SIS Xabre400/600 Based Video Cards Roundup

Part 1. November 2002:
Inno3D Xabre400
PowerColor Evil Xabre400 
Chaintech Xabre400
Soltek Xabre400

All the PCBs look similar and the design is almost identical to the reference one. The cards differ only in color and memory size. 

However, there is one more interesting point that distinguishes the Soltek's card: its chip works at 275 MHz instead of standard 250. If the memory worked at 275 (550) MHz, we would have a normal Xabre600. However, the chip's increased speed didn't boost up the performance with the memory working at its standard frequency, but it will be touched upon later. 

The cards have also different coolers and accessory packs. 

Here are the cooling devices: 
 

As I mentioned lots of times, such cards support TV-out via the SIS 301 coprocessor which is mounted on nearly all Xabre based solutions. TV-out quality is discussed in the first review of the list above. 

Now I'm going to take a peep into the boxes. 
 

Overclocking

Attention! 

• in course of overclocking you must provide additional cooling, in particular, for the card (first of all, for its memory):
 



• overclocking depends on a definite sample, and you shouldn't generalize the results of one card to all video cards of this mark or series. The overclocking results are not the obligatory characteristics of a video card.

Test system and drivers

Testbeds: 

• Pentium 4 2530 MHz based computer: 
• Intel Pentium 4 2530 MHz; 
• ASUS P4T533 (i850E) mainboard; 
• 512 MB 32bit RDRAM PC4200; 
• Seagate Barracuda IV 40GB HDD; 
• Windows XP. 
• Athlon XP 2000+ based computer: 
• AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz); 
• Soltek 75DRV5 (VIA KT333) mainboard; 
• 512 MB DDR SDRAM PC2700; 
• Seagate Barracuda IV 40GB HDD. 

In the tests we used SiS's drivers of ver.3.06.55. S3TC was off in the applications. 

Test results

Before we start examining 2D quality I should say that there is no a complete technique of objective estimation of this parameter because: 

1. Almost all modern 3D accelerators can have 2D quality much dependent on a certain sample, and it's impossible to trace all cards; 
2. 2D quality depends not only on a video card, but also on a monitor and a cable; 
3. Besides, certain monitors do not get along with certain video cards. 

• Inno3D Xabre400: 1280x1024x85Hz, 1024x768x100Hz; 
• Chaintech Xabre400: 1280x1024x100Hz, 1024x768x100Hz; 
• Soltek Xabre400: 1280x1024x120Hz, 1600x1200x75Hz, 1024x768x120Hz; 
• PowerColor Evil Xabre400: 1280x1024x100Hz, 1024x768x100Hz; 

Now I'm going to estimate operation of the cards in 3D. This part of the tests consists of two subsections. In the first one we will touch upon some aspects of operation of the Xabre in the 3DMark2001: 

• 3DMark2001 SE Pro (MadOnion/Remedy) - DirectX 8.1, Hardware TCL, multitexturing, LOW Details, DXTC OFF, double buffering, 24-bit Z buffer

Game 1, Low details

Game 2, Low details

Game 3, Low details

Game 4

3D Marks

Although the difference could be unnoticed at fight glance, they play with light (it's well seen in Game4). In the 1DMark1913 the processing is complete, and in the 3DMark2001 the drivers treat the lighting in a specific manner. Hence the speed gain. Note that the tests in the 1DMark1913 were also carried out with the NVIDIA and ATI based cards, but there were no noticeable changes. All the tests were fulfilled in the turbo texturing mode of the Xabre where the pictures have quality inferior to the rivals. What happens when this mode is off is described in the previous article. 

When the patch for the 3DMark2001SE was announced (which was meant to improve operation with the Xabre), after the tests on the version 3.30 we wondered why the speed grew up on the same drivers in all the tests of the 3DMark2001SE? And now we can see how easily test packets and drivers can adjust. The history of such optimizations goes back to 1998 when ATI released its turbo drivers for the Rage Pro which marginally increased the performance in the 3D WinBench, and after that the packet started losing its popularity. I'm afraid the MadOnion and its 3DMark can follow it... 

And now take a look at the summary diagrams from our 3Digest so that you can have deeper understanding of how such cards perform. 

The overclocked cards are marked with red color, the sign o/c (overclocked) is followed by the frequencies reached.

• 1. Return to Castle Wolfenstein - maximum quality settings
• Windows XP 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1024x768 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1280x1024 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1600x1200 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1024x768 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1280x1024 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1600x1200 

 
• 2. Unreal Tournament 2003 DEMO b.927 - standard settings
• Windows XP 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1024x768 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1280x1024 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1600x1200 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1024x768 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1280x1024 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1600x1200 

 
• 3. Comanche4 DEMO 
• Windows XP 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1024x768 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1280x1024 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1600x1200 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1024x768 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1280x1024 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1600x1200 

 
• 4. Comanche4 DEMO (min-max) 
• Minimal and maximum performance points (Windows XP) 
• itogi-video-c4-min-1024-32.html 
• itogi-video-c4-min-1280-32.html 
• itogi-video-c4-min-1600-32.html 

 
• 5. 3DMark2001, Game2 Low Details (Dragothic) 
• Windows XP 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1024x768 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1280x1024 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1600x1200 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1024x768 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1280x1024 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1600x1200 

 
• 6. Serious Sam: The Second Encounter 
• Windows XP 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1024x768 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1280x1024 
• Tests on Athlon XP 2000+ (1666 MHz),1600x1200 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1024x768 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1280x1024 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1600x1200 

 
• 7. 3DMark2001 
• 7.1. 3DMark2001 standard tests
• Windows XP (September 2002) 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1024x768, 3D Marks 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1024x768, Game1 Low 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1024x768, Game1 High 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1024x768, Game2 Low 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1024x768, Game2 High 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1024x768, Game3 Low 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1024x768, Game3 High 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1024x768, Game4 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1280x1024, 3D Marks 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1280x1024, Game1 Low 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1280x1024, Game1 High 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1280x1024, Game2 Low 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1280x1024, Game2 High 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1280x1024, Game3 Low 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1280x1024, Game3 High 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1280x1024, Game4 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1600x1200, 3D Marks 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1600x1200, Game1 Low 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1600x1200, Game1 High 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1600x1200, Game2 Low 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1600x1200, Game2 High 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1600x1200, Game3 Low 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1600x1200, Game3 High 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz, 1600x1200, Game4 

 
• 8. iXBT RightMark Video Analyzer 
• Windows XP 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1024x768 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1280x1024 
• Tests on Pentium 4 2533 MHz,1600x1200 

Conclusion

Before we arrive at the final conclusion let's take a look at the prices of the Xabre400 cards: $75 on average. In comparison, the RADEON 9000 is priced at $65, and the RADEON 9000 Pro at $92. The Xabre, being much more efficient, doesn't support anisotropic filtering and vertex shaders (which means a defeat in UT2003-type games), has 3D quality lower than that of other cards (due to turbo texturing), and it's dearer. However, the rumor has it that some Xabre400 solutions are already shipping somewhere at $40 in retail. I assume that at about $50 the Xabre400 based cards will find their market, especially because of the excellent TV-out. But right now, I can't recommend them at $75. Remember that we haven't mentioned yet AA quality (see the next 3Digest, a new section on the AA). 

1. Inno3D Xabre400 - this card has not many peculiarities and it's very similar to the reference solution. Note that it comes supplied with a DVI-to-d-Sub adapter. 

 
2. PowerColor Evil Xabre400 - it is also based on the reference design, though it comes complete with 128 MB memory. However, such cards don't need so much memory as the speed is primarily limited by the chip's capabilities and the memory's speed. 

 
3. Chaintech Xabre400 - it also has unnecessary 128 MB memory which just affect the price. The set of accessories is as modest as that of the rest. 

 
4. Soltek Xabre400 - its chip's working at 275MHz, but it brings small benefits. Besides, its speed is lower to some reason than that of the rivals, probably because of the timings of the EtronTech's memory. I don't see why they have mounted 3.5ns memory as it provides no leeway for overclocking and affects the price. Note that this card, as well as its box, is the most attractive. 

 

Highs:

• Satisfactory performance in 3D graphics (though the RADEON 9000 is close on the heels having richer 3D features and a lower price); 
• Excellent build quality of all the cards; 
• Good overclockability of the Soltek's card; 
• Perfect TV-out of all the cards. 

• Imperfect drivers and easy to detect optimization for the 3DMark2001SE; 
• Inferior image quality in 3D at the expense of turbo texturing; 
• Anisotropy unsupported; 
• Overpriced (the price doesn't match the capabilities of the Xabre400).