General Performance & Encoding

General Performance

General Performance

General Performance

General Performance

General Performance

MPEG-4 Encoding Performance - 'Sum of All Fears' Chapter 9

MPEG-4 Encoding Performance - 'Sum of All Fears' Chapter 9

The Biostar TForce4 U 775 absolutely dominates the other boards in PCMark 2005 and 3Dmark05. While the Biostar board scores near the bottom in the balance of the synthetic benchmarks it still leads the 945P based board in these benchmarks. We ran the tests several times and on a second board with the same results. It is obvious the BIOS optimizations have made a difference in these particular benchmarks and if the memory performance of the board improves, we are sure that it would outscore the 975x based boards. The Biostar board also performs very well in the encoding tests. Our encoding tests will soon change to the DivX 6.1 codec and additional multimedia tasks.

Test Setup Memory Performance
Comments Locked

31 Comments

View All Comments

  • Calin - Friday, February 17, 2006 - link

    What about sorting the graphs based on the min frame rate?
    :) I guess some people are never happy ;)

    Great job, and a nice article!
  • yacoub - Thursday, February 16, 2006 - link

    Once you've owned a passively-cooled motherboard like any of the recent Asus ones, it's hard to even look at one with a fan on it. It also makes shopping for a motherboard a LOT easier because you just cross off all the fan ones right away (unless you're a mod fiend who will actually go through the trouble of buying a chipset cooler or two and rip the fan assembly off the brand new expensive motherboard and hope that cools it well enough).
    I hope more manufacturers take up the passively-cooled trend.
  • Gary Key - Sunday, February 19, 2006 - link

    I disabled the fan and only witnessed a 2c increase on the MCP. Biostar could have saved a few cents and put towards a Gigabit Lan solution. ;-)
  • Marlin1975 - Thursday, February 16, 2006 - link

    Sound and ethernet. Why do companies keep using the realtek junk. bad quality (part and drivers) and juts shows a motherboard company does not care when they use realtek.

    Any time I see realtek on a board I think the sound and even ethernet were a after thought like "Oh we forgot sound. Lets just put the cheapest POS on there. OK"


    COME ON. Good chipset but you come so close then put junk on for sound and so forth.
  • Myrandex - Thursday, February 16, 2006 - link

    For me that issue doesn't matter at all. My Sound Blaster Audigy 2 is still doing its job nicely, and getting a nice onboard sound solution still gets disabled all the same. Now for integrated SB Giga-bite ethernet is something that comes into play with my decisions, and I have been real happy with Giga-byte putting ieee1394b controllers on their boards (and am hoping that external HDD 1394B cases fall in price sooner or later). Integrated wireless is a neat feature some boards have as well.
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, February 16, 2006 - link

    Realtek does have some really cheap audio and LAN chips, but they also have some pretty decent products. In the High Definition area the ALC882 is a really good audio codec with an excellent feature set that produces decent sound and very low noise. If you go through some recent reviews you will see both Gary and I have praised the Realtek ALC882, which is NOT included on this Biostar board :-)
  • Marlin1975 - Thursday, February 16, 2006 - link

    yea but you also go on about bad drivers that are STILL in need fo a update and other issues. So sorry but realtek is still junk in my book. That and with so many other options from VIA's envy, c-media, etc... why use something that has problems and are STILL being addressed today?
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, February 16, 2006 - link

    I agree. Using Realtek for LAN is bad enough, but using a PCI solution? That's unacceptible. Even if you don't care about GbE, the CPU utilization is rediculous!
  • Peter - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    The RTL8201 is not a PCI ethernet chip, it's just a PHY companion to the chipset's own engine. This is a research error in the article.

    http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/products1-2.asp...">http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/products1-2.asp...

    The abysmal performance rather more likely stems from transmission errors or poor signal quality - which would point to a damaged or poorly laid out board, or bad cabling.

    PHYsical interface chips have zero influence on throughput, as long as signal integrity is being maintained - and as far as that is concerned, Realtek's solution is definitely up to the job. Question is, is the mainboard's layout?
  • Peter - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - link

    ... and of course, we need to keep in mind it's a 10/100 PHY, not a gigabit PHY.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now