SiS 746 owns the nForce2 IGP?

[tapir]

Check out "http://www.ocworkbench.com/2002/ecs/gu746preview/gu746preview1.htm article from OCWorkbench.

Maybe theyre only using DCDDR 266 on the nForce2? This would change things a lot from DCDDR 400 when we're talking about integrated video. But still, most people buying integrated video aren't going to be interested in paying $150 for 2 separate DDR400 DIMMS.

6000+ 3Dmarks isn't bad at all for an integrated solution, in fact it's equal to my brother's Geforce3 system (which is bottlenecked by SDRAM, but..) Hey, if these tests are for real I'm impressed.

 

[Peter]

The trick is it's not an integrated but an onboard solution - in that it isn't a CHIPSET integrated graphics unit that shares system memory, but there is actually a separate Xabre 200 chip on the board, along with 64 MBytes of dedicated VGA RAM. (That's also where the AGP bus went, and the reason why no more than 3 PCI slots fit onto it.)

Innovative? Well ... The Elitegroup conspiracy have done this before. LONG ago.

http://www.pcchips.com.tw/M590.html
In the upper right corner, spot the onboard SiS 6326AGP 3D VGA and 4 (later 8) MBytes of dedicated VGA RAM ... those were the days ...

 

[Mingon]

Also the sis chipset has very bad texture IQ - I would be the two of them would be equal if you changed the tex_turbo registry setting

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Mingon
Also the sis chipset has very bad texture IQ - I would be the two of them would be equal if you changed the tex_turbo registry setting

Having used a Inno3D Xabre400 I can confirm that the image quality of any Xabre is very poor even when using the so called quality settings. The default setting makes all of the textures 16bit and very blurry, the so called fsaa just makes the whole scene even more blurry.

Anything based on the Xabre chipset will offer very bad image quality and should be avoided!

 

[nemesismk2]

deleted