VIA Responds with KT400A, Five Months Later

3D Rendering Performance - 3dsmax R5

For our 3ds max 5 benchmarks we chose all of the benchmark scenes that ship with the product - SinglePipe2.max, Underwater_Environment_Finished.max, 3dsmax5_rays.max, cballs2.max and vol_light2.max.

3D Rendering Performance 3DSMAX R5 - SinglePipe2.max (Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better) NVIDIA nForce2 (333/DualDDR333) VIA KT400A (333/DDR333) 227 227 | 0 | 45 | 91 | 136 | 182 | 227 | 272

3D Rendering Performance 3DSMAX R5 - Underwater_Environment_Finished.max (Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better) NVIDIA nForce2 (333/DualDDR333) VIA KT400A (333/DDR333) 300 300 | 0 | 60 | 120 | 180 | 240 | 300 | 360

3D Rendering Performance 3DSMAX R5 - 3dsmax5_rays.max (Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better) NVIDIA nForce2 (333/DualDDR333) VIA KT400A (333/DDR333) 22 22 | 0 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 22 | 26

3D Rendering Performance 3DSMAX R5 - CBALLS2.max (Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better) NVIDIA nForce2 (333/DualDDR333) VIA KT400A (333/DDR333) 44 44 | 0 | 9 | 18 | 26 | 35 | 44 | 53

3D Rendering Performance 3DSMAX R5 - vol_light2.max (Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better) NVIDIA nForce2 (333/DualDDR333) VIA KT400A (333/DDR333) 21 21 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 13 | 17 | 21 | 25

All 3D rendering scenarios seem to show equivalent performance between the two platforms; so long as there are no glaring issues in the memory controller, it's rare that two otherwise identical platforms would perform differently under these sorts of tests because of the nature of 3D rendering applications and the relatively small working set size of the scenes we're testing.