Gigabyte 7VAXP KT400 Review (3)

	<![if lt IE 4]> <SCRIPT SRC="http://imgserv.adbutler.com/adserve/;ID=131075;size=468x60;setID=61435;type=js" LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <a href="http://imgserv.adbutler.com/go2/;ID=131075;size=468x60;setID=61435"> <img src="http://imgserv.adbutler.com/adserve.ibs/;ID=131075;size=468x60;setID=61435;type=img" border="0" height="60" width="468"></a> </NOSCRIPT><![endif]>
中文版 \| News \| Archives \| Reviews \| Forum \| $ Deals \| Links \| History \| Contact \| Privacy

Gigabyte 7VAXP KT400 Review (3)
Overclocker 24 Aug 2002

<A target="_top" HREF="http://www.burstnet.com/ads/ad5180a- map.cgi/CACHEBUSTING_NUMBER"> <IMG SRC="http://www.burstnet.com/cgi- bin/ads/ad5180a.cgi/CACHEBUSTING_NUMBER" width="32" height="32"> border="0" width="468" height="60" alt="Please support our sponsor."> </A>

Benchmarking

We conduct the usual tests on the setup with the following configuration :

Test System:

AMD AthlonXP 1500+ and Thermoengine heatsink/fan
Maxtor 40G 7200RPM ATA133 HD
AOPEN 40X CDROM
MSI Geforce3 Ti200 Graphics card
TwinMos DDR400 256MB DDR
Channelwell 375W AMD Approved PSU

Sisoft Sandra 2001te Benchmarks

SiSoft Memory Benchmarks gives an indication of how far the system can perform when under a heavy demand for extra bandwidth. We made a check on the WCPUID and it records 134.00Mhz which is acceptable. The memory benchmark results seem to be a bit weak. Could this be due to a poor BIOS implementation? I think so.