I'm your typical pre-x-mas upgrader, I'm a bit miffed about the Nforce, first i saw an article on anandtech a few weeks back saying the nforce smoked VIA's 266 with an athlon 1800 in each. Then i read another article on THG that says the nvidia stinks......whats the deal....also, I don't play games but I am starting to do alot of 3d rendering/programming for school.......does the onboard graphics on the Nforce really serve up some nice eyecandy(also, is it running at 6x agp?) , or will a cost comparative such as a via266 in an epox or ecs K7S5a with ati radeon 7500 do the trick; all running an athlon xp 1800??
Wow, there are more mixed metaphors in that post than a poet's convention durin the San Francisco quake.
Ok, let's get some things straightened out.
Chipset: The "brain" of your motherboard, two chips.
Via KT266: The first DDR chipset for Athlon.
Via KT266a: The next Via DDR chipset, much faster.
Now, the ECS K7S5A is the SiS735 chipset, still good.
KT266<SiS735<nForce<KT266a, make sense?
The graphics on the nForce suck. Hard. If all you want is MS Word and email, then they'll be great. For anything else, you're screwed. Get a KT266a/SiS735 motherboard, a good video card, and be happy.
<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Ok, let's get some things straightened out.
Chipset: The "brain" of your motherboard, two chips.
Via KT266: The first DDR chipset for Athlon.
Via KT266a: The next Via DDR chipset, much faster.
Now, the ECS K7S5A is the SiS735 chipset, still good.
KT266<SiS735<nForce<KT266a, make sense?
The graphics on the nForce suck. Hard. If all you want is MS Word and email, then they'll be great. For anything else, you're screwed. Get a KT266a/SiS735 motherboard, a good video card, and be happy.
<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
thanx, fatburger....that clears up alot of stuff....i was wondering ...is the fan/heatsink combo on the ECI K7S5A enuff to do a lil' overclocking?
The graphics on the nForce 420 chipset is GeForce2 MX class. Best onboard integrated graphics specification I've seen. Really convienent to have an integrated NIC, good audio, and good graphics out of the box! (I plan on upgrading to a GeForce Ti 200 or something better anyway, haven't made my mind up yet).
Really, I wouldn't touch VIA with a 10 foot pole, and I'm not familiar with SiS 735. Maybe it's brand recognition (I have my heart set for the nForce).
Really, I wouldn't touch VIA with a 10 foot pole, and I'm not familiar with SiS 735. Maybe it's brand recognition (I have my heart set for the nForce).
I'd vermy much like the nForce to be all that it is meant to be. The Dual Channel memory sounded very tempting especially if that meaned boosted memory performance. The only area where Athlon based systems lag behind Intel is in memory intensive applications such as 3D rendering. RDRAM based systems are very impressive in this area. I was hoping that THW would have focused more on this aspect when reviewing the boards. It would also be nice if they benchmarked with several different renderers. Another gripe I have is the use of LAME MP3 encoding for benchmarking. Why are they using one of the worst encoders out there??? According to an article at ArsTechnica quite a while back, the best (in terms of sound quality) encoder was the Fraunhoffer encoder.
Best onboard, yes. Best graphics? Far from it. This is more like GeForce 2 MX200, which is worse than a TNT2. Would you put a TNT2 in your box? I think not. If it could be used as a secondary graphics card, then it would be nice. But since it can't, it just adds to the cost. But if you're not playing games or doing 3D rendering, it'd be a great all-integrated system.
Not so. The Athlon's better FPU pushes it ahead of the P4 in 3D work. The P4 does better in bandwidth-intensive integer work, such as WinRar, MP3, MP4, etc.
<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Whoa, hold on there turbo. The ECS K7S5A (you actually got the model number right, congrats. Few people do) is a motherboard. The CPU and heatsink/fan is completely separate.
<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
This is what Tom had to say:
"...
Integrated Graphics
To reduce overall system costs, some chipsets in today's market come with an integrated graphics core. The currently available integrated chipsets, such as e.g. Intel's i810 and i815 as well as VIA's KM133 and others, are providing pretty slow 3D-performance, which could be dubbed as '3D-deceleration' rather than 3D-acceleration. Especially Intel's as well as VIA's solutions are very sad examples for this. Systems equipped with those chipsets don't really allow any reasonable 3D-gameplay.
NVIDIA's nForce has an internal GeForce2MX-like graphics core that comes with integrated transform and lighting as well as high fill rates, <font color=green>so that 3D-gaming is very well possible as well as enjoyable</font color=green>. It's easy to understand that it wasn't difficult for NVIDIA to integrate their own GeForce2 architecture, but nForce was also designed to tackle the crucial graphics memory issue, which is the major reason why current chipsets with integrated graphics are so slow. Usually, a part of the much slower system memory is used for 3D-graphics, slowing everything down. nForce's twin bank memory controller supplies the internal GeForce2MX unit with enough memory bandwidth to offer good performance.
..."
Saying the graphics sucks hard is an overstatement.
What does 3D rendering has to do with the graphic card? I thought 3D rendering is a processor intensive task in which you are trying to produce still images for display.
"...
Integrated Graphics
To reduce overall system costs, some chipsets in today's market come with an integrated graphics core. The currently available integrated chipsets, such as e.g. Intel's i810 and i815 as well as VIA's KM133 and others, are providing pretty slow 3D-performance, which could be dubbed as '3D-deceleration' rather than 3D-acceleration. Especially Intel's as well as VIA's solutions are very sad examples for this. Systems equipped with those chipsets don't really allow any reasonable 3D-gameplay.
NVIDIA's nForce has an internal GeForce2MX-like graphics core that comes with integrated transform and lighting as well as high fill rates, <font color=green>so that 3D-gaming is very well possible as well as enjoyable</font color=green>. It's easy to understand that it wasn't difficult for NVIDIA to integrate their own GeForce2 architecture, but nForce was also designed to tackle the crucial graphics memory issue, which is the major reason why current chipsets with integrated graphics are so slow. Usually, a part of the much slower system memory is used for 3D-graphics, slowing everything down. nForce's twin bank memory controller supplies the internal GeForce2MX unit with enough memory bandwidth to offer good performance.
..."
Saying the graphics sucks hard is an overstatement.
What does 3D rendering has to do with the graphic card? I thought 3D rendering is a processor intensive task in which you are trying to produce still images for display.
Here's another nice report (I just skimmed over it): <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/nforce.htm" target="_new">The Inquirer: Nvidia's Nforce chipset - Review</A>
To quote:
"...In game mode, I wanted to relax and play some of my favorite FPS games and believe or not I was able to run all games in 800x600 or even more modes and to play them well..."
This article was written December 4th, 2001 (or so I think).
To quote:
"...In game mode, I wanted to relax and play some of my favorite FPS games and believe or not I was able to run all games in 800x600 or even more modes and to play them well..."
This article was written December 4th, 2001 (or so I think).
2233 in 3DMark 2001, one of the few 3DMark tests of the integrated graphics. That's a little worse than the MX I'm getting rid of.
70 FPS in Q3 at 1024x768x16. That's pretty bad, I get higher framerates than that, with 32-bit color.
62.93 FPS in DroneZ at 640x480x16. Who wants to play at that? And it's barely playable at 62.93 FPS.
24.5 FPS in Aquamark at 640x480x16. That's not playable, and at the lowest resolution.
The nForce performs well, with the exception of the integrated graphics. If this board had been released when it was supposed to be (that was a long time ago), then it look much better right now.
<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
70 FPS in Q3 at 1024x768x16. That's pretty bad, I get higher framerates than that, with 32-bit color.
62.93 FPS in DroneZ at 640x480x16. Who wants to play at that? And it's barely playable at 62.93 FPS.
24.5 FPS in Aquamark at 640x480x16. That's not playable, and at the lowest resolution.
The nForce performs well, with the exception of the integrated graphics. If this board had been released when it was supposed to be (that was a long time ago), then it look much better right now.
<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
bront
Distinguished
- Oct 16, 2001
- 2,122
- 0
- 19,780
I don't think most people are looking to the video card to be a high end 3D graphics solution.
However, it will play most older games at 1024x768, and will handel 2D output just fine, so for a short term solution or a low end vid-card solution for people who don't need high end 3D, it's perfectly fine.
2233 is actualy better than my old MX system used to do, but that was also a slot A Athlon 750. (it got 2100 I think).
Chesnuts roasting on an open CPU
Bill Gates nipping at your wallet
However, it will play most older games at 1024x768, and will handel 2D output just fine, so for a short term solution or a low end vid-card solution for people who don't need high end 3D, it's perfectly fine.
2233 is actualy better than my old MX system used to do, but that was also a slot A Athlon 750. (it got 2100 I think).
Chesnuts roasting on an open CPU
Bill Gates nipping at your wallet
"...70 FPS in Q3 at 1024x768x16. That's pretty bad, I get higher framerates than that, with 32-bit color..."
We don't know what frame rate it will deliver at 1024x768x32. Need to run the test and find out. Switching to 32 bit mode may result in small delta performance change (direction of change not implied).
"...62.93 FPS in DroneZ at 640x480x16. Who wants to play at that? And it's barely playable at 62.93 FPS..."
Whoops, look like the GeForce 3 Ti500 on the AMD 760 platform did not fare much better at playing DroneZ @ 640x480x16. It only got 69.75 frame per second! But the nForce platform with GeForce 3 Ti500 did do better at 93.4 FPS!
"...24.5 FPS in Aquamark at 640x480x16. That's not playable, and at the lowest resolution...".
Definitely don't play Aquanox using the integrated graphics on nForce (or turn down some of the eye candy if possible). Probably uses GeForce 3 features.
We don't know what frame rate it will deliver at 1024x768x32. Need to run the test and find out. Switching to 32 bit mode may result in small delta performance change (direction of change not implied).
"...62.93 FPS in DroneZ at 640x480x16. Who wants to play at that? And it's barely playable at 62.93 FPS..."
Whoops, look like the GeForce 3 Ti500 on the AMD 760 platform did not fare much better at playing DroneZ @ 640x480x16. It only got 69.75 frame per second! But the nForce platform with GeForce 3 Ti500 did do better at 93.4 FPS!
"...24.5 FPS in Aquamark at 640x480x16. That's not playable, and at the lowest resolution...".
Definitely don't play Aquanox using the integrated graphics on nForce (or turn down some of the eye candy if possible). Probably uses GeForce 3 features.
I've talked to dozens of people who expect to be able to buy this board and forego buying a GF3 or so. I'm trying to dispel that myth.
<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
I agree, the GeForce 3 is a more powerful than the integrated graphics on the nForce motherboard. The benchmarks shows that. You shouldn't have any trouble convincing your friends of that fact. So you are trying to dispel a myth by proclaming that the graphics on the nForce motherboard sucks hard near the beginning of this thread?
You might want to check those benchmarks again. Explain to me, if the Athlon FPU is so much better than the P4's, how does a 1400 P4 beat a 1900 Athlon in 3D rendering? (Lightwave 7b benchmark )
Also, the P4 architecture shows no advantage over the Athlon when it comes to archiving, compiling, or encoding. The 1900 Athlon practically ties the 2000 P4 in all applications except for 3D rendering, where it's a very poor performer, and compiling, where it give the P4 a nice beating.
Go ahead and check the scores for yourself:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011105/index.html
Remember, 3D rendering is insanely memory hogging. I easily use up 1gb or memory to render even a simple scene in 3dsmax.
Also, the P4 architecture shows no advantage over the Athlon when it comes to archiving, compiling, or encoding. The 1900 Athlon practically ties the 2000 P4 in all applications except for 3D rendering, where it's a very poor performer, and compiling, where it give the P4 a nice beating.
Go ahead and check the scores for yourself:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011105/index.html
Remember, 3D rendering is insanely memory hogging. I easily use up 1gb or memory to render even a simple scene in 3dsmax.
Different Lightwave versions give very, very different scores, which is why I don't reference them.
The P4 won in WinACE, the only archiving benchmark. The XP won in MP3 and MPEG4 encoding (although the latest Divx codec changes MPEG4).
<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
The P4 won in WinACE, the only archiving benchmark. The XP won in MP3 and MPEG4 encoding (although the latest Divx codec changes MPEG4).
<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Yes, unless I read something far more horrible than the double-sided DDR issue that was recently discovered, I will be going nForce.
My personal thoughts on this is pretty simple, the primary reason that nForce was late to ship, from what I understand anyway is that they discovered some stability or performance issues with the chipset drivers rather late in the game. While disappointing, this is no great surprise considering this is basically a version 1.0 product for nVidia.
So, with that thought in mind, considering nVidia has $200 Million Microsoft dollars to dump into research and refinement (for XBox primarily) I am banking on future driver revisions and BIOS refinements jacking the performance scores up another 2 or 3%, which would place nForce neck and neck with the best 266A boards.
My previous experience with VIA chipsets (ancient MVP3 K6-2 era) left a truly vile taste in my mouth for Via chipsets. I went through 10 or 12 revisions of 4-in-1 drivers on a constant quest for STABILITY let alone performance.
From what I have been reading, the Asus K7V266-E seems like a solid board, with great stability, but I just dont think I can bring myself to another Via chipset.
Yes, I already know and understand that the integrated video is not everything that nVidia alluded to, but with new video cards entering the market every 6 months or so, this will no doubt get upgraded in everyone's systems before the motherboard does anyway. The integrated audio on the otherhand sounds like a very solid solution.
One last thought on nForce v/s 266A, nForce 420 has more memory bus bandwidth than the Athlon XP family of processors knows how to use. Can Via / SiS / Ali say that? No, they can't really. Yes they have some bus bandwidth to spare, but not in the quantities available to nForce.
So, in short, I think I am going to gamble a little on the so-called underdog and go nForce. Admittedly more for personal reasons than performance justification.
Now, if it turns out that the Alpha 8045 or the Thermalright SK-6 wont fit on the Asus A7N266-E, I may have to rethink my options.
-JasonSw2
Then: "Nobody ever got fired for selecting an IBM mainframe."
Now: "Nobody ever got fired for selecting an Asus motherboard."
My personal thoughts on this is pretty simple, the primary reason that nForce was late to ship, from what I understand anyway is that they discovered some stability or performance issues with the chipset drivers rather late in the game. While disappointing, this is no great surprise considering this is basically a version 1.0 product for nVidia.
So, with that thought in mind, considering nVidia has $200 Million Microsoft dollars to dump into research and refinement (for XBox primarily) I am banking on future driver revisions and BIOS refinements jacking the performance scores up another 2 or 3%, which would place nForce neck and neck with the best 266A boards.
My previous experience with VIA chipsets (ancient MVP3 K6-2 era) left a truly vile taste in my mouth for Via chipsets. I went through 10 or 12 revisions of 4-in-1 drivers on a constant quest for STABILITY let alone performance.
From what I have been reading, the Asus K7V266-E seems like a solid board, with great stability, but I just dont think I can bring myself to another Via chipset.
Yes, I already know and understand that the integrated video is not everything that nVidia alluded to, but with new video cards entering the market every 6 months or so, this will no doubt get upgraded in everyone's systems before the motherboard does anyway. The integrated audio on the otherhand sounds like a very solid solution.
One last thought on nForce v/s 266A, nForce 420 has more memory bus bandwidth than the Athlon XP family of processors knows how to use. Can Via / SiS / Ali say that? No, they can't really. Yes they have some bus bandwidth to spare, but not in the quantities available to nForce.
So, in short, I think I am going to gamble a little on the so-called underdog and go nForce. Admittedly more for personal reasons than performance justification.
Now, if it turns out that the Alpha 8045 or the Thermalright SK-6 wont fit on the Asus A7N266-E, I may have to rethink my options.
-JasonSw2
Then: "Nobody ever got fired for selecting an IBM mainframe."
Now: "Nobody ever got fired for selecting an Asus motherboard."
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
[SOLVED] Is it safe to use a recapped PSU for a long time ?- Started by zwtch_17
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram