating was MHz. However, there was almost no variation in Norton benchmark numbers from run to run.
The chart below shows some of the kinds of variability I observed.
The next thing I wanted to ass was overclock stability, for which I used the newest version of 3D Mark version 1. The next available speed was 85MHz.
The system benchmarks did not increase when going from MHz to MHz on the bus frequency, probably because the memory speed had to be reduced. 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.
ASUS CUV4X-E – motherboard – ATX – Socket – ProA Overview – CNET
The variability was intermittent, and did not occur after every reboot, or after every run of a 3D application. The variability was still quite noticeable, as shown in the chart below. With a little more work, Asus could make it a great board. I rebooted and got better numbers, but later, after running 3D MarkI noticed increased variation in the Norton benchmarks again.
The Y axis is exaggerated again. A typical score after a clean reboot was Norton units. The results were quite puzzling. Lack of Celeron-2 performance variability: The motherboard correctly recognized the chip, and booted up still a noticeably long boot time. Overclocking with the Celeron-2 was rather disappointing.
I then set the 3D Mark demo to a continuous loop, and left it running overnight. The chart below shows the Norton Benchmark variability at this speed. System performance was substantially lower than with cvu4x comparably clocked Pentium III system, but as I mentioned earlier, the performance variability seen with the Pentium III was not seen with the Celeron How much of a speed boost do you get at to MHz?