Intel 915 Graphics: Graphics Media Accelerator 900
by Derek Wilson on August 2, 2004 10:03 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Test
For these tests, the maximum amount of memory available on each integrated solution was used. Rather than testing with the highest settings enabled, we decided to test with settings targeted at a lower performance system. All these tests were performed with 32bit color, but most features were disabled and lower memory bandwidth settings were favored. More detailed explanations of settings for each game accompany our graphs.| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | Intel Pentium 4 2.8C Intel Pentium 4 3.4C |
| RAM: | 2 x 512MB DDR400 @ 2:3:2:6 |
| Hard Drive: | 120 GB Seagate 7200.7 |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel Chipset Driver 6.10.1002 ATI CATALYST 4.7 Motherboard/IGP drivers |
| Video Card(s): | ATI Radeon X300 SE Intel Graphics Media Accelerator Intel Extreme Graphics 2 ATI Radeon 9100 IGP |
| Video Drivers: | Intel Graphics Driver 6.14.10.3756 ATI CATALYST 4.7 |
| Operating System: | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboard: | Intel D915GUX Intel D865GBF Jetway RS350 |
It is very important to note that our Jetway RS350 board would only boot our Intel Prescott Engineering Sample at 2.8GHz, and therefore, the ATI 9100 IGP numbers are based on a system running at a 600MHz lower processor frequency. Interestingly, this almost makes up for Intel's lack of hardware geometry processing.
For each game, we also ran 4 different clock speeds on the 915G board to see how processor performance assisted in graphics performance in light of the missing hardware geometry processing.
For our image comparisons, we pit the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900 against the ATI 9100 IGP at the same quality settings. These serve to give an idea of the differences between the two integrated platforms as well as the image quality associated with the performance numbers.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
18 Comments
View All Comments
skiboysteve - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
"Gee thats funny i thought Longhorn required DX10 and PS3 minimum."longhorn requires DX9
kmmatney - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
I can probably dig up the numbers somewhere, but I wonder how this compares to the NForce2 IGP paired with an Athlon XP. Is there an IGP for the Athlon64?mczak - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
"...the ATI 9100 IGP numbers are based on a system running at a 600MHz lower processor frequency. Interestingly, this almost makes up for Intel's lack of hardware geometry processing."Well, the ATI 9100 IGP also completely lacks hardware geometry processing!
mkruer - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
Gee thats funny i thought Longhorn required DX10 and PS3 minimum. If tru the artical is a mute point . Intel is try to add value to the chipsete, when infact what is required is simplification of the chipset. Looks lke Blue Crystals to mesprockkets - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
With such low memory bandwidth available maybe running a DX9 integrated video system is a complete waste of time. So what if it supports PS2.0, playing a game at around 10FPS is a waste of time.mikecel79 - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
"So is this that Intel quality and 'reliability' that someone was talking about in the comments for the Sempron article? "Quality and reliability are different than performance. There's nothing here to show that the Intel Integrated graphics are not good quality or not reliable. Performance has nothing to do with quality or reliability.
tfranzese - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
So is this that Intel quality and 'reliability' that someone was talking about in the comments for the Sempron article?cosmotic - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
I really like the Intel bashing comments at the end of the review. Intel DOES have the responibility of puting better graphics cards in these computers. If they didn't provide integrated graphics, OEMs would be required to use add-in cards, and since the cheapest add-in card performs better than Intels chip, there is NO reason at all for Intel to be providing such utter crap in their chipsets. It may even be more ecinomical to license nVidia's technology to use inside Intel chips. That would make everyone happy (except ATI).