SiS 655FX Chipset - Page 5

..:: SiSoft SANDRA ::..

Well, to start things off, we will of course be taking a look at the numbers we received while working with the latest version of SiSoft’s SANDRA benchmarking utility. In order to achieve the most accurate results, we spent several days with both the SiS655FX system, and the i875P system running these benchmarks to obtain the most accurate overall results we could. To start things off, let’s take a look at our results for Arithmetic performance between both chipsets. Here, we can see that the 655FX chipset manages to overtake the i875P by a slight margin, although these numbers typically vary from board to board.

Next up, we have the results from both the Multimedia benchmark, and the Memory Bandwidth benchmark. For the Multimedia benchmark, we again see the 655FX pulling ever so slightly ahead of the i875P, although much as we saw with Arithmetic performance, the difference between each is negligible. The real surprise comes when we look at the Memory Bandwidth benchmark results. Here, we see the 655FX putting up numbers better than that of our i875P motherboard. The i875P chipset is known for the immense memory bandwidth it is capable of, and the 655FX shows here that it too is capable of utilizing the 800MHz FSB of the Pentium 4 processor.

..:: MBReview.com PriBench v1.04 ::..

PriBench v1.04 is much like SuperPI in that it is computationally intensive. PriBench is a system level benchmark, and relies solely on the performance of the processor and memory subsystem. Unlike many of today’s synthetic benchmarks which rely on other aspects such as hard drive speeds, etc. PriBench does not rely on any “exterior” devices for the tests. PriBench was coded in house and utilizes a computationally intensive algorithm to compute primes well into the 100’s of millions for the current version. The program is extremely precise as we have seen time fluctuations of around +/- .03 or so seconds. In the PriBench tests, we decided to see which chipset truly offered the best computing performance capabilities, and we can see that the i875P holds the lead when it comes to computing power. Although the computation times are quite small, they are representative of what we’ll soon see in the SuperPI results, that the i875P is better for heavy computation than is the 655FX.

..:: SuperPI ::..

In the SuperPI tests, we run the program four times, once at one million, once at two million, once at four million, and you guessed it once at eight million. The numbers in the graph above show the time in seconds that it took the system to calculate pi to the set number of digits. In this benchmark, we can clearly see what I hinted about during the PriBench results. We can clearly see that the i875P chipset is the better solution for heavy computational applications, although the 655FX chipset does manage to keep up quite well. As the complexities of the computations increase, of course, the i875P begins to show the power behind it.

..:: Specviewperf 7.0 ::..

In the SPECviewperf 7.0 benchmarks, we see a mixed bag of results with the i875P taking the crown for some benchmarks, whilst he 655FX takes home the crown for several benchmarks of its own. Overall, we see a relative tie between the two chipsets for all of the benchmarks that are included in the SPECviewperf 7.0 benchmarking suite. The i875P chipset comes out on top for the 3DSMax01, Dx07, and Light05 benchmarks, while the 655FX comes out on top for the Drv08, Proe01, and UGS01 benchmarks. Clearly, when it comes to applications such as these, both the i875P and 655FX are quality solutions that will offer similar performance.

..:: FutureMark 3DMark2001SE ::..

FutureMark’s 3DMark2001 SE is first off on today’s list of multimedia application benchmarks. With the 3DMark2001 benchmarks, we can once again see that although the Intel i875P chipset manages to come home with the performance lead, we are not seeing the 655FX fall behind by a large margin as many might expect. The 655FX is starting to prove its worth as a competitive chipset when placed against Intel’s i875P solutions. We have seen in the past that the Intel D875PBZ was quite a strong performer when placed against competing i875P motherboards, so seeing results put up like these are quite impressive for a chipset that will likely fall under the budget performance category.

..:: Quake III Arena ::..

When we initially ran the Quake II Arena benchmarks, we were quite surprised with the results that we attained. As you can see from the graph that is displayed above, the 655FX chipset managed to take hold of a nice lead over the i875P chipset for the Quake II Arena benchmarks. We ran these benchmarks over, and over again to make sure that what we were seeing was indeed accurate, and under identical test conditions the 655FX chipset came out on top. Check yet another score for the 655FX chipset, a solution that is looking better by the minute.

..:: Unreal Tournament 2003 ::..

Last up for today we have yet another real world performance benchmark for our motherboard reviews, Unreal Tournament 2003. We are using the built-in benchmarking utility with custom .ini files to make sure all settings are at high quality to allow for optimal benchmarking results for comparison. In these tests, we see a mix of the results from Quake II Arena and 3DMark2001SE. In the BotMatch benchmark, the i875P chipset holds a slight lead over the 655FX, while in the FlyBy, the 655FX chipset turns the tide and takes over the lead. It seems that under more graphically intensive operations and resolutions, the i875P chipset will come out on top however, when it comes to lower resolutions, and less intensive graphics, the 655FX chipset manages to take hold of the lead.