Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How come there is No 655 review on Toms?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 10, 2003 1:39:15 PM

Title says it all.

Bob

More about : 655 review toms

March 10, 2003 1:44:07 PM

EXCELLENT QUESTION!!!

I was wondering about the same issue these days...
What is SiS 655 capable of? vs Granite bay??
I want to read that review as well!!!
Related resources
March 10, 2003 3:24:59 PM

thanks.

So apparently, the SiS655 is the fastest chip out there for P4, by a slim margin. So much for Rambus, at least until SiS´s own R659 with quad-channel PC-1200 RDRAM...
March 10, 2003 4:33:39 PM

Yeah, where was THG on this one? I mean, isn't it kinda noteworthy that SiS is now the top performing chipset manufacturer for Intel processors? Eh? Anyone?


<-----Insert witty sig line here.
March 10, 2003 6:23:33 PM

Well considering how fast they buried the Radeon 9800 Pro artcle with worthless crap on the front page, I am not surprised they "overlooked" giving this any exposure at all.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by rain_king_uk on 03/10/03 03:24 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 10, 2003 7:34:28 PM

its weird alright considering that toms was the first to make a 645 review.
March 10, 2003 7:43:32 PM

Last I checked, Anandtech's results of the 655 were crappy. It's yet another failure. Why? Because to me it seems no company is yet able to match the highly tuned i850E interface. We need nVidia in Intel's camp, fast!

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 11, 2003 12:26:59 AM

Eden: Did we read the same review? Because Anand's conclusion was rather glowing:

Quote:
First off, we can safely say that MSI's 655 Max motherboard is the fastest Pentium 4 motherboard we've ever tested, albeit by a relatively slim margin over Rambus solutions based on Intel's 850E chipset. While E7205 boards were more or less the performance equivalent of PC1066 Rambus equipped systems, MSI's 655 Max has clearly taken the performance lead, but again only by a very thin margin.

Motherboards based on SiS' 655 chipset will be marginally faster than E7205, 850E, and 845PE motherboards as long as dual channel DDR400 support is fully implemented in SiS 655 motherboards (MSI's board is just one example). We never would have thought it, but dual channel DDR400 actually outperforms dual channel DDR266, despite the fact that the Pentium 4's FSB doesn't require more than 4.2GB/s of peak bandwidth, which is exactly what dual channel DDR266 is capable of offering.



<-----Insert witty sig line here.
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2003 5:45:51 AM

Similar to the situation with AMD, the PC3200 gives improved performance due to less latency in real time (Cas Latency measured in cycles, shorter cycles mean faster response time). Of course PC2100 at Cas 1.5 should outperform PC3200 at Cas 2.5 in dual channel mode (if all the other memory timings were equally "sped up"), since any bandwidth beyond PC2100 dual channel is wasted.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
March 11, 2003 10:27:30 AM

I'm sorry, but using DDR400 is not my type of "max performance" I wanted.
It used DDR400 in order to occasionally win and tie.
I have yet to meet any damn Intel chipset for Dual Channel, which with PC2100, maxed bandwidth possible on 533MTs processor, can outperform the PC1066 platform. NONE. All of them close in and sometimes tie, but they still don't beat it despite the known DDR low latency compared to RDRAM.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 11, 2003 10:55:42 AM

i dont understand your reasoning or what you are trying to imply here Eden you are basically saying that beacuse they are using ddr400 it's not good for you, beacuse intel is using ddr266 and is not winning??? LOL, well even with ddr333 the 655 wins a majority of benches over 850E.

DDR400 (pc3200)is a fact. hell you can even get ddr3500 today from your local computer store.
March 11, 2003 11:13:29 AM

The SiS655 outperforms the i850E...

Oh, and I do agree that intel makes highly tuned chipsets. The i850E has been on the market for several months now (I don´t know exactly) and it it still a top performer. Quite impressive. Intel´s chipsets have always been respectable! That´s what makes me so curious about Canterwood... Boy, I can´t even stop mentioning it in my posts!
March 11, 2003 11:49:02 AM

what impresses me with Granite Bay's Dual Channel DDR266 is that it more or less ties with 850E Dual Channel RDRAM 1060. Looking forward for 800fsb springfield and canterwood but dont forget <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7944" target="_new"> 659 </A> ;) 
March 11, 2003 12:05:10 PM

Yes, I´ve seen it!

It´s going to be one hell of a year for the P4 platform!
Seriously, though, 9.6GB/s max memory throughtput? Looks absurd! The P4 only needs 6.4GB/s with a 800Mhz Fsb...
But as others have remembered here with 2xDDR266 vs 2xDDR400, having more bandwidth for memory offers performance benefits, even IF it would seem the processor can´t take that much info rate.... Anyway, it´s interesting to think about the final showdown, later this year, with the contestants:

:cool: <b>Athlon 64</b>, at last, with <b>64-bit extensions</b> and other features, such as <b>Hypertransport</b> memory technology

:cool: <b>Prescott 3.6Ghz</b> (or so), 800Mhz FSB, enhanced-performance, on <b>Canterwood</b> with PAT, <b>dual-channel DDR-400Mhz</b>, Doubled caches

:cool: <b>Prescott 3.6Ghz</b> as before, 800Mhz FSB, on SiS659 with <b>quad-channel PC-1200 RDRAM</b> capable of 9.6GB/s memory bandwidth.

Which platform will outperform the others and by how much?...
March 11, 2003 3:28:31 PM

I think Intel have alot in reserve and can up the stakes whenever they feel like it.

For me, the Athlon 64 is too little too late - I fear it's not going to be as competitive as it would've been had they been able to release it 6 months ago. However there weren't any OS's around to really take advantage of it then anyway.
March 11, 2003 3:50:40 PM

On the surface, it appears Hammer might be a big disappointment. However, I know AMD has a 400FSB Barton 3200+ in the works. I seriously doubt AMD would release any Barton that's faster than Hammer will be, but who knows? I did read that the problem AMD was having with Hammer's integrated memory-controller was that it did not ramp as well as the core itself, but that the problem was minor and has already been fixed. Supposedly, the integrated memory controller, by itself, gives Hammer a 20% speed boost. I've also read that the additional registers Hammer has for 64-bit operation might help in 32-bit mode as well, though I am totally unable to vouch for that.

Let's speculate that without the integrated memory controller, Hammer is as fast, clock cycle-for-clock-cycle, as the 400 FSB Barton. If AMD can release the Hammer in a 2 ghz version, and given the 20% theoretical boost from the IMC, wouldn't it be as fast as a 400 FSB Barton running at 2.4 ghz? And a Barton at 2.4 ghz would be...what? A 3400+? Maybe AMD has something up its collective sleeve, and will release Hammer in a 2.2 ghz version. What would that be? A 3700+?

I am disappointed in AMD the last year or so, and I'm really hoping Hammer is strong enough to keep Intel jumping. I will say the Canterwood chipset sounds very promising indeed. I am very interested to see what a 3.2 gig P4, with double the L1 cache, and with 1 gig of L2 cache, and improved HT, on an 800 mhz FSB can do. Considering the P4's always seem to get a big boost from improved memory performance, it would seem AMD has a tough row to hoe ahead of them. But who knows? Maybe Intel knows something we don't, and is ramping up the P4 because they know they HAVE to to compete with Hammer.

<-----Insert witty sig line here.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 03/11/03 01:09 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 11, 2003 3:57:28 PM

Quote:
For me, the Athlon 64 is too little too late - I fear it's not going to be as competitive as it would've been had they been able to release it 6 months ago. However there weren't any OS's around to really take advantage of it then anyway.

<sarcasm><i>Other than 64-bit x86 versions of Unix and Linux and any version of Windows for a 32-bit x86 CPU (and technically ANY OS for a 32-bit x86 CPU). Yeah. No OS's at all that could have run an Athlon64. It's not like it was intentionally designed to be backwards compatible with 32-bit x86 software. And certainly everyone who runs a 64-bit server does so using Windows and software specifically for Windows.</i></sarcasm>

We really don't need to be making stupid excuses for AMD. Lack of an x86-64 version of Windows is hardly a viable excuse for the continued delay of the Athlon64.

<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>
March 11, 2003 8:00:07 PM

Listen to me, I am targetting chipset SAME memory performance.
The goal is to see whether the chipset, when run with the APPROPRIATE SYNCHRONISED memory speeds of 266MHZ, can outperform the competition. Otherwise we are still seeing another Pentium 4-like environment where only brute force MHZ saves it. I don't want that in chipsets. Yes with DDR400, you push it basically far and then it can win. But that is INEFFICIENT, AND PC3200 costs much more than PC2100. The goal for consumers is to get the same platform but much better and for less. If the 655 was truly well designed, it'd have required 266MHZ DDR only, dual channeled, at 4.2GB/sec JUST LIKE PC1066 i850E, and outperformed it. THEN it will have a great value and proven that it is damn efficient, and future DDR400 combinations will provide even more boosts.
That is what I wanted, and I was not given once again.
DDR 266MHZ is ALL IT NEEDS, Dual Channeled, to compete PC1066, and it failed to do so.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 11, 2003 9:14:43 PM

Indeed, I´d tend to agree with you... Dual DDR400 holds true potential for 800Mhz-FSB. A well-designed intel chip for this configuration, a.k.a. Canterwood/Springdale, should perform admirably for a long time, like the i850E did.

About SiS659, as I remember, the 9.6GB/s it offers should fill up the FSB for the Tejas, the next generation Intel processor after prescott, which should have an astonishing 1.2Ghz FSB :eek:  On the other hand, I think Tejas won´t be out until late 2004 or 2005 or something - if I´m not mistaken.
March 11, 2003 9:41:21 PM

slvr_phoenix, the 64 bit version of linux is relatively new - certainly not been available for 6 months. Hardly any applications have been ported to run on it. I said no OS's that could take advantage of it, not no OS's that could run it.
March 11, 2003 10:37:18 PM

There is indeed no excuse for AMD. The x86-64 project has been severely delayed, and that´s either because of lack of technical knowledge from the AMD engineers or lack of judgement by the people who set the initial deadlines. Either way, it´s a slap on AMD´s face. If x86-64 doesn´t do very well until the year´s end, then AMD is in *very* serious trouble.

Getting support for 64-bit-specific code, either extended or "true", as in Itanium, is actually a bit of a problem, anyway. The way I see it, x86-64 on the desktop requires a vast suite of new, specifically-written code for its design advantages to flourish. Now, on the server space, that could work, but on the desktop? It´s a very large leap! Even when the Athlon 64 is launched in september, I think AMD won´t have a good year on the desktop at all. :frown:

The introduction of Hyperthreading on the P4, for example: software for multi-threading was already available. A few selected programs take good benefit in it. So, now, gradually, Hyperthreading should become an excellent card for Intel - as of now, it´s a good one, but it´ll get much better (prescott and all). This is a smooth tech transition! If only x86-64 could be introduced this way...
Look at Intel: they had it going. HT was already on their plans for ages, without noone knowing it. And they introduced it with excellent timing. That´s why I think Yamhill could be for real, and they´re waiting for the right moment. Think about it: why would they announce Yamhill now? Any good reason? They could be holding all the cards without anyone knowing about it. They had HT in their sleeves for a really long time. Remember, even SSE supported 64-bit integer operands, in a limited and slow fashion, if I´m not mistaken. What´s the natural conclusion?
March 11, 2003 10:54:12 PM

It close to imposible to beat PC 1066 with Pc 2100 as they use the same ram cell.

[-peep-] french
March 11, 2003 10:58:57 PM

The thing with R659 yes rambus is superior by a good margin but the fsb of P4 dont help it also as they will be using 1/2 frenquency to reach the needed bandwith they will equal or be beat by super canterwood (best chipset worst memory)

Only when running at 133 mghz it may stant a chance the best will be to find PC 1333 module and overclock it to PC 1600 level and be automatique DDR 400 kill by about 33% advantage even if they use the same cell.

[-peep-] french
March 12, 2003 7:21:39 AM

i see your point, but i wouldnt equall pc2100 with pc1066 beacuse Granite bay supports DDR266. A more fair ram comparisionn would be ddr266 and pc800 (not1066) and pc2700/3200 to pc1066. Fact remains 655's pc2700/3200 performs slaightly better then 1066 this has nothing to do with brute force. I mean why would it be brute force to use pc2700/3200 and not pc1066 then?
March 12, 2003 7:23:10 AM

<i> It close to imposible to beat PC 1066 with Pc 2100 as they use the same ram cell. </i>That would explain why ddr266 and pc1066 performs on pair.
March 12, 2003 10:51:27 AM

This is not the thing, I am targetting the technical viewpoint of DDR and RDRAM.

DDR 266 and PC1066 are BOTH 133MHZ counterparts. They are both what a 533MTs bus requires. Synchronous operation as you can see. I believe the only reason higher bandwidth works for Pentium 4 is simply because of the latency, otherwise how on earth can more data be supplied on a bus that can transfer less? Have you seen them using DDR 400 CAS 3 yet? No, but I suspect it'd suck worse than DDR266 CAS 2.

And yes it has to do with brute force because you are sending more than you should be sending, as in using unnecessary power, just to catch up. A 133MHZ Bus DOES NOT REQUIRE 200MHZ DDRRAM in order to compete.

In fact, contrary to Juin's statement, in the past, a chipset like SiS 648 used DDR333 to outdo PC800 3.2GB/sec RAM, even though it had less bandwidth. That was because of latency. So why is suddenly DDR Dual-Channel at the same bandwidth as the PC1066 underperforming?
I still think nVidia's excellent Dual Channel technology would do a lot of good in the sector for Pentium 4 DDR platforms. They have these aggressive prefetch units and we've seen the benchmarks for the AMDs that don't even use the extra bandwidth. (which means the extra performance did not come from higher bandwidth but from DualDDR mode's special timings)

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 12, 2003 12:13:00 PM

First of all <A HREF="http://www.vr-zone.com/reviews/AOpen/AX45-4D/page6.htm" target="_new"> latency </A>
seems to be slightly higher with DDR333/400 compared to DDR266 Second, feeding the p4cpu with more then 4.2Gb/s obviously means better performance, perhaps the I/O and AGP masters gets some of the spill-over from the cpu?

Third, E7205/SiS655 is a better choice compared to the 850E, because
1. Overclocking PC1066 DRDRAM is more difficult beacuse of heat (PC1066 gets really hot, thus less stable *better cooling required*)
2. PC1066 rimms with 512 MB are rare and expensive.
3. 850E only supports AGP 4X

The reason GB dosen't outperform 850e might be beacuse dualchannel ddr266 is something that they had plannend a long time ago but havent released it for various reasons (who knowes?)..however the reason to go with 655 is the price /performance ratio.

Bob
March 12, 2003 1:32:19 PM

Lantency wise

PC 2100 have the same bandwith that PC 1066 also the same latency.

I will explain some disparity betwwen nforce 2 GB/SIS655 I850E/R659

FSB run at 133 mghz and the memory at 133 mghz for PC 1066 and PC 2100

At internal a DDR dimm have 64 bit path (128 bit for DDR-2)and RDRAM use a 4*16 for 64 bit.

The disparity between RDRAM and DDR it at there inteface RDRAM' run at 4X time the speed of the internal core (533 DDR) but on 4 time smaller bus (16 bit).

all module ship 2 bit per cycle.

2 disparity is the commands/adresse bus rdram use a DDR bus or also know at full bus DDR use SDR single data rate so only 1/2 of bandwith can be offer to the chip i expect QBM to have a real issue with command bus as they will be on 1/4 setting.


Nforce2 vs Granite bay/SIS655/I850E

nforce2 use 2X64 bit controleur very good for lantency

SIS 655/GB/

It was the simplest way to make the implentation but unlike nforce2 it can fetch write and read in the same time bandwith will be more easely fetch.So SIS 655 GB will more bandwith and nforce less lantency (just few percent).

On I850 RDRAM i there a big issue.Even if RDRAM fetch 32 bit data at each 1066 mghz the P4 FSB will be waitning that there hit there cycle

1 cycle I850 have 32 bit
2 cycle I850 have 64 bit
3 cycle I850 have 96 bit
4 cycle I800 have 128 bit
5..
6..
7..
8 cycle I850E hae store up to 256 bit of data and fetch 4*64 bit to the P4

In fact it been 7 cycle that the date was ready.also P4 bus support inly 64 bit tansfert in a case that it get 3 pack of 64 and 1 32 the last pack will have to wait the next cycle.

Also deserial/serialiser have do be done but i dont think it can be done until it have receive all the data.

In a others word a 1066mghz 8 bit QDR FSB rdram lantency willl decrease massevely.
Also in case that P4 got a intergrate controleur the desirialiser will run 3X faster that the ram leaving no extra lantency from the serial interface


[-peep-] french
March 12, 2003 4:16:49 PM

Quote:
slvr_phoenix, the 64 bit version of linux is relatively new - certainly not been available for 6 months.

Betas have been.

Quote:
Hardly any applications have been ported to run on it.

Hardly any applications will even gain an advantage from a move to 64-bit in the first place. And the supposed advantage of Athlon64 is it's ability to run 32-bit code and 64-bit code simultaneously. So applications don't <i>need</i> porting. They should run just as well as they always have, or lese AMD has failed.

Quote:
said no OS's that could take advantage of it, not no OS's that could run it.

And I say that the point of the x86-64 concept is that any 32-bit x86 software (OSs included) can 'take advantage' of the x86-64 CPU. The ability to run 64-bit code is not the <i>only</i> advantage of an Athlon64 over an AXP.

<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>
March 12, 2003 4:25:44 PM

slvr_phoenix, I agree with you completely.
(remarkable, you always say noteworthy stuff!)
Quote:

And I say that the point of the x86-64 concept is that any 32-bit x86 software (OSs included) can 'take advantage' of the x86-64 CPU. The ability to run 64-bit code is not the only advantage of an Athlon64 over an AXP.

This is a necessity to ensure a sound, smooth technological transition, like the (simpler) transition to HT-enabled processors. If it´s not the case, then AMD is in serious trouble!

Oh, and there is now a review on SiS655 on tomshardware. So I guess this thread had an impact, or what? :smile: The 850 is really still the safest bet, then.
March 12, 2003 5:06:02 PM

Ask and you shall recieve. See the front page guys "Twice The Power: SiS655 With Dual DDR333" :smile: :wink:
March 12, 2003 6:32:33 PM

If I were AMD I wouldn't want to release the Athlon64 and say "see it's a bit better than what's currently available for 32bit apps, but wait a few months and you'll see it's full potential!"

I would also want to wait so I can cash in on the MS hype when they launch the 64bit version of Windows.
March 12, 2003 7:27:06 PM

Well there you have it, THG reviewed it.
Not only is it unstable, but like I said, even with DDR333, it fails to deliver.

And instability is a surprise to me, as SiS has been reputed to be making stable chipsets lately. Well well well Crashman!

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 12, 2003 7:33:07 PM

To be fair, it may just need a bios flash. Or, maybe it's a buggy POS like some earlier VIA chipsets. It is kind of disappointing, though, that SiS is not able to distinguish itself. It's kind of like the KT400A chipset--it really offers nothing except--maybe--better price.

<-----Insert witty sig line here.
March 12, 2003 10:02:28 PM

Dunno Eden, a big number of hardware sites report a diffrent story (all the majors one infact). And as always read reviews from more then one site before you make up your mind. :wink: Somehow i didnt expect the review to be a positive one sinse such a long time has gone after the release of 655. Useally one used to read here at Toms first new releases, but with 655 it has been a diffrent story.

"It is food for thought that the 850E, the current version of the two-year old 850 chipset, is yet to be convincingly beaten."
This final line from the review is not really fair IMO. 850 is a chipset that has had a chance to mature along with the development of faster dual channel rdram. today it's 850E and drdram1066 not the same as 2 years ago. It was intresting to read the reviewers point of view but neither are the benchmarks or opinion/conclusion coherent with any other major hardware site.
March 12, 2003 11:56:54 PM

I guess we can take anandtech review.

anandtech show also that with DDR 333/266 I850E is still on the top also Toms use a HT chip wich put more pressure on the read/write performance and a lot of ramdom access.Write performace is about 25% better on RDRAM.Anandtech use corsair XMS 3200 cas 2 also toms may have take there boards from normal vendor leaving it with not 1 of the best boards but normal boards as MSI can test few boards and take the best send to anand.(this it just a theory) In overall i found toms stability standart are much higher that others site they use the same standart that they use review a Xeon MP for mission critical.

Also Toms allwayse show real FSB speed it clear that all DDR boards was using higher.

Toms allwayse use ASUS mobo for I850E i dont remember for annatech but many use Intel boards.Intel boards are rock solid but not really the fastest.

On aceshardware P4T533 vs GB most of GB was using a 134.XX FSB and I850E use a 133.00 wich is bit underclock.It mean on a P4 3.06 it will have 50 mghz less to compete and 1% less bandwith and 1% higher lantency.Here Asus SIS 655 wich was the fastest of I850E use a 135.XX wich mean even more mghz adventage.

[-peep-] french
March 13, 2003 12:17:25 AM

Well that about sums it up, which is just one of the stack of reasons why I followed Tom's and believed in their results as being truthful.

And yes, in answer to Bob18, I had verified many of Anandtech's SiS655 test board articles, and I still found it that 333MHZ DDR combinations were not that up to par as I wanted.

I think what might save the 655 at the moment is either:
-A DX version
-A chipset driver which addresses all memory timing issues or a BIOS flash
-A relatively LOW mainboard pricing on it (along the range of 80-100$), baring in mind the crash issues above have been fixed.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 13, 2003 7:04:47 AM

Not true Juin. even at DDR333 655 wins 9 benches and lose 4 to 850E <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.html?i=1786&p=8" target="_new"> see for yourself </A> count the benches. At DDR400 SiS wins 11 and loses 2. I think that the benches speaks for them self. Like i said earlier. None of the other major hardware sites come to the same conclusion as toms.

Oh, Anandtech used ASUS P4T533-C (850E)board also ;) 
March 13, 2003 7:08:54 AM

See my reply to Juin, follow the link i posted and let me know if you still think that 655withDDR333 doesen't win a majority of benches. ;) 
March 13, 2003 10:27:20 AM

Juin specified the lack of HT. Has that been talked of there?

You are, furthermore, replying to me to the wrong assumption. I did not see it as losing, I saw it as not being the performance leader anyways, nothing has yet to crample over the i850E platform, and I am also talking about chipset per bandwidth performance. The SiS655, I repeat for you and the many who still will ignore it, IS NOT AS EFFICIENT AS THE i850E's PER BANDWIDTH PERFORMANCE, period.
If it had, then using DDR333 would've been only an extra and would have been a significant performance boost OVER the i850E.

This is without accounting that if Juin's right about the hand-picked boards of Anandtech, then Tom's has gotten a glimpse of the MARKET version of these boards, which seem unstable.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 13, 2003 12:17:06 PM

There are two 655 versions right now AO and BO. You can support HT on A0 boards with a BIOS update (atleast if you got a gigabyte board). If you got the BO version you don't need the Bios update for HT.

Well as far as stability/compability goes, judging by the the posts i've read by market-version 655 owners, they are more then happy with there boards. I've read reports of 203FSB(running a mobilep4cpu). many other users are well above 175FSB (reviewers report oc around the 160-170's FSB).

All i can say is that when im running at same @FSB and using PC2700 @ DDR400 2-2-2-6-1 :)  my gigabte655 board simply blows away both my drdram850E and the max2-845pe board !

It might take some more work to get your 655 board to work the way you want (bios update, tweaks etc) but when you done it, it's pure heaven :) 
March 13, 2003 12:34:03 PM

Quote:
Juin specified the lack of HT. Has that been talked of there?

That was the <i>first</i> thing that I noticed in the THG review. In <i>all</i> of the other SIS655 reviews that I read, <i>none</i> used HT. Until THG's review I had thought that the SIS655 didn't even support HT yet!

And in the THG review, the only SIS655 motherboard that actually did well was the Asus P4SDX. Yet, we know just <i>why</i> that one did better than the rest: "<font color=green>We fail to understand the obvious overclocking of the Asus P4SDX FSB. The motherboard market leader has no need to resort to such measures.</font color=green>" So all in all, it put the SIS655 into a pretty bad light. The <i>only</i> motherboard that had what could be considered superior performance to the GB and 850E motherboards achieved it not fairly, but by overclocking. The rest of the SIS655 motherboards performed noticably worse.

But not only was the performance worse, either the chipset itself, the BIOS, or the drivers (or all of the above) look to be frighteningly bad. We got from the only slightly bad:
Quote:
<font color=green>Our test system ran marginally slower with 1 x 256 MB and 1 x 512 MB than it did with 2 x 256 or 1 x 512 MB.</font color=green>

To the horribly awful:
Quote:
<font color=green>we came across number of serious compatibility problems with the memory timings we had chosen (DDR333 CL-2 at optimum settings).</font color=green>

Quote:
<font color=green>The one thing all the boards had in common was that they would not work with the maximum timings of the memory modules we used.</font color=green>

I think THG summed it up the best when they said these phrases:
Quote:
<font color=green>the SiS655 is not a great choice right now. We can't say it clearer than that.</font color=green>

Quote:
<font color=green>these are products from the top manufacturers. If these boards had problems, how do you think boards from the low-cost makers will fare?

</font color=green>

I have to agree with THG. If you look at the other SIS655 reviews, you will quickly notice that they are <i>very</i> selective of what hardware they use to put the SIS655 into a favorable light. THG is the only review that really goes against that grain. They were the only ones to not tip-toe around HT and memory timings with the SIS655.

<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>
March 13, 2003 1:22:42 PM

"They were the only ones to not tip-toe around HT and memory timings with the SIS655."
Actually i don't know what this is supposed to mean?? There are benches with HT enabled 655's and aggressive mem timings.

BTW don't you find it odd that since 3 of 4 boards support DDR400 none was tested at those speeds?

Oh, and 655 wins a majority of benches with other mobo boards then the Asus P4SDX Deluxe one REGARDLESS of the FSB.
March 13, 2003 4:05:07 PM

unknow reputation automatique disable.

RDRAM under Ht have allwayse shine even with is very aging i so wait to see R659.If Asus can come with a big boards that suppport very high FSB speed and a nice clock generateur and this time a good qulity power phaser.

[-peep-] french
March 21, 2003 2:51:58 PM

sorry..the link i posted before didn't show 655 with HT enabled. The benches were done with a P43.06Gz Ht-disabled (im suprised that no-one reacted :redface: )

Anyway <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipsets/display/sis65..." target="_new"> here </A> are some fresh benchmarks with SiS655 (Hyper Threading Enabled :smile: ) from Xbitlabs Gigabyte GA-8SQ800 Ultra review. Enjoy!
March 21, 2003 6:55:38 PM

Quote:
Actually i don't know what this is supposed to mean?? There are benches with HT enabled 655's and aggressive mem timings.

There are hardly any with HT enabled and aggressive memory timings. The very few that do exist could very well simply be because they got an exceptional sample that most people won't get.

Quote:
BTW don't you find it odd that since 3 of 4 boards support DDR400 none was tested at those speeds?

Not really, no. 1) It seems to have problems getting any real performance out of DDR400. 2) It doesn't officially support DDR400.

Quote:
Oh, and 655 wins a majority of benches with other mobo boards then the Asus P4SDX Deluxe one REGARDLESS of the FSB.

I've no idea what benches you're looking at, but I've yet to see the SiS motherboards win any 'majority' of real-world apps in fair comparisons. They're only good at winning synthetic benchmarks.

Quote:
sorry..the link i posted before didn't show 655 with HT enabled. The benches were done with a P43.06Gz Ht-disabled (im suprised that no-one reacted :redface: )

Don't be. No one really cares because it's pretty obvious that the SiS motherboard simply isn't the best option available. It's not bad, really, but it's also not the best.

Quote:
Anyway here are some fresh benchmarks with SiS655 (Hyper Threading Enabled ) from Xbitlabs Gigabyte GA-8SQ800 Ultra review. Enjoy!

And once again, the SiS655 gets trashed in real-world benches. Yawn. Are you quite done yet?

<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>
March 21, 2003 7:09:36 PM

I'll just skip to the point that I and you both really are trying to say:
A proper Dual DDR chipset is the one who runs at Dual 266, thereby equalling and outperforming PC1066 RDRAM i850Es.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 21, 2003 8:22:14 PM

with equal intenal speed SDRAM will allwayse run short.Even regard to intel chipset super chipset.E7500 was slower that I860 as E7505 is just a bit faster.

[-peep-] french
!