Specifications

abit KV8-MAX3
Written by Chris Emry
Friday, 04 September 2009 10:39
..:: Unreal Tournament 2003 ::..
The last gaming benchmark we will test our motherboards with is the Unreal Tournament 2003
Demo with the HardOCP 2.1 version benchmarking add-on program. I have found that the
add-on can save a lot of time when benchmarking, has a very simple interface, and is already
pre-configured to test a variety of platforms equally instead of having to manually adjust any of
the in-game settings myself. I chose to benchmark each board using the Direct3D engine with
low quality tests at a 640x480 resolution. Once again the results are the nearly the same as in
the previous benchmarks, as the K8 overtakes the AthlonXP nForce2 platform by a sizeable
margin. There is no doubt that every hardcore gamer out there should be looking for an
Athlon64 in their next rig.
..:: ABIT KV8-MAX3 Conclusion ::..
When the time came for the KV8-MAX3 to face a round of MBReview punishment, ABIT’s
motherboard was completely solid and ran flawlessly during operation. This was of course after
we got past the siren sound that was giving us some trouble when we went to flip the power
switch on for the first time, so we took off a point here because of it. Hopefully our suggestion to
remove the two plastic nuts from the underside of the motherboard which holds the OTES
mechanism in place can help users in a similar situation.
The worst aspect of the KV8-MAX3, in my personal opinion, is the design and layout of the
motherboard. There are so many things that I don't like, I would possibly have to rewrite the
entire design and layout section over again here in the conclusion. Luckily, ABIT has informed
us that their engineers have addressed many of the issues stated within our review. It’s always
great to see a motherboard manufacturer actively listening to the consumer and improving their
products. The reason for the undesirable design could possibly be why the KV8-MAX3 won
nearly every benchmark and proved that it was the king of overclocking our current test system
in the way that the board was engineered, but if you care about the design of a board as much
as I do with the ease-of-use factor entered into the equation, then I would strongly suggest that
17 / 19