Well, let me take you over to the benchmarks. The testbeds used for more illustrative results and analysis are actually of the same configuration as those, which we used in our MSI MEGA Review (of course, we also included the results for the MEGA itself). Namely we tested the following systems:
AMD Athlon XP
Intel Pentium 4 2.53 (533MHz QPB)
AMD Athlon XP 2600+ (2133MHz)
PC2100 CL2 DDR SDRAM, 512 MB
PC2700 CL2 DDR SDRAM, 512 MB
Intel Extreme Graphics
VisionTek Xtasy GeForce4 Ti 4400
IBM DTLA 307015
Accordingly, the results for the MEGA system are given for both: the integrated graphics core of the SiS chipset and an add-on AGP graphics card.
So, here are the first results:
As you see, the systems perform very close to one another. Both barebone systems are a little slower than the “regular” PCs, but not too much. Well, this benchmark is known to pay most attention to the CPU, mostly ignoring the rest of the system.
As for the memory, the i845G chipset, as I have already mentioned, supports only single-channel DDR266 SDRAM. During that year, which has passed since the launch of this chipset, the industry has evolved a bit further. For today, dual-channel DDR400 is the standard memory subsystem.
The integrated graphics core bites off a significant part of the memory bandwidth, which is not too high anyway. Thus, the memory performance won’t be very good. You can see it in the synthetic PCMark 2002 test:
As well as in the practical WinRAR:
By the way, both the memory and the HDD are responsible for the not very high result in this test. We will talk about the disk subsystem later in this article, don’t worry. Now, let’s take a closer look at the first one responsible for poor memory subsystem performance: the graphics subsystem.