Intel 440BX vs VIA Apollo Pro Chipset Comparison

Notice a larger performance difference?  It seems that the AGP Bus on the Apollo Pro isn't as efficient when handling smaller amounts of data (i.e. lower resolution tests) in comparison to that of the BX chipset.  At higher resolutions the data transfer speeds, represented by the frame rates, bridges the gap a bit, however that is most likely a result of the TNT chipset which experiences a great drop-off in performance at 1024 x 768.  The large gap in crusher.dm2 performance does back up the crippled AGP theory even further since the crusher benchmark illustrates the worst possible scenario for a Quake2 gaming environment, overwhelming the bus with explosions and players. 

A little tweaking of the VIA AGP GART drivers could correct this problem, however for now, expect sub-par 3D/AGP performance with the VIA Apollo Pro chipset in comparison to Intel's BX.  If you don't have the option of purchasing newer PC100 SDRAM though, the Apollo Pro seems to be your only option, AGP performance and all.

Drivers & Conclusion

For most users, the Apollo Pro is nothing more than the BX chipset with a different logo on it, however for the gamer, or the user that simply hates to mess with AGP GART Drivers (you'll have to use them with the Apollo Pro to get the most out of the chipset from a performance perspective) it is better to wait until you can either afford to purchase newer RAM for use with the BX chipset or until VIA fixes the performance issues with their chipset, the latter which should require nothing more than a bit of driver tweaking.  It looks like Intel will hang on to the throne for a little while longer in the chipset industry, a good sign for the boys inside as they've taken a hard hit in the microprocessor market since last year.