Via KM266 chipset... What is it?

[bubba]

For all of us that are getting in on the cheap Compaq computers, which have the Via KM266 chipset, I am wondering about it. I can't find much info at all. I do know that it has integrated video (Savage8, which I am not planning on using). But I am wondering if it is basically just one of their other chipsets that they slapped integrated video on... Could it be? Anyone know anything about this chipset?

Thanks all!

 

[klein297]

Text

 

[mechBgon]

It's KT266A with the addition of the onboard video, basically.

 

[Killrose]

If you're not planning on using the on-board video, then you make damn sure that thing has an AGP slot.

 

[bubba]

mechBgon, thanks, that was very helpful. That is exactly what I wanted to know, and what I had suspected.

Killrose, yup, thankfully it does have an AGP slot.

klein297, Text

 

[tcsenter]

VIA KM266 Pro Savage DDRAs mentioned, its essentially a KT266/A with integrated video in the North Bridge.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Killrose
If you're not planning on using the on-board video, then you make damn sure that thing has an AGP slot.

Good point! You don't want to be all ready to get a Radeon 9500 or GF4 or whatever only to find out that it won't take it!

 

[beat mania]

How is the video on that thing? Should I keep my GF2MX or use the Savage8 for TV out?

 

[bubba]

Your GF2MX would likely be faster.

 

[beat mania]

That's a joke right? I haven't stay in touch with computer stuff for a while but if the 2 year old GF2MX is faster ... then VIA sucks monkey balls.

 

[bubba]

Originally posted by: beat mania
That's a joke right? I haven't stay in touch with computer stuff for a while but if the 2 year old GF2MX is faster ... then VIA sucks monkey balls.

No, it is not a joke. We are talking low-end integrated video, what do you expect???

Here is a review of a system with the same integrated chipset:
http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/reviews/4235/1/

Even the higest-end integrated graphics, the nForce2 only provides performance equal to nVidia's value line... That is why everyone in the hot deal thread advised getting the Radeon 9000 for +$40.

 

[Boogak]

Originally posted by: beat mania
That's a joke right? I haven't stay in touch with computer stuff for a while but if the 2 year old GF2MX is faster ... then VIA sucks monkey balls.

It does. Just for kicks I ran 3DMark2001 on on my M7VIG with a Duron 1300mhz using the integrated video. Here are my results.

 

[beat mania]

Well I just have to say I'm very disappointed in VIA. I come back to research about computer upgrades after 2 years of not keeping up with computer news and they're still the sorry ass they used to be -_-;;

 

[bubba]

Originally posted by: beat mania
Well I just have to say I'm very disappointed in VIA. I come back to research about computer upgrades after 2 years of not keeping up with computer news and they're still the sorry ass they used to be -_-;;

You are not getting the point! Almost all onboard graphics still suck. Take a look at Intel's i845 onboard graphics. Their i815 is much slower than my TNT2!

 

[beat mania]

Slower than current value segment graphics card, yes, I can understand.
But slower than a value segment graphics card that was released 2 years ago? That's some sorry integrated graphics they have there.
Its just disgusting that no one makes any efforts in actually work on the video in an integrated chipset.

 

[Killrose]

Originally posted by: beat mania
Slower than current value segment graphics card, yes, I can understand.
But slower than a value segment graphics card that was released 2 years ago? That's some sorry integrated graphics they have there.
Its just disgusting that no one makes any efforts in actually work on the video in an integrated chipset.

Well if it's any consolation, the nForce2 IGP chipset has the Gf4 MX integrated, and it does a very good job in comparison. Scoring a 3Dmark2001se score in the low-mid 6000, which is decent.

 

[RobsTV]

I had been using those low cost Biostar KM266 boards in low cost budget systems, and the results posted
for the onboard graphics are correct. Hitting about 700 3dmarks with the systems here.

Then I spent the extra $10 and tried the Asus A7N266-VM (Newegg $72, or $39/$49 Refurb), and I'll
never go back to VIA. The Asus has onboard nForce1 graphics, vastly superior sound, Dolby 5.1, but
no support for old ram like the KM266 allows. You must use DDR. But the best part is that now the
budget system can actually play 3d games! While not a screamer, it is about 3x faster than the Savage8,
and hits 3dm2k1se scores here at around 2200.

Even simply 3d games like Links 2001 (CE), a golf game, would complain about the Savage8 video running
at 800x600x16 with quality high. The nForce1 on the other hand, runs Links perfectly at 1024x768x16, max
quality, and never any warnings about low end video.

Final edge for the Asus is that after an easy 3 minute mod, the board is a good overclocker.
Running XP1600+ at 155x10.5, Prime95 24 hour Torture Test error free.

 

[tcsenter]

You are not getting the point! Almost all onboard graphics still suck. Take a look at Intel's i845 onboard graphics. Their i815 is much slower than my TNT2!

Yeah, comparing the ProSavage integrated graphics for AMD or Intel with the nForce is like wondering why your Geo Metro just doesn't seem to compare with the performance of a Z-28.

The nForce is built from the ground-up to be a performance chipset with high performance integrated graphics. The ProSavage chipsets are your entry-level integrated graphics comparable with Intel's integrated solutions. VGA "for the masses", particularly business, corporate, office, and your average home PC's where only basic entry-level 3D is required (the vast majority of PC users are not gamers and those who are usually prefer consoles).

My ATI Xpert2000 Pro (Rage128 Pro) 32MB AGP video card overclocked (1300 3DMarks) is out-classed by nForce integrated graphics in 3D.

 

[KF]

>Slower than current value segment graphics card, yes, I can understand. But slower than a value segment
> graphics card that was released 2 years ago? That's some sorry integrated graphics they have there.
>Its just disgusting that no one makes any efforts in actually work on the video in an integrated chipset.

I think there is still some misunderstanding. The developement of a graphics chip as capable as what Nvidia makes today, or made two years ago, has become comparable to the developement of a CPU. They have taken to calling those chips GPUs. Usually companies are dropping out of that line, not entering it. You pretty much have to be making a GPU if you want to compete with nVidias entry level.

What VIA did was buy the remnants of the S3 company (which became defunct a few years ago) that developed the Savage4 and adapted that to an chipset version. Intels entry into the chipset gaphics field was contracted out many years ago to a company in the professional super-expensive super-graphics field. Initially it was a separate chip on a graphics card. Intel has built on that. By todays standards, it is utterly obsolete. It wasn't exactly wonderful when it was new. If Intel wouldn't develop a graphic chip on its own, VIA isn't about to.

nVidia went the opposite direction. They had the graphics chip design, and developed a CPU chipset. (ATI is doing likewise.) Even that has a strange history. nVidia decided to go after a contract with MS to develop a chipset for the Xbox which, I believe, contains an Intel CPU. But nVidia could not get a license from Intel to sell a chipset for Intel CPUs on PC clone mobos. (and they probably don't make money selling to MS- they have been suing MS to get that straight.) So they adapted their chipset to AMD CPUs.

 

[yodayoda]

Originally posted by: KF
>Slower than current value segment graphics card, yes, I can understand. But slower than a value segment
> graphics card that was released 2 years ago? That's some sorry integrated graphics they have there.
>Its just disgusting that no one makes any efforts in actually work on the video in an integrated chipset.

I think there is still some misunderstanding. The developement of a graphics chip as capable as what Nvidia makes today, or made two years ago, has become comparable to the developement of a CPU. They have taken to calling those chips GPUs. Usually companies are dropping out of that line, not entering it. You pretty much have to be making a GPU if you want to compete with nVidias entry level.

What VIA did was buy the remnants of the S3 company (which became defunct a few years ago) that developed the Savage4 and adapted that to an chipset version. Intels entry into the chipset gaphics field was contracted out many years ago to a company in the professional super-expensive super-graphics field. Initially it was a separate chip on a graphics card. Intel has built on that. By todays standards, it is utterly obsolete. It wasn't exactly wonderful when it was new. If Intel wouldn't develop a graphic chip on its own, VIA isn't about to.

nVidia went the opposite direction. They had the graphics chip design, and developed a CPU chipset. (ATI is doing likewise.) Even that has a strange history. nVidia decided to go after a contract with MS to develop a chipset for the Xbox which, I believe, contains an Intel CPU. But nVidia could not get a license from Intel to sell a chipset for Intel CPUs on PC clone mobos. (and they probably don't make money selling to MS- they have been suing MS to get that straight.) So they adapted their chipset to AMD CPUs.

you know that AMD was supposed to make the chips for MS for the xbox, but intel came in with a last minute bid and undercut AMD. supposedly intel lost $1 for every chip they made for the xbox. so nVidia was probably gearing up for AMD chips anyways. also, the xbox uses AMD's patented hyer-transport bus. funny how this world works.