ATI Radeon Xpress 200: Performance, PCI Express & DX9 for Athlon 64
by Wesley Fink on November 8, 2004 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Radeon Xpress' Integrated DirectX 9 GPU
Although we generally focus on the performance of desktop chipsets with the fastest discrete graphics solutions, in order to truly be successful in the chipset business, you have to gain significant OEM market share. And what do the majority of computers sold use? Chipsets with integrated graphics.The integrated graphics core on a North Bridge comprises almost 90% of the die, but despite this figure, in terms of GPU performance, integrated graphics solutions generally perform far worse than even the cheapest discrete graphics solutions. Part of the reason behind this phenomenon is that the major chipset manufacturers (Intel, SiS, VIA) are not graphics companies, and they operate on fairly long 2-year product cycles for major changes in their graphics designs.
When NVIDIA first made an effort to get into the chipset business, they brought their graphics expertise to the market - quickly raising the performance bar with integrated graphics solutions. But with the nForce4, NVIDIA lacks an integrated graphics solution for the Athlon 64 platform, paving the way for ATI's Radeon Xpress 200 to make a splash.
In the past, you could integrate the slowest desktop GPU into a chipset unmodified, but with the extreme complexity and FP requirements of DirectX 9 GPUs, this is no longer possible. The Radeon Xpress 200 features a modified version of the X300 core, modified to have only two operational pixel pipelines. As a desktop part, only having two pipes would be terrible for performance, but keeping in mind that the market for integrated graphics solution is much less performance-conscious, then it's much more acceptable.
With only two pixel pipes, the Radeon Xpress integrated graphics core can render up to two pixels per clock, with the ability of applying one texture operation per pixel per clock. Compared to Intel's Graphics Media Accelerator 900 (the integrated graphics core of the 915G chipset), ATI is actually at a disadvantage here, with the GMA 900 capable of rendering 4 pixels per clock. Where the Radeon Xpress integrated graphics pulls ahead in the specs is in its two hardware vertex engines. Intel's GMA 900 features no hardware vertex acceleration and instead, depends on the host CPU to handle all vertex operations.
The Radeon Xpress 200 is built on a 0.13-micron process, a larger process than what the 110nm process the X300 is built on, and thus, the integrated GPU runs at a slower core clock speed of 300MHz.
Since the Radeon Xpress' integrated graphics core is based on the X300's core, game compatibility - a weakness for Intel's GMA 900 - should not be an issue with the integrated graphics. If you look back at our recent review of NVIDIA's GeForce 6200, out of the 8 games that we tested, only 5 would run on Intel's integrated graphics solution. Given that integrated graphics is usually all that first-time gamers have access to, game compatibility is quite important.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Sahrin - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
I'm really excited to see another performance player in the AMD chipset market. Ironically, despite the fact that Intel is considered to have the best quality chipsets, the AMD segment has the most players and the most options. This chipset looks very good to me, especially as an overclocker, but I'm kind of left hanging in the feature set, which traditionally has been the determinant in the A64 market. Sure, 6 SATA ports is nice...etc. etc. but where's my dual integrated GigE LAN? I will take a long hard look at this chipset if SB450 comes out in time, but I think I will likely be going nForce one more generation.SLIM - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
#6, of course you use an FX with the best gfx card available, he's trying to highlight small differences between chipsets. If you want P4 vs A64 look at a recent cpu review.However one large set of differences were the specviewperf benches? Huge differences when using ati/ati (some good and some bad) but no comments as to wtf is going on. Are those differences related to DX vs opengl, other driver issues, anybody know??
ipoh - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
Onboard graphics use to be not good but changed since ATi comes out with RS350...and with this RS480 DX9 VGA will be definitely goodCurrently using my RS350 playing Doom3 and still looks good :)
I will spend my money for more HDD :)
Ivo - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
With DX9 included, the integrated graphics (IG) of RS480 is good. First of all, with guaranteed future OS compatibility, it's very good for the OEM - for both business machines and home-office PCs. Secondly, as stated it the review, it is good enough for high-end 2D users because of the Surround View option. Third, it is a reasonable option for gamers too, as it could serve in emergency cases, when your high-end overclocked graphic card is tired ;-(The IG could be even more interesting for occasional gamers and even business users if, in a thinkable upcoming chipset, the IG is involved in a SLI scheme with one graphic card. In that case the IG will add it's modest 10% to 20% to the overall gaming performance (small, but from heart). This 10%-20% could be interesting for the real gamers too, if the IG is involved in a triple SLI scheme with two additional graphic cards.
My questions to this great article are:
1. What about the Cool 'N Quiet operation - does it work properly on the reference board with all (DIMM etc.) configurations used?
2. What is ATI suggesting about the SidePort - why it is limited to 32 bit and 16MB only?
byvis - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
It's very impressive. But I have one minor question about the benchmarking. Why didn't you test Nforce4 + X800XT in Winstone and other benchmarks? I see, that you DID test RX480 + GF6800U and RX480 + X800XT. Maybe the margins are very small, but I'd like to see them, I think other people would like that too.deathwalker - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
ATI might be right in the thick of it based on performance..however...from a marketing standpoint I think they will have a tough road to plow.bearxor - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
SoldJalf - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
Onboard graphics makes perfect sense for non-gamers.If they can cram in something that works for normal desktop use, *and* can claim to support DirectX 9 as well, then it's a pretty good deal. It'll serve your needs under normal use, and it'll at least be able to run games, even if they might get an unplayable framerate.
DrDisconnect - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
I'm surprised that any of you are wondering why they are producing an integrated graphics versio. Haven't you taken a walk through any of the computer superstores lately? Entry level machines from HP etc. are using integrated graphics to hold prices down yet allow users to beef up their machines when they ahve some coin later on.ranger203 - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
-1st of all, why does anandtech keep benchmarking AMD FX chips, sure they are the fastest hands down, but none of us are buying they. I.e. they are comparing apples to oranges, (FX vs. P4). They need to bench regular A64s!!!!-2nd, Onboard video still really sucks for gaming, but atleast they are making an effort, they should relize that $30 gaming cards are better quality than their onboard video and stop integrating it into their full size atx boards!!! Unless this was just a "show" board of ati's capability, then i could understand....