BIOSTAR iDEQ200P nF3 150 SFF Barebone Review (7)

	<![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 (7)
Bluetooth 9 Oct 2003

Benchmarking

In Windows Movie Maker ver 2, we imported the sample file that comes with the program into it and encode it using a 1.5Mbps video WMV. In both cases, the ALi is slightly fastest in encoding. Although the K7 boards are using AXP3200+, they seemed to be slightly faster than the K8. The fastest is still the Pentium4 with DCDDR400. iDEQ200P scores 44.3 which is similar to most of the K8 boards tested

In terms of rendering, lightwave 3D 7.0b is used. We used the benchmark file Radio-reflective things and rendered one frame. Here are the timings recorded in seconds (the faster the better). You can immediately see the time difference between the two platforms. Mind you, we are running it in 32bits OS + Applications. The increase in speed could be due to the fact that K8 supports SSE2 instruction set.

AS we can see from the graph, the difference between the platforms/boards are very minimal. There are all within 0.1s difference.

Next >>>