This is a joke, how much did they pay them?

[nv70001]

LINK

SiS must have cashed out on this one! LOL, look at the GF2 scores... lower than a Voodoo3 can do. I am done, this is pathetic. :|

 

[AA0]

Its an MX200, what do you expect? That card is awful. I've seen similar results on another review before.

 

[nv70001]

Well, check out the scores here

http://www.cryoeniac.com/showdoc.cfm?PageNo=5&DocumentID=314

http://www.sysopt.com/reviews/ecs-ag315t/index8.html

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/sis315/index.x?pg=3


As you can see the GF2 MX spanks the SiS315 silly, but Legions review seems to think otherwise... bunch of clouns.

 

[Rand]

<< Well, check out the scores here

http://www.cryoeniac.com/showdoc.cfm?PageNo=5&DocumentID=314

http://www.sysopt.com/reviews/ecs-ag315t/index8.html

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/sis315/index.x?pg=3


As you can see the GF2 MX spanks the SiS315 silly, but Legions review seems to think otherwise... bunch of clouns. >>




Slight problem with your above mentioned examples.
All of the examples you've given are using an entirely different test system which could have a considerable impact upon benchmark results, most of them are using very different driver revisions which could also have an impact.

But most importantly.... all of the reviews you've quoted above have compared the SiS card to a GF2 MX or MX400 which is considerably faster then the GF2 MX200 used in the Legion Hardware review.

The MX200 is pretty close to a TNT2 Ultra in performance, whereas the GF2 MX and MX400 used in your examples is easily far superior to an MX200 or TNT2 Ultra level card.

Legion's benchmarks seem exactly along the lines with what I'd expect, my own experience with the card and the majority of reviews I've seen tend to put the SiS card as performing in-between an MX200 and MX400 card... which equates perfectly with the Legion review.