SiS 655FX Ref Board Review (6)

	<![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

SIS 655FX Ref Board Review (6)
Bluetooth 30 Sept 2003

Benchmarking

In Comanche 4 benchmarks, the Canterwood boards performs similarly, the difference is not too different from one another. The Springdales (ABIT and ASUS) leads the pack while those with the non-optimised BIOS is performing slightly slower than the Canterwoods. The SiS 655FX scores 63.35 which is again better than most Canterwoods except the "hacked PAT" Springdale boards and ASUS own P4C800.

Next