 |
Untitled Document
SYSmark 2002
| 1.4ghz / 133FSB / 133RAM SYSmark 2000
|
| |
Abit |
Albatron |
Asus |
Biostar |
Chaintech |
| Internet Content Creation |
189 |
186 |
191 |
190 |
191 |
| Office Productivity |
127 |
125 |
121 |
127 |
128 |
| 1.75ghz / 166FSB / 166RAM SYSmark 2000
|
| |
Abit |
Albatron |
Asus |
Biostar |
Chaintech |
| Internet Content Creation |
229 |
227 |
227 |
|
226 |
| Office Productivity |
153 |
143 |
140 |
|
143 |
Here you can see all the results are very close, with the albatron
trailing behind a little. Whichever nForce 2 board you opt for, rest assured
it will be a more than competent workstation.
Conclusions from benchmarks
In conclusion, the differences between these boards are hardly
measurable, and only of concern to the most serious performance freaks. However,
there are some interesting conclusions to be made about some of the technologies
used in the nForce 2. As discussed above, dual DDR is nothing but vapourware,
and a waste of money. The onboard graphics isnt really fit to carry the label
"geforce 4", even with the MX suffix. It is just another onboard graphics
solution, and of no note other than doing well with OpenGL, as all Nvidia graphics
chips do. You can forget about playing games with the onboard Geforce 4 MX,
but its perfectly good otherwise. If you want decent on board graphics, perhaps
take a look at the onboard Xabre
200..
<< Back | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 | | 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | | 9 | | 10 | Next >>
|
|
