Articles: Mobile
 

Bookmark and Share

(3) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 ]

The Amilo Pro V3405 and ASUS A6Rp having integrated graphics cores, we tested them in all versions of 3DMark: 3DMark 2001SE Pro, 3DMark 2003 3.6.0, 3DMark 2005 1.2.0 and 3DMark 2006 1.1.0.

3DMark uses its own rendering engine to create a set of 3D scenes that load the graphics subsystem in various ways. Compared with the previous version, 3DMark 2005 uses Shader Model 2.0x/3.0 instead of Shader Model 1.x, provides full compatibility with Shader Model 2.0, includes more complex tests (over a million polygons per each frame), and employs normal maps. 3DMark 2006 brings support for HDR, Uniform Shadow Maps, and multi-core CPUs. It is overall oriented at Shader Model 3.0, but two out of its four graphics tests work within the Shader Model 2.0 framework.

3DMark shows that the graphics core in the Radeon Xpress 200M chipset is not far better than the popular GMA 950. The results aren’t much lower in the battery mode thanks to flexible power-saving technologies. Both solutions fail to pass the tests that require support of Shader Model 3.0 due to their limited capabilities. The ASUS A6Rp looks better than its opponent in the Batch Size Tests.

Next, we tested the notebooks in two modes in Quake 3 :

  • 640x480; 16 bit; Vertex Lighting; Low Detail; 16-bit Texture Quality; Bilinear Texture Filter
  • 1024x768; 32 bit; Lightmap Lighting; High Detail; 32-bit Texture Quality; Trilinear Texture Filter

And in one mode in Quake 4 :

  • Overall Quality – High; Resolution – 1024x768; Format – 4:3; Multi-core Optimization – Yes. Other settings were left default

There was no standard demo record in Quake 4 , so we had to create one by ourselves. We will use it in every review of notebooks on our site so that different notebooks could be compared under identical conditions.

The Quake 3 results prove the superiority of the graphics core integrated into the Radeon Xpress 200M chipset.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 3
Discussion started: 08/02/07 11:48:45 AM
Latest comment: 02/15/08 11:33:26 PM

View comments

Add your Comment