Does Intel have Reasons to Feel Threatened?
The SiS730 seems to be the perfect low-cost solution. Our tests have been very painless, showing pretty well that the chipset seems to be matured. There are many reasons why I would definitely prefer a Duron system to a Celeron system. The processor has always been able to offer a much better price/performance ratio. The Celeron is limited to 66 MHz (at 800 MHz it''s 100 MHz at last) processor bus clock, while Duron runs at 100 MHz double-pumped. Finally the Duron can be teamed up with PC100 or PC133 SDRAM memory, while Celeron systems usually work with 66 MHz memory. In addition, there is no price difference between 66 MHz and 133 MHz SDRAM memory any more. The issue about memory speed is very important for chipsets with integrated graphics, as the graphics performance depends heavily on the data bandwidth between the graphics core and the main memory, which is in part used as graphics memory.
In my opinion BAPCo''s SYSmark is still the best benchmarking suite to determine the overall business performance. However, the actual numbers are rather theoretical, as even a 300 MHz machine can provide enough performance for processing documents, spread sheets or similar stuff. The green line is the benchmark result using the integrated graphics engine of the SiS730. The blue one represents the result using a GeForce 2 Pro graphics card. As expected, the advantage of such an expensive graphics card over the integrated engine is not worth mentioning
Bron: http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q1/
010109/
The SiS730 seems to be the perfect low-cost solution. Our tests have been very painless, showing pretty well that the chipset seems to be matured. There are many reasons why I would definitely prefer a Duron system to a Celeron system. The processor has always been able to offer a much better price/performance ratio. The Celeron is limited to 66 MHz (at 800 MHz it''s 100 MHz at last) processor bus clock, while Duron runs at 100 MHz double-pumped. Finally the Duron can be teamed up with PC100 or PC133 SDRAM memory, while Celeron systems usually work with 66 MHz memory. In addition, there is no price difference between 66 MHz and 133 MHz SDRAM memory any more. The issue about memory speed is very important for chipsets with integrated graphics, as the graphics performance depends heavily on the data bandwidth between the graphics core and the main memory, which is in part used as graphics memory.
In my opinion BAPCo''s SYSmark is still the best benchmarking suite to determine the overall business performance. However, the actual numbers are rather theoretical, as even a 300 MHz machine can provide enough performance for processing documents, spread sheets or similar stuff. The green line is the benchmark result using the integrated graphics engine of the SiS730. The blue one represents the result using a GeForce 2 Pro graphics card. As expected, the advantage of such an expensive graphics card over the integrated engine is not worth mentioning
Bron: http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q1/
010109/
:strip_exif()/u/3749/DukeNukemSmall.gif?f=community)
(o.a. de AMD760, Via KT266 met DDR en de ALi MaGiK doen mee).
/u/9258/killbill.png?f=community)
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/6995/crop5778dcb1264b5_cropped.jpeg?f=community)
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/3496/ford_power_klein.jpg?f=community)
), dus door de diverse bruggen op m''n Duron-750 (7.5*100) te kleuren en er eentje te verbreken (da''s errug lastig, maar uiteindelijk heb ik met een stanley-mes de hele brug weggekrast /u/5838/nos-meeting-54-icon.png?f=community){kind=icon}
:strip_exif()/u/21734/IRbaboon.gif?f=community)
) spelen met je onboard modelletje.
/u/12038/crop69547035714ff_cropped.png?f=community)
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/4103/Logo.jpg?f=community){kind=logo}
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/1522/crop5f4a0291a77ba_cropped.jpeg?f=community)