sis 650 integrated video speed?

[hans007]

I know that the sis650 chipset is an sis 315 integrated w/o t&l with a 645 chipset.


Anyways i'm building myself a very very budget box and have bought a $70 ecs sis650 motherboard with everything onboard.

now i've seen benchmarks of the 315 beating geforce 2 mx 200s by a decent amount with newer drivers. does anyone know what the 650 chipset can do? i dont really wanna pay extra for a seperate vid card if i can get away with it, all i wanna do is play warcraft3 at around 640x480 when it comes out. My laptop's ati rage mobility m1 8mb can just barely do that, so hopefully a p4 with this chipset can do battery. i'm hoping for tnt2 ultra class performance.

 

[jpprod]

The graphics chip on GF2/MX200 is no slouch, but it's constrained by available memory bandwidth. That's why an external Sis 315 video card as well as the TNT2 Ultrawill will beat it by a decent margin. It's a completely different situation with the Sis 650 and integrated video, however, as the measly 2.7GB/s bandwidth is shared between the video and the rest of the system.

I don't have numbers to back this claim up, but I'd say neither GX2/MX200 nor Sis 650 integrated video will give you decent performance in Warcraft III, even at 640x480 resolution. Meanwhile an external Sis 315 card or a TNT2U would most certainly suffice.

 

[Rand]

Not sure of the performance of an integrated SiS315 solution, but the external SiS315 usually performs about mid-way between the GF2 MX, and GF2 MX400.... roughly on-par with the Radeon VE.



<<

<< The graphics chip on GF2/MX200 is no slouch, but it's constrained by available memory bandwidth. That's why an external Sis 315 video card as well as the TNT2 Ultrawill will beat it by a decent margin. >>

>>



What benchmarks are you basing this upon?
I don't mean to dispute your claims but my own personal experience and what I've seen on virtually any review of the MX200 reports it's performance is generally right on-par with the TNT2 Ultra, and occasionally about 5% faster. I don't believe I've seen any benchmarks that report it to be behind by more then a negligable amount.

No idea what Warcraft 3 is like, but the V3/TNT2 level cards can attain playable performance at medium details at 800x600x16bpp is most any current game, there are however a small handful of games in which you'd need to drop back to 640x480x16bpp with details at about 3/4 to get playable frame rates though.

 

[jpprod]

<<

<<

<< The graphics chip on GF2/MX200 is no slouch, but it's constrained by available memory bandwidth. That's why an external Sis 315 video card as well as the TNT2 Ultrawill will beat it by a decent margin. >>

>>



What benchmarks are you basing this upon?
I don't mean to dispute your claims but my own personal experience and what I've seen on virtually any review of the MX200 reports it's performance is generally right on-par with the TNT2 Ultra, and occasionally about 5% faster. I don't believe I've seen any benchmarks that report it to be behind by more then a negligable amount. >>


None I'm afraid, I just thought this would still hold true as GeForce SDR, which certainly outperforms MX200, is very close to TNT2U in real-world gaming scenarios (such as Q3 timedemos). This conception may have expired with driver releases though, TNT2U is after all more than three years old.

But it's safe to say one can only draw one conclusion from external Sis 315 performance in relation to integrated Sis 315 performance - the integrated solution will underperform the external one. Unless of course it's not a traditional integrated video adapter with shared memory architecture like I'm assuming here.



<< No idea what Warcraft 3 is like, but the V3/TNT2 level cards can attain playable performance at medium details at 800x600x16bpp is most any current game, there are however a small handful of games in which you'd need to drop back to 640x480x16bpp with details at about 3/4 to get playable frame rates though. >>



Well this really boils down to what one defines as decent performance. Warcraft III will certainly not be one of the most demanding games out there when it comes to video performance requirements. However, looking at the screenshots, it's evident that the game's going to have loads of particle effects in it. And these hog fillrate like there's no tomorrow. A slow video card that's barely enough to run the game decently when not a lot is happening on the screen will likely choke when those effects come to play.

 

[AndyHui]

Digit-Life did a review here as part of their SiS 645/650 roundup.

The MSI 6524 board based on the SiS 650 performs pretty horrendously as compared to the other boards in the roundup.

I wonder if a 650 board will accept an AIMM? That would pull the video bandwidth off the system bus and increase performance.

 

[hans007]

well it looks like the msi board that they used could do like 60fps at 640x480x16 q3a. which is pathetic but still decent enough for war3 and counterstrike , etc. plus it was an sdr board and the board i bought is ddr. so hopefully i can get more than 60 since i'll have pc2100 in there instead of the pc133 they used.

 

[AndyHui]

Ah....I'd overlooked the fact that the MSI board is SDR. Yes, a DDR board should perform significantly better. I'm looking at the ASUS P4S333-VM myself. Presumably with PC2700 DDR SDRAM, there is still a little bit of bandwidth left over for the video from the system since the Athlon can only use up to 2.1GB/s worth.

 

[hans007]

all right, hahaha, i was gonna use the onboard video and i just saw a cheap gf4 mx440 in fs/ft and bought it. haha oh well.

 

[bria55]

SIS 315 benchmarks shown here