Dan and all, PC Magazine compares 820 and RDRAM vs. VIA and PC133 VC-SDRAM:
zdnet.com
There were three systems tested: an Intel reference 820 system w/ RDRAM, an Intel reference 440BX system w/ SDRAM, and Micron's Millenia MAX 600 w/ VIA's chipset and PC133 VC-SDRAM.
All three scored about the same in the standard benchmarks (Winstone, Winbench, CPUMark, FPUMark). In the UltraATA/66, 440BX fell behind (because it doesn't have UltraATA/66), while VIA and 820 ended up in a dead heat.
The big thing was the concurrency tests that PC Magazine set up for this article. Here's a quote:
The 820 reference system produced a 7 percent better Concurrent Download and Winstone test result than the BX system. Despite its speedy hard disk, the Micron couldn't match the 820 reference machine on this test, a sign that the Via is less adept at handling concurrent data streams.
So much for VC-SDRAM being able to handle concurrent data streams as well as RDRAM. I'm not sure if this is a VIA chipset problem or just a fundamental limitation of VC-SDRAM. But one thing's for sure: This article isn't a very glowing endorsement of PC133 VC-SDRAM's performance.
(Then again, it isn't a very glowing endorsement of RDRAM's benefit to non-concurrent mainstream apps, either, but that's not news.)
Tenchusatsu |
