So I guess you want everyone to believe that a single channel chipset is faster then the well known dual channel performance leading chipset (865/875) ? If so, then wouldn't this mean that VIA's own dual channel PT880 is slower then its own single channel PT800 (as PT880 is slower then 875) ?
lol! I (and everyone else) can tell your working knowledge of computers is more than a bit simplistic. This is not about being "faster" or "slower", its about
effective utilization of bandwidth.
I've provided benchmarks from
five different reviews with consistent findings. I even provided you with HardOCP's explanation for these numbers, a finding that has been corroborated by other review sites (e.g. Digit-Life), which you apparently aren't able to understand, causing you to misinterpret HardOCP's conclusions (e.g. "dual channel doesn't help performance").
We've seen similar results when NVIDIA introduced its single-channel NForce2 400, which performs within 5% of the dual-channel nForce2 Ultra 400 across the board, except synthetic memory bandwidth tests. The FastStream64 memory controller on VIA's KT600 narrowed the performance gap between KT400A and nForce2 dual channel to within 10%. NForce2 400 isn't 'faster' than NForce2 Ultra 400. NForce2 400 and KT600 provides 95% and 90%, respectively, of the maximum memory bandwidth that 200FSB Athlon XP is
capable of utilizing.
You've offered nothing except empty dismissals based on the performance of PT880 using a logic that flaunts your own ignorance. If PT800 is providing 95% of the maximum bandwidth that 800FSB Pentium 4 is
capable of utilizing, as HardOCP reasons, it would follow that PT880's higher bandwidth will not translate into higher scores than PT800.
This is not only demonstrated by VIA PT800, but Intel 848P as well. In real world benchmarks, Intel's single-channel 848P performs within 5~10% of its dual channel
PAT-enabled siblings:
The i848P chipset is a crippled version of the i865PE - it lacks for a second memory controller channel and supports twice less memory and twice fewer mem modules. However, it's like removing an appendix because it
doesn't affect much the performance. If you are not going to install over 2 GB RAM, and doesn't care for such
inconsiderable difference, the i848P can be a much better choice (especially if boards based on it are cheaper than those on the i865PE) than the i865PE!
--
i848P Chipset Review @ Digit Life
ASUS P4P800S-E Review @ Anandtech
ASUS P4P800S-E i848P Review @ OCWorkbench
Intel 848P Review @ THG
Intel 848P Review @ Hot Hardware
Is it all some big conspiracy to damage the dual channel market? Hey, that would mean I'm a co-conspirator and didn't even know it - awesome!
So your theory is that this $37 ECS board is faster then the top of the line $200 Intel chipset based boards ? So I wonder why isn't everyone just jumping in and buying this board, and indeed why is it selling for less then $40 ? And why no one seems to care about this board, as there are almost no reviews of it anywhere ? You must have made the discovery of the decade!
Wow, you're not only ignorant but naive, too.
The reason the PT800 (and 848P for that matter) hasn't received much attention is because nobody wants to read or patron a hardware review site where most of the hardware round-ups or reviews truthfully end by concluding something like...
"There is no significant performance difference between most of these contenders, but some carry a significant difference in price. We have seen them trade back and forth depending on the benchmark, but within the 5% margin of insignificance.
The exception here is the Uber-X 5000 PRO by Widget Technologies, which scored near or at the bottom in most tests by as much as 15%, a significant difference. To its credit, however, the Uber-X 5000 Pro was rock solid and setup was a breeze. In addition, the Uber-X 5000 Pro is priced almost 50% lower than the other boards in this test. For its price, the Uber-X Pro is also not seriously lacking in features compared with the other boards, though not quite as feature rich as the best performing (and most expensive) contender - the VaporWare 3000.
For 50% more money than the Uber-X 5000 Pro, the VaporWare 3000 gives you at best 15% more performance. That's not a good value by any definition. The Uber-X 5000 Pro has the best price/performance ratio, yields little in features and nothing in stability. That's why our recommendation goes to the Uber-X 5000 Pro."
9 out of 10 hardware review sites cater inordinately to
performance enthusiasts, who want to have the best benchies at any cost. The product that scores higher in performance tests will get the recommendation, even if it 'edged-out' its competitors by insignificant margins that will not translate into real world difference.
The inordinate emphasis placed on performance by most hardware review sites is often evident in their ridiculous commentary which makes 205 vs. 200 fps out to be some huge margin, producing a 'clear winner'. In almost every review cited, the PT800 (and 848P) is characterized as being unable to compete with Intel 865P and 875P in spite of benchmark scores proving they compete surprisingly well given their bandwidth disadvantage and the exorbitant price tag many dual-channel motherboards carry, not to mention compatability problems with RAM and the added expense of buying matched pairs to operate dual channel mode.
Lastly, I needn't prove that PT800 is just as fast or faster than dual channel, in order to shred your ridiculous assertion that "all the performance" of a P4 is lost by using single channel.
Mission accomplished.