PtP
24-09-2003, 01:16 PM
Introduction:
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>Intel is probably a bit disappointed with the overwhelming success of the
865 chipset... despite it being their own chipset, they would obviously want
more buyers interested in the more expensive 875 chipset. But alas, things are
getting so bleedin' fast that good enough truly is good enough (just hopefully
not at the cost of quality). Thus, SIS wants to try and direct some of that
budget-enthusiasm towards their new 648FX chipset. Let's see if it is worth your
attention.
</dl>
Key Features:
<ul>
<LI>200fsb support (800MHz quad-pumped)
<LI>Hyperthreading support
[/list]
First impressions:
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>First, I must clarify: this is NOT a review of a motherboard! It is and
general look at SIS's new chipset. This is SIS's reference motherboard, and it's
performance, quality, and features are just a rough guideline of what to expect
from the different manufacturers making their own motherboards based on the
648FX chipset.
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>With that out of the way, let's whip thru some pics:
</dl>
<DIV align=center>
<TABLE>
<TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-01.jpg</A></TD>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-02.jpg</A></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-03.jpg</A></TD>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-04.jpg</A></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-05.jpg</A></TD>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-06.jpg</A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>These pictures do no convey how truly huge this board is! It won't even fit
in a Full-tower ATX case! The bottom of the motherboard sticks out a good bit
beyond the last expansion opening on the case.
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>Not one to test equipment all nekkid on a testbench (I need the desk free to
take pictures anyway), I did a laughable job of bastardizing an old'n'ugly ATX
case I had laying around, putting my own "stilts" on the bottom so I could fit
the board in. Check it out:
</dl>
<DIV align=center><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-07.jpg</A></DIV>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>133t 5ki115, no? Now, I promised this was a look at the chipset and not the
motherboard's intricacies (as any manufacture designing a motherboard this huge
would just be... well...stupid), so let's cut to the performance... but just a
quick note about chipset heat problems first: The reference board ran fine
without chipset cooling, but the northbridge ran rather toasty, so the 3rd-party
makers will hopefully add just a small passive heatsink in their designs.
</dl>
Performance:
Relevant test system specs:
P4 2.4 w/ HT (800fsb)
512MB PC3200
GeForceFX 5200U
Maxtor
DiamondMax9+ 120GB
Win XP Pro w/ SP1
*comparison with Albatron PX865PE ProII*
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>Let's get right to it:
</dl>
<DIV align=center>
<TABLE>
<TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>Intel 865</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>SIS 648FX</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>Sysmark Office</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>166</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>171</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>Sisoft Memory (Int/Flo)</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>4533/4529</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>3035/3031</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>Q3 Demo001 Low</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>282.6</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>280.1</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>UT2003 HardOCP CPU</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>81.936</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>81.696</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<ul>
<LI>*The two game tests were run at 640x480
[/list]
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>The Albatron board was running 2x256MB of Kingston at 2.5,8,3,3. The SIS
board was running 1x512MB of OCZ at 2.5,6,3,3.
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>In true SIS form, the performance in 2D apps is top notch (err...single app
in this case... Anyone have a relevent 2D benchmark in mind outside of Sysmark?
Email ), likely due to SIS's highly
optimized south bridge that provide hardrives transfers that are second to none.
SIS's takes a trailing position in gaming, though, probably due to the 865's
much greater memory bandwidth.
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>While I'm on the subject of harddrive performance, I wanted to do a timed
transfer comparison with the same hard drives on the competing chipsets. Since
having 2 harddrives on the same channel can lower performance of both drives,
SATA, being on it's own channel/bus, should help alleviate that problem. Intel
has the advantage on the SATA side, as it's imbedded in the southbridge, and
thus won't be running on the PCI bus. SIS has the advantage on the IDE side, due
to SIS's drivers.
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>To test rough harddrive performance, I first timed how long it took to
transfer a 6GB folder from a 80GB Seagate 'Cuda IV to the Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus
120GB IDE drive. I then timed the same transfer, but instead now going to a
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus 120GB SATA drive. I made an image of the Maxtor IDE drive
onto the SATA drive beforehand, and I also defragged all three drives, so
everything was equal as possible. Here's the results (minutes:seconds):
</dl>
<DIV align=center>
<TABLE>
<TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>Intel 865</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>SIS 648FX</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>IDE -> IDE</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>7:18</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>6:21</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>IDE -> SATA</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>5:20</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>5:05</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>Whoa! Transferring to a drive on a different bus can save you a good chunk
of time. On the Intel chipset, it saved almost 2 minutes! That's a 27%
improvement! Not too shabby!
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>The SIS board turned in even better numbers. It shaved almost a minute off
of Intel's IDE time! The SATA time didn't show as drastic as an improvement, but
I didn't expect SIS to beat Intel's SATA score by a large amount because: [1]
Intel's native SATA support (although the latest SIS southbridges do too), and
[2] There is a point where the drive is the bottleneck rather than the
interface.
</dl>
Conclusion:
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>It'll be interesting to see how the 648FX chipset will fan out. It's a
decent 3D performer, and a excellent 2D performer, especially in regard to
hardrive performance. It has workstation/cheap-server written all over it. How
many manufacturers will bite the bait, though? More importantly, how many
QUALITY boards that will attract the business crowd will be based off this
chipset? Hopefully it won't be only found in cheap, buggy boards... like the ECS
K7S5A that gave the SIS735 its (mal)reputation. Only a few manufacturers are
making 648FX boards or have them in the works... but if they can build a
reliable board off of this chipset, we may just have a budget-winner on our
hands.</DT>
</dl>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>Intel is probably a bit disappointed with the overwhelming success of the
865 chipset... despite it being their own chipset, they would obviously want
more buyers interested in the more expensive 875 chipset. But alas, things are
getting so bleedin' fast that good enough truly is good enough (just hopefully
not at the cost of quality). Thus, SIS wants to try and direct some of that
budget-enthusiasm towards their new 648FX chipset. Let's see if it is worth your
attention.
</dl>
Key Features:
<ul>
<LI>200fsb support (800MHz quad-pumped)
<LI>Hyperthreading support
[/list]
First impressions:
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>First, I must clarify: this is NOT a review of a motherboard! It is and
general look at SIS's new chipset. This is SIS's reference motherboard, and it's
performance, quality, and features are just a rough guideline of what to expect
from the different manufacturers making their own motherboards based on the
648FX chipset.
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>With that out of the way, let's whip thru some pics:
</dl>
<DIV align=center>
<TABLE>
<TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-01.jpg</A></TD>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-02.jpg</A></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-03.jpg</A></TD>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-04.jpg</A></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-05.jpg</A></TD>
<TD><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-06.jpg</A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>These pictures do no convey how truly huge this board is! It won't even fit
in a Full-tower ATX case! The bottom of the motherboard sticks out a good bit
beyond the last expansion opening on the case.
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>Not one to test equipment all nekkid on a testbench (I need the desk free to
take pictures anyway), I did a laughable job of bastardizing an old'n'ugly ATX
case I had laying around, putting my own "stilts" on the bottom so I could fit
the board in. Check it out:
</dl>
<DIV align=center><A target=_blank>http://www.gamingin3d.com/articles/sis648fx/thumb_sis648fx-07.jpg</A></DIV>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>133t 5ki115, no? Now, I promised this was a look at the chipset and not the
motherboard's intricacies (as any manufacture designing a motherboard this huge
would just be... well...stupid), so let's cut to the performance... but just a
quick note about chipset heat problems first: The reference board ran fine
without chipset cooling, but the northbridge ran rather toasty, so the 3rd-party
makers will hopefully add just a small passive heatsink in their designs.
</dl>
Performance:
Relevant test system specs:
P4 2.4 w/ HT (800fsb)
512MB PC3200
GeForceFX 5200U
Maxtor
DiamondMax9+ 120GB
Win XP Pro w/ SP1
*comparison with Albatron PX865PE ProII*
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>Let's get right to it:
</dl>
<DIV align=center>
<TABLE>
<TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>Intel 865</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>SIS 648FX</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>Sysmark Office</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>166</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>171</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>Sisoft Memory (Int/Flo)</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>4533/4529</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>3035/3031</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>Q3 Demo001 Low</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>282.6</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>280.1</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>UT2003 HardOCP CPU</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>81.936</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>81.696</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<ul>
<LI>*The two game tests were run at 640x480
[/list]
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>The Albatron board was running 2x256MB of Kingston at 2.5,8,3,3. The SIS
board was running 1x512MB of OCZ at 2.5,6,3,3.
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>In true SIS form, the performance in 2D apps is top notch (err...single app
in this case... Anyone have a relevent 2D benchmark in mind outside of Sysmark?
Email ), likely due to SIS's highly
optimized south bridge that provide hardrives transfers that are second to none.
SIS's takes a trailing position in gaming, though, probably due to the 865's
much greater memory bandwidth.
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>While I'm on the subject of harddrive performance, I wanted to do a timed
transfer comparison with the same hard drives on the competing chipsets. Since
having 2 harddrives on the same channel can lower performance of both drives,
SATA, being on it's own channel/bus, should help alleviate that problem. Intel
has the advantage on the SATA side, as it's imbedded in the southbridge, and
thus won't be running on the PCI bus. SIS has the advantage on the IDE side, due
to SIS's drivers.
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>To test rough harddrive performance, I first timed how long it took to
transfer a 6GB folder from a 80GB Seagate 'Cuda IV to the Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus
120GB IDE drive. I then timed the same transfer, but instead now going to a
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus 120GB SATA drive. I made an image of the Maxtor IDE drive
onto the SATA drive beforehand, and I also defragged all three drives, so
everything was equal as possible. Here's the results (minutes:seconds):
</dl>
<DIV align=center>
<TABLE>
<TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>Intel 865</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>SIS 648FX</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>IDE -> IDE</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>7:18</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>6:21</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD><FONT size=2>IDE -> SATA</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>5:20</FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>5:05</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>Whoa! Transferring to a drive on a different bus can save you a good chunk
of time. On the Intel chipset, it saved almost 2 minutes! That's a 27%
improvement! Not too shabby!
</dl>
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>The SIS board turned in even better numbers. It shaved almost a minute off
of Intel's IDE time! The SATA time didn't show as drastic as an improvement, but
I didn't expect SIS to beat Intel's SATA score by a large amount because: [1]
Intel's native SATA support (although the latest SIS southbridges do too), and
[2] There is a point where the drive is the bottleneck rather than the
interface.
</dl>
Conclusion:
</P>
<dl>
<DD>
<DT>It'll be interesting to see how the 648FX chipset will fan out. It's a
decent 3D performer, and a excellent 2D performer, especially in regard to
hardrive performance. It has workstation/cheap-server written all over it. How
many manufacturers will bite the bait, though? More importantly, how many
QUALITY boards that will attract the business crowd will be based off this
chipset? Hopefully it won't be only found in cheap, buggy boards... like the ECS
K7S5A that gave the SIS735 its (mal)reputation. Only a few manufacturers are
making 648FX boards or have them in the works... but if they can build a
reliable board off of this chipset, we may just have a budget-winner on our
hands.</DT>
</dl>