Related Articles

Performance and Testing

We tested this board with our current test setup:

AMD XP 2100+ "Thoroughbred"
Thermaltake Volcano 9 cooler
512MB Corsair XMS3200 DDR RAM
512MB Corsair XMS3500 DDR RAM
ATI RADEON 9700 Pro128MB
Seagate 120GB ATA133 Barracuda ST3100

We ran our tests on Windows XP with SP1, using the latest BIOS as of November 11 2002. Unless specified, the system was set to 333Mhz CL2, and the BIOS is loaded with "Optimized Defaults".

The tests will be compared against the Soyo KT400 Dragon Ultra and MSI KT4 Ultra boards, which we tested recently.

PCMark and SysMark 2002

Looking at the PCMark and SysMark results, you get a good idea of just how close in performance all of these KT400 boards really are. Particularly in the PCMark CPU scores, where you can see that performance varies at most by 1%.

SysMark tells a slightly different story. You can see quite clearly that the FICAN19E trails in both Internet Content Creation and Office Productivity. It's true that the board outperforms the Soyo KT400 Dragon Ultra in Office Productivity, but elsewhere it is the slowest of the three boards. Keep in mind that these scores are still very close, though you can see that the board is, in general, 4-7% slower then the MSI KT4 Ultra.

Sisoft Sandra 2002:

The story, using Sandra, is similar: the scores between the KT400 boards are very close, but you can still see the overall trend is for the FIC19E to lag behind the other two boards. Interestingly, the AN19E is almost perfectly tied with the Soyo board for memory bandwidth tests; PCMark's memory score was the reverse, with the AN19E scoring higher than the Soyo.