Menu
Asus P4B266-E and P4S333 in the test: Intel 850 versus Intel 845 and SiS 645

Asus P4B266-E and P4S333 in the test: Intel 850 versus Intel 845 and SiS 645

Conclusion

Anyone who has taken a close look at the individual benchmarks will certainly have already made a judgment about the boards shown. With both the P4B266-E and the P4S333 you get very high quality boards, as you have been used to from Asus for years. But although the P4S333, in contrast to the P4B266-E, has DDR333 support and the SiS645 seems to be the better chipset on paper, we definitely have to give the P4B266-E our recommendation.

The price of around € 200 is quite high, but the P4B266-E also has a few more features than the P4S333, which in our version is around 130 € costs. In addition, ourBenchmarks showed that the i845 on the P4B266-E is faster than the SiS645 on the P4S333 with identical RAM (DDR266). Only with DDR333 can the P4S333 overtake the P4B266-E one or the other time, but by far not always. The P4B266-E can partially place itself ahead of the contender despite the slower RAM. Another problem the P4S333 struggles with is the poor availability of high quality DDR333. Despite a purchase price of € 140 per 256MB bar, our Crucial modules only provide stable operation in CL2.5 mode. With CL2 modules, a little more performance would be possible. However, we are currently wondering whether this expensive purchase is really worth it. Especially if you already have DDR266, you should think three times about buying DDR333 at the moment.

We were astonished that the DDR RAM boards are sometimes placed in front of the Rambus board can. However, one should not forget that the Intel MD850D is by no means the fastest Rambus board on the market. Up to 7% more power is definitely possible with other Rambus boards.

We don't really have much left to say about the P4B266-E, as it convinced us completely. The equipment is top notch and the stability is excellent. But this quality also has its price. You only have to cut back on the overclocking capabilities, since the extremely important function 'Fix PCI/AGP Clock' is missing here. If you don't want to wait for the introduction of the i845-E in conjunction with the ICH4, but want to call OnBoard USB 2.0 your own and value Raid, the P4B266-E is the best choice.

The problems with the message 'System failed CPU test' and the resulting CMOS clears unfortunately overshadow the otherwise very good stability of the P4S333 ( Addendum 04/29/2002: Daslatest Bios 1006C eliminates this bug ). The P4S333 cannot compete with the equipment of the P4B266-E either, but it costs € 70 less. Unfortunately, the advantage of the DDR333 only comes into its own to some extent in very memory-intensive applications, but of course, similar to VIA's KT333, it offers an advertising platform that should not be underestimated. Unfortunately, the P4S333 also lacks the important menu item 'Fix PCI/AGP Clock' in the BIOS, which makes overclocking the Pentium4 much easier. Both mainboards stand out with their full PCI slot equipment and the well thought-out design.

At the end of the test, we sometimes had the opinion that a Pentium4 would still be equipped with a chipset directly from Intel is best served, but has to dig a little deeper into your pocket than with boards with competitive chipsets.

As always, the forum is responsible for questions.

Rating P4B266-E

Asus P4B266-E
  • Scope of delivery
  • Features
  • Documentation
  • Stability
  • Performance
  • Layout
  • Processing
  • Service
  • 6 PCI slots
  • Raid
  • USB 2.0
  • Asus EZ-Plug
  • 'Fix PCI/AGP Clock 'option is missing in the BIOS
  • Price

Rating P4S333

Asus P4S333
  • Scope of delivery
  • Documentation
  • Layout
  • Price
  • Service
  • Processing
  • DDR333 support
  • 6 PCI slots
  • Asus EZ-Plug
  • 'Fix PCI/AGP Clock' option is missing in the BIOS
  • Boot problems
  • Performance with DDR266

Was this article interesting, helpful, or both? The editors welcomes every support from ComputerBase Pro and deactivated ad blockers. more on the subject Ads on ComputerBase .

Comments