BIOSTAR iDEQ200P nF3 150 SFF Barebone Review (4)

	<![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

BIOSTAR iDEQ200P nF3 150 SFF Barebone Review (4)
Bluetooth 9 Oct 2003

Benchmarking

We check out the results for ZD Benchmarks using CC Winstone 2002 and Business Winstone 2001 in this section of the benchmark tests.

On The K7 series of boards, SiS boards always seem to have better throughput when it comes to disk access and this resulted in better overall performance in CCWS and BWS.

In CCWS 2002, we see that BIOSTAR K8VHA Pro scores 45.2 & Gigabyte K8VNXP scores 46.2 which is slower than the ALi ref board of 51.3 and the nF3 board score of 50.8. The IDEQ 200P scores 47 which is similar to the Gigabyte K8NNXP. The slightly lower score could be due to the lower FSB of 199.5MHz. ALi and NF3 leads by around 10% over the VIA K8T800 boards.

On Business Winstone 2001, the iDEQ200P scores 85.6 which is very close to the scores of the K8NNXP. Again, we see that the VIA boards seems to have totally lost in this category. The ALi and NF3 are faster than VIA.

Next >>>