Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: porn_start878 who wrote (53625)	9/2/2001 3:25:18 PM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

<font color=darkred>From YHOO- KT266A benchmarks beat P4 2ghz...links by: saxplayer0001 09/02/01 02:46 pm Msg: 545206 of 545216 First look at the Quake and 3D Mark2001 benchmarks on this page as compared to the new SiS735 chipset and the old VIA KT266 chipset: viahardware.com (These next benchmarks are compared to P4 2ghz): Business Winstone Content Creation Winstone SysMark 2001 WebMark 2001 hardocp.com (These are also compared to P4 2ghz. The Athlon 1.5ghz(oc) barely loses to the 2ghz P4 in Quake on the new chipset): Quake3 Arena 3DMark 2000 3DMark 2001 3D Winbench 3D Studio Max v3.1 hardocp.com (Here are the Quake benchmarks from another source): amdmb.com (Look at the memory benchmarks!!): amdmb.com SPECviewperf, Cachemem and ScienceMark benchmarks: amdmb.com This page links to 4 different previews of this chipset: amdmb.com Orginal Post messages.yahoo.com M.

To: porn_start878 who wrote (53625)	9/2/2001 4:36:27 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 275872

Max, the KT266A looks very nice. It appears nVidia will have some competition after all. wanna_bmw

To: porn_start878 who wrote (53625)	9/2/2001 6:32:45 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 275872

"The numbers are quite impressive, especially when the FSB is overclocked." The results are bogus. For Winstone, it is impossible to jump from 58 to 84 when SFB changes only from 133 to 147. Never. If the score 58 is correct for 133, the maximum at 147 could be 64, but most likely around 60. All 147 results might be invalid. Also, it is very strange that the guy uses i850/RDRAM with 2GHz P4, but "undisclosed i845" with 1.7 GHz only. I think there is some undisclosed agenda. - Ali

To: porn_start878 who wrote (53625)	9/2/2001 7:32:26 PM
From: dhellman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tom's KT266A review is up tomshardware.com VIA will have all reasons to feel proud and happy now, even though the release of NVIDIA's nForce chipset is still pending. While KT266A may not be able to keep the performance lead amongst the Athlon DDR chipsets, it will most certainly continue to provide the best performance for the money, as nForce-boards are expected to be rather expensive. The good overall performance of VIA's Apollo KT266A chipset has now raised the bar for nForce by more than just one notch. The single-channel DDR solution nForce220 should provide at least the same performance as KT266A, while nForce420 and its double-channel DDR design will have to beat VIA's new product to avoid embarrassments. Overall we can note another win for AMD's Athlon and Duron processors, as the release of VIA's Apollo KT266 chipset just made them faster. Let's hope that this process will continue with the release of NVIDIA's nForce chipset. With AMD's recent price cuts due to its struggle against the clock frequency lead of Pentium 4, informed buyers can now purchase even faster Athlon systems for comparably little money.

To: porn_start878 who wrote (53625)	9/3/2001 2:22:47 PM
From: peter_luc	Respond to of 275872

KT266A benchmark comparison by tecChannel.de Another nice round of benchmarks, which again shows the KT266A as the undisputed winner against competing chipsets from Ali, AMD and SiS. I was specially surprised to see its clear dominance (about 10% faster) also in the EIDE copy test - despite having the same southbridge as the original KT266. The difference between these two chipsets seems to come from the fact that the copy process involves memory accesses, too. (On the other hand, the EIDE burstrate test is the only one in which the KT266A looses.) The benchmark section starts here: tecchannel.de Well done, VIA! Peter