SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Discussion about old PC hardware.

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby stamasd » 2016-3-21 @ 13:45

Any experience with SiS661? I never had a P4 system (was an AMD guy back in those times), and I'm thinking of getting one. I never had a SiS chipset motherboard either, I actually avoided them actively based on a friend's abysmal experience with a SiS530 motherboard in the early days - thinking back it was probably due to immature drivers.
I/O, I/O,
It's off to disk I go,
With a bit and a byte
And a read and a write,
I/O, I/O
stamasd
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: 2014-8-31 @ 19:59
Location: Connecticut

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby PhilsComputerLab » 2016-3-21 @ 14:12

IMO the 865 chipset is so good, and so readily available that I don't see the need to get anything else unless you require 3.3 V AGP compatibility.
User avatar
PhilsComputerLab
Hardware Mod
 
Posts: 6179
Joined: 2014-9-28 @ 03:33
Location: Western Australia

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby stamasd » 2016-3-21 @ 15:04

Unless one wants something with a SiS chipset of course.
I/O, I/O,
It's off to disk I go,
With a bit and a byte
And a read and a write,
I/O, I/O
stamasd
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: 2014-8-31 @ 19:59
Location: Connecticut

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby PhilsComputerLab » 2016-3-30 @ 13:30

Got a SIS chipset board today, an AOpen S651M. Nice uATX socket 478 board with SIS 651 chipset. It does have a universal AGP slot, but unfortunately doesn't work with 3.3V cards. As soon as you plug one in, a LED near the AGP slots lights up and the board won't even turn on.

Getting a few more boards, hopefully there is another one that supports 3.3V :)
User avatar
PhilsComputerLab
Hardware Mod
 
Posts: 6179
Joined: 2014-9-28 @ 03:33
Location: Western Australia

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby PeterLI » 2016-3-30 @ 13:46

-
Last edited by PeterLI on 2016-12-17 @ 19:27, edited 1 time in total.
PeterLI
l33t
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: 2013-10-18 @ 02:30

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby carlostex » 2016-3-30 @ 14:27

I'm currently using an ASUS SP-97XV (SiS chipset) and other than the lack of DSDMA i actually like the board. It's slower than Triton based boards i've used, which can actually be a good thing. The board layout is not very good, but its been a good replacement until i can find an industrial DFI 586 ITOX at a decent price.
User avatar
carlostex
l33t
 
Posts: 2081
Joined: 2010-4-03 @ 21:39
Location: Portugal

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby F2bnp » 2016-3-30 @ 16:34

Wow, this thread stirs up memories, some of them not so pleasant. :lol:

- I used to have an ASUS CUSI-FX along with a Celeron 900 back in late 2001. This was based on the SiS 630E chipset with an integrated VGA, which I absolutely hated. My brother picked up a cheap GeForce 2 MX400 around that time and wanted to pass his TNT2 M64 to me, which would have been a nice upgrade compared to the integrated card. Alas, the motherboard had no AGP port and that was the day I learned the difference between motherboard slots...
The performance and driver support of that SiS300 GPU was really bad. I remember attempting to play a really cool Playmobil game, it was called Hype : The Time Quest (hey I was ~9 years old :lol: ), and it wouldn't render properly! A few driver updates later, I finally managed to play and enjoy that game.

I can't really comment on the performance of the chipset itself, but it probably was on the lower end of the spectrum. Funny trivia, the driver control panel (located at Properties/Advanced/SiS 300 tab) used to have a D3D rollercoaster animation and a slider to select between Quality - Balance - Performance, not unlike nVidia with their spinning logo. For some reason, that amused me very much.

- Later on, around early 2004, I got one of my most dreaded CPU + GPU combinations, which you will have undoubtedly at some point seen me ramble on this forum. I got a QDI Superb 4FX socket 478 motherboard, which was based on the SiS 648FX chipset. Thankfully, this board had AGP and it actually supported HyperThreading and 800MHz FSB CPUs. Granted, it offered pretty much no support for any sort of overclocking, let alone voltage adjustments, but that is to be expected.
However, the system builder (the one who held all the cards/money a.k.a. my dad :lol: ) fell for the seller's bullshit and paired it with a Celeron 2.4 (Northwood core, not Celeron D/Prescott core) and, get this, a GeForce FX 5600 XT...

The Celeron was a Titanic (TM) piece of shit, NetBurst based of course, with performance tanking so massively no matter the clockspeed. The reason for this was the L2 Cache, which was a measly 128KBs, an absolutely meager amount for NetBurst, an architecture already hampered enough with the measly 8KB of L1 cache :dead: . Bottom line? I would have probably been better off with a Pentium 4 1.5, it was really THAT bad. Or better yet, one of the late Duron CPUs like the Duron 1.6GHz.
And then there was the turd that was the FX 5600 XT. What a killer combo I had there. Unlike ATi, XT meant low end, think of it like the SE branding on ATi products of the time. All of this translated to a very simple fact, the FX 5600 XT was a gimped FX 5600, an already utterly underwhelming product.
The FX 5600 vanilla was clocked at 325MHz and 550MHz for Core and Memory clock respectively, while the XT was clocked at 235MHz and 400MHz respectively. What a load of shit, even when I finally found out how to overclock, I could never get either clocks quite as high as the Vanilla, let alone Ultra variant. At these speeds, I'd wager that even an FX 5200 Ultra was faster.

After getting that PC, I visited a friend who had a Pentium 4 2.0A and a Ti4200 64MB and he had built that in 2002. What a night and day difference, everything he played was so much smoother. I could totally tell, I remember seeing him play Evil Genius, a very Bullfrog-esque, Dungeon Keeper style Strategy game and man it was a lot faster on his PC. So, even a slow, management strategy game showed the difference/disparity between the two builds.
I have never owned something this underwhelming since then. I just learned the hard way that you're supposed to make your own market research, read reviews and get as many opinions as possible. Not a bad lesson to be honest.

A couple of years later, late 2006 or so, I grabbed a P4 HT Northwood 2.8GHz and a Gainward 7600GS Golden Sample (on of the great 7600GS cards with GDDR3, I was matching 7600GT clocks with it :D) and finally had a respectable system running games I wanted smoothly enough. The SIS 648FX was actually not holding the system back it seemed. At this point I had become tech-savvy enough to check 3DMark scores and benchmarks with other systems online and I was pretty close to other people. Looking back at it, it's pretty cool that SiS' chipset, a quite low end offering, supported the latest socket 478 CPUs (even Prescotts AFAIR), so there's that. I'd like to know how much slower than an 865 it is though, will have to wait on Phil's benches I guess :lol: .
I honestly never touched anything other than Intel or AMD from that point on, I built a new system around early 2008 with Intel's P35 and never looked back. Nvidia sort of gave up a while later, SiS wasn't around anymore and I think Via stopped prior to Nvidia as well?

Sorry for the huge rant, but this thread really made some memories come back and I had to get these off my chest. I hope it was an interesting read at least :lol: .
User avatar
F2bnp
l33t
 
Posts: 3496
Joined: 2007-9-23 @ 10:19

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby torindkflt » 2016-3-30 @ 19:41

My first custom build back in 2002 was running a Duron 1GHz on the SIS 730S chipset. This is my only experience so far with SIS, and I would consider it a positive experience, despite the fact that it was running an ECS motherboard and was already 2-3 years outdated the very minute I finished it (Limited funds forced me to go below rock-bottom for the specs, I was in college and could barely afford ramen, let alone a new computer :dead:). Regardless, it met my needs and seemed to run pretty well, especially on Windows 2000. At the very least, it was tons better than the god-awful MediaGX-equipped Crapaq that I had been using before it. :lol:

I do plan on recreating that system again someday. I need to find the right case for it tho, which is proving impossible. :dead:
torindkflt
Member
 
Posts: 420
Joined: 2014-12-30 @ 05:36

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby ibm5155 » 2016-3-31 @ 00:06

I see too many sis chipset super socket 7.
But they lack slots, almost all has 2 pci and 1 isa slots.
For what I have in mind, I need 1 isa slot for isa sound card, 1 slot for voodoo ( I heard the integrated gpu sux ), one slot for usb and even one more for usb (unless there's some onboard ethernet and usb.
But I only see this kind of motherboard with sis chipset being sold here http://mlb-s2-p.mlstatic.com/placa-me-sis-530-pc-100-leia-a-descrico-414611-MLB20591149855_022016-F.jpg
EDIT:
That card has onboard usb + onboard ethernet + onboard Aureal A3D + onboard 1MB L2 Cache ? really? O_O
TBH, it looks cooler than my motherboard xD but I'm just afraid with irq conflicts with the isa sound card could cause to the other stuff
ibm5155
Member
 
Posts: 293
Joined: 2013-8-13 @ 23:46

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby Sutekh94 » 2016-3-31 @ 00:36

I've been messing around with this thing for the past month or so:

Image

It's an ECS 761GX-M754 socket 754 Athlon 64 mobo, based off of the SiS 761GX chipset, that I bought off of eBay for pretty cheap. The CPU I'm using is a Venice core 3200+, and it's not a bad combo, at least in my opinion. It's kinda strange considering that the video card I'm using here, an HD4550, has as much VRAM as the system currently has RAM (1GB). I'm running Windows 7 64-bit, which is somewhat bottlenecked by the RAM (IIRC, the official requirements state at least 2GB), and I do plan on upgrading the RAM later on. Side note: That RAM is actually ECC memory that came out of an HP server I found over at the dump one day. It just so happened to work with this board, so I stuck with it. I did test out XP Pro SP3 on this, and it seemed to perform quite well. The only other experience with SiS stuff that I can recall off the top of my head is an Asus P4 board (namely, this thing) which I haven't really played around with.
That one vintage computer enthusiast brony.
My YouTube | My DeviantArt
User avatar
Sutekh94
Oldbie
 
Posts: 566
Joined: 2014-8-23 @ 17:34
Location: Tennessee, USA

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby Skyscraper » 2016-3-31 @ 01:00

Sutekh94 wrote:I've been messing around with this thing for the past month or so:


It's an ECS 761GX-M754 socket 754 Athlon 64 mobo, based off of the SiS 761GX chipset, that I bought off of eBay for pretty cheap. The CPU I'm using is a Venice core 3200+, and it's not a bad combo, at least in my opinion. It's kinda strange considering that the video card I'm using here, an HD4550, has as much VRAM as the system currently has RAM (1GB). I'm running Windows 7 64-bit, which is somewhat bottlenecked by the RAM (IIRC, the official requirements state at least 2GB), and I do plan on upgrading the RAM later on. Side note: That RAM is actually ECC memory that came out of an HP server I found over at the dump one day. It just so happened to work with this board, so I stuck with it. I did test out XP Pro SP3 on this, and it seemed to perform quite well. The only other experience with SiS stuff that I can recall off the top of my head is an Asus P4 board (namely, this thing) which I haven't really played around with.



The SiS 761GX chipset did get good reviews, it's just as fast other K8 chipsets but it was mostly used on cheap mATX boards like the one you own. :)

The chipset should support all K8 sockets if Im not mistaken, both single and dual channel and DDR1 and DDR2.
Main PC: Dual Xeon X5690@4.6ghz, Evga - SR-2, 48gb memory, Intel X25-M g2 SSD and a Nvidia GTX 980 ti.
Retro PC #3: K6-2 450@500mhz, PC-Chips m577, 256mb sdram, AWE64 and a Voodoo Banshee.
Skyscraper
l33t
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: 2013-9-18 @ 15:36
Location: Sweden

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby gdjacobs » 2016-3-31 @ 02:09

As long as a chipset can talk HT, it can generally be designed into a board for any processor from K8 to Bulldozer (not APUs, though). Technically you could drive an FX-8350 with a K8T800, as long as the board was equipped with the right VRMs, socket, memory traces, and DIMM sockets.
User avatar
gdjacobs
l33t++
 
Posts: 6316
Joined: 2015-11-03 @ 05:51
Location: The Great White North

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby PhilsComputerLab » 2016-4-05 @ 10:43

Got two more P4 boards with the 651 chipset. Both AOpen. Caps look mint, one board has Panasonic and Rubicon, the other one Panasonic and KZE. Both turn on and POST with a V3 and Diamond TNT.

One board is missing the chipset cooler, will have to find a solution for that, there are no mounting holes, must have had a glue on cooler.

Put them away for the time being, working on other projects, but can't wait to give them a proper run and test Windows 98 compatibility.
User avatar
PhilsComputerLab
Hardware Mod
 
Posts: 6179
Joined: 2014-9-28 @ 03:33
Location: Western Australia

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby candle_86 » 2016-4-05 @ 12:13

My experince's where never very good, then again the only SIS chipset boards I ever owned where ECS and PC Chips from the Socket A/754 days and well it wasn't pretty
Ryzen 5 1600 - Gigabyte B350 Gaming - 16gb DDR4 3200 - 240GB M.2 - Windows 10 Pro
Core i3 3470 - Dell B75 Mobo - 4gb DDR3 1333 - 500gb HDD - Windows XP
Opteron 180 - Epox EP-9NPA+SL - 2gb DDR500 - 320GB HDD - Windows XP
User avatar
candle_86
l33t
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: 2010-8-06 @ 01:04
Location: Fort Worth, Republic of Texas

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby candle_86 » 2016-4-05 @ 12:15

gdjacobs wrote:As long as a chipset can talk HT, it can generally be designed into a board for any processor from K8 to Bulldozer (not APUs, though). Technically you could drive an FX-8350 with a K8T800, as long as the board was equipped with the right VRMs, socket, memory traces, and DIMM sockets.


oh really, so your saying its possible to get an AM3+ board with NForce3 250gb? Hmmm
Ryzen 5 1600 - Gigabyte B350 Gaming - 16gb DDR4 3200 - 240GB M.2 - Windows 10 Pro
Core i3 3470 - Dell B75 Mobo - 4gb DDR3 1333 - 500gb HDD - Windows XP
Opteron 180 - Epox EP-9NPA+SL - 2gb DDR500 - 320GB HDD - Windows XP
User avatar
candle_86
l33t
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: 2010-8-06 @ 01:04
Location: Fort Worth, Republic of Texas

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby gdjacobs » 2016-4-05 @ 13:40

candle_86 wrote:oh really, so your saying its possible to get an AM3+ board with NForce3 250gb? Hmmm


Not what I'm saying at all. Because of HT, support for FX chips will be determined by
1) VRM capability
2) DIMM/socket compatibility
3) BIOS support

instead of by the chipset.
User avatar
gdjacobs
l33t++
 
Posts: 6316
Joined: 2015-11-03 @ 05:51
Location: The Great White North

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby hyoenmadan » 2016-4-05 @ 13:41

F2bnp wrote:The performance and driver support of that SiS300 GPU was really bad. I remember attempting to play a really cool Playmobil game, it was called Hype : The Time Quest (hey I was ~9 years old :lol: ), and it wouldn't render properly! A few driver updates later, I finally managed to play and enjoy that game.


Unfair comparison between a discrete GPU card and an Integrated chipset video core. SiS300 was deigned to provide a fluid 2D expericence (When Windows GUI was driven by GDI) and a decent DVD video/MPEG playback, not for gaming or heavy 3D task loads.

F2bnp wrote:The Celeron was a Titanic (TM) piece of shit, NetBurst based of course, with performance tanking so massively no matter the clockspeed. The reason for this was the L2 Cache, which was a measly 128KBs, an absolutely meager amount for NetBurst, an architecture already hampered enough with the measly 8KB of L1 cache :dead: . Bottom line? I would have probably been better off with a Pentium 4 1.5, it was really THAT bad. Or better yet, one of the late Duron CPUs like the Duron 1.6GHz.


You only get what you paid for. You can't expect high end performance for a piece enough cheap to provide an upgrade path for the ones living in the 3rd world. Even now the rule still applies. You have Celeron and Pentium "Core iX" Baytrail SoCs for Thin Client offers, Core i3 for Entry Desktop Experience and Core i5 and i7 for general public market.

I see you mentioned Duron... Is interesting that even the slow Netburst Celeron you named will be able to run an unmodified Win7 build proving you have enough RAM, while Durons will even crash at Install time due the lack of the SSE2 instruction set :-P

Greetings.
hyoenmadan
Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: 2015-5-15 @ 16:44

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby candle_86 » 2016-4-05 @ 14:28

hyoenmadan wrote:
F2bnp wrote:The performance and driver support of that SiS300 GPU was really bad. I remember attempting to play a really cool Playmobil game, it was called Hype : The Time Quest (hey I was ~9 years old :lol: ), and it wouldn't render properly! A few driver updates later, I finally managed to play and enjoy that game.


Unfair comparison between a discrete GPU card and an Integrated chipset video core. SiS300 was deigned to provide a fluid 2D expericence (When Windows GUI was driven by GDI) and a decent DVD video/MPEG playback, not for gaming or heavy 3D task loads.

F2bnp wrote:The Celeron was a Titanic (TM) piece of shit, NetBurst based of course, with performance tanking so massively no matter the clockspeed. The reason for this was the L2 Cache, which was a measly 128KBs, an absolutely meager amount for NetBurst, an architecture already hampered enough with the measly 8KB of L1 cache :dead: . Bottom line? I would have probably been better off with a Pentium 4 1.5, it was really THAT bad. Or better yet, one of the late Duron CPUs like the Duron 1.6GHz.


You only get what you paid for. You can't expect high end performance for a piece enough cheap to provide an upgrade path for the ones living in the 3rd world. Even now the rule still applies. You have Celeron and Pentium "Core iX" Baytrail SoCs for Thin Client offers, Core i3 for Entry Desktop Experience and Core i5 and i7 for general public market.

I see you mentioned Duron... Is interesting that even the slow Netburst Celeron you named will be able to run an unmodified Win7 build proving you have enough RAM, while Durons will even crash at Install time due the lack of the SSE2 instruction set :-P

Greetings.


Windows 7 will run just fine on a Duron, Windows 7 does not even require SSE support let alone SSE2. Windows 8.1 requires SSE2 though
Ryzen 5 1600 - Gigabyte B350 Gaming - 16gb DDR4 3200 - 240GB M.2 - Windows 10 Pro
Core i3 3470 - Dell B75 Mobo - 4gb DDR3 1333 - 500gb HDD - Windows XP
Opteron 180 - Epox EP-9NPA+SL - 2gb DDR500 - 320GB HDD - Windows XP
User avatar
candle_86
l33t
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: 2010-8-06 @ 01:04
Location: Fort Worth, Republic of Texas

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby F2bnp » 2016-4-05 @ 16:31

hyoenmadan wrote:Unfair comparison between a discrete GPU card and an Integrated chipset video core. SiS300 was deigned to provide a fluid 2D expericence (When Windows GUI was driven by GDI) and a decent DVD video/MPEG playback, not for gaming or heavy 3D task loads.


Unfair when it come to other games, but certainly not that Playmobil game. It was a totally low end affair and it wasn't a performance issue but much rather driver issue that I had. A couple of driver updates later, the game worked properly. While it certainly wasn't meant for gaming, I don't see how I shouldn't get mad over the fact that there was no AGP port. Like I said, it was not my build, I had no input on it. As a kid, I wanted to play games more than anything and I got really sad when I figured I couldn't even install that free TNT2 M64 card :(.

Maybe a little unfair, but it still hurts man :D.

hyoenmadan wrote:You only get what you paid for. You can't expect high end performance for a piece enough cheap to provide an upgrade path for the ones living in the 3rd world. Even now the rule still applies. You have Celeron and Pentium "Core iX" Baytrail SoCs for Thin Client offers, Core i3 for Entry Desktop Experience and Core i5 and i7 for general public market.

I see you mentioned Duron... Is interesting that even the slow Netburst Celeron you named will be able to run an unmodified Win7 build proving you have enough RAM, while Durons will even crash at Install time due the lack of the SSE2 instruction set :-P

Greetings.


This is slightly offtopic to discuss here, but I will attempt to answer as quickly as possible. It is not quite as you put it, since the market was not fragmented/filled with as many products as nowadays. The Duron and Celeron were pretty similarly priced and the Duron was much faster (and probably slightly cooler. The Windows 7 part I find quite irrelevant given the time frame.

Let me say that I've upgraded friends' and people's Willamete/Northwood Celerons for free in the past, out of sheer pity. I would always plug in at least a Celeron D or whatever Pentium 4 I had laying around that I did not need. It was that bad of a CPU and you should feel bad for trying to defend it :lol: .
User avatar
F2bnp
l33t
 
Posts: 3496
Joined: 2007-9-23 @ 10:19

Re: SIS chipset? What are your experiences?

Postby Putas » 2016-4-06 @ 09:50

I don't believe SiS300 was ever integrated to chipset, no matter what company like Asus says. It ought to be 305. Yes, M64 would be an upgrade over that, but what can you expect from integrated graphics of that time.
User avatar
Putas
Oldbie
 
Posts: 785
Joined: 2010-11-21 @ 06:58
Location: q3dm6

PreviousNext

Return to General Old Hardware

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: appiah4, bit and 15 guests