The SiSsy 658

[slvr_phoenix]

I just read THG's SiS 658 article. All that I have to say is that at least SiS is consistent. They always have sucked, and at this rate they always will suck.

<font color=blue><pre>If you don't give me accurate and complete system specs
then I can't give you an accurate and complete answer.</pre><p></font color=blue>

 

[tombance]

lol, I agree. For once I was kind of expecting 'ok' results from SiS, surely they couldn't do worse than a 2 yr old chipset? YES, they could... very poor.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5467618 " target="_new">Almost Breaking 12k!!</A>

 

[Mephistopheles]

the 2yr-old i850E is still the most solid offering, with its incredibly fine-tuned memory controller, I guess...

Actually, I thought we´d see some review of PC1200 RDRAM by now... aren´t these RIMMS available yet? I thought they were! You know, RDRAM has lost much of its flare to me...

Anyway, i850 superiority when compared to rival chipsets is all the more reason to fall in love with the idea of Canterwood, i875, which´ll replace i850... Dual Channel DDR400, 800Mhz FSB... <i>yummy</i>...

 

[LumberJack]

Sis was never a top performance contender in my mind... they produce inexpensive boards that run stably at menial speeds... for the user who wants to save a buck or two...



To err is human... to really screw things up you need a computer!

 

[walter_benjamin]

I hate when there are logical errors in such an article. For instance, at <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/20030331/sis658-12.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/20030331/sis658-12.html</A> there is a mention about "SiS 658 featuring the dual DDR chipset". Is this true?

If its just a typing error, which chipset is it? It is only shown as a Dual DDR333 chipset with an asterisk.