X-bit labs

Started by: t | Date 12/08/06

Comments: 34 | Last Comment:  01/13/08

[1-20 | 21-27]

1. How about some Company of Heroes benchmarks?

2. Also it's worth looking at how well each of the two chipsets do while playing back HD Video... Normalize for CPU performance - and take a look at what nVidia does with "PureVideo" playback as compared to the Intel solution. As far as I know the offerings for HD playback with 965 chipset aren't great - even if they are offset by the superior performance of the Core 2 Duo.

3. Why are Doom 3 and Quake 4 set to "High Quality"? When HQ is enabled in these games they automatically turn aniso filtering 8x on. I think that is why we are seeing unplayable frame rates with these games.

Also, What settings are used with HL2?

Very obvious we have some novice testers for this article......

Mainstreamers who buy integrated platforms would play it at the default setting. Doom 3, for example, automatically tests the system before it loads and sets the graphics settings accordingly. Typically, it sets these integrated systems to 640x480 on Low Settings to give decent FPS.

4. I have a 6150 in my compaq laptop. It is dog slow!

It is slower than my 2.5 year old radeon mobility 9700.

There's really nothing much to respond to...Oh yeah! Comparing a performance solution to a budget one, then saying the budget one is crap is just plain stupidity at its best.

You sir, are a MORON.

5. The tables will turn if Windows users considering of switching to Linux. Linux only uses OpenGL, so nVidia's integrated graphics will be a better choice. Also nVidia already supports their integrated graphics chipset in Linux with the same features that is seen in Windows.Intel provides some support for their integrated graphic chipsets in Linux, but users may have to use a special utility to re-program a custom resolution.

I prefer looking at gaming benchmarks that are using OpenGL. DirectX skews benchmarking because it combines the CPU, main memory, video memory, and GPU/VPU. OpenGL relies on raw performance coming from video memory and GPU/VPU.

The video portion of the review is completely predictable because it is mainly the processor that is doing the work. Also I think HD decoding in GPU/VPU are premature.

6. Where is G80 performance review? You mentioned unstable 97.02 drivers as the reason for the delay. I thought is to be a reasonable cause. However, in the meantime, the guys at pcperspective managed to produce G80 SLI review using 97.02.

So, what is wrong with you? Are you waiting for R600? Vista? It is not funny anymore.

7. Why no comparison of 965G with low end Nvidia graphics cards?

Many of my friends are nterested in these benchmarks

8. Who are you kidding?
You must have made a mistake. The G965 is the laughingstock of the graphics industry. This article runs so contrary to reality, please check your facts.

G965 has visual quality and performance issues:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35660
You didnt test enough real games. Intel optimizes for benchmarks not real games and you got sucked right into their marketing pitch. Where is Far Cry? Where is HL2? Where is Serious Sam 2? COH/COV?, SplinterCell?

G965 has MAJOR compatibility problems as evidenced by Intel's own admission.
http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intelg965/sb/CS-023018.htm
http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intel945gm/sb/CS-021400.htm
People play games, not benchmarks. What good is doing well on 3DMark if you cannot load and play the game?

Please recheck the facts on this one....

Actually, it's clear you know nothing about what you are talking about.

Those comments from The Inquirer are both old and exaggerated. The early benchmarks that showed terrible G965 performance were using driver versions 14.21.1 or 14.24, neither of which supported anything in hardware. Not PS, not VS, not T&L. This means that even the GMA 950 had the advantage of having hardware PS, which is why it performs faster. It's really quite straightforward where the poor compatibility and performance came from.

The current 14.25 drivers only added early support for hardware PS3.0. No VS or T&L. That is also why it is performing worse than the GMA 950 currently. Initial support for hardware VS and T&L won't be added until 14.26, which Intel has told developers should be out before the end of the year. Full hardware support for everything won't be finalized until driver 14.27 due in Q1, probably in February after Vista is released.

Now if there is something to complain about it's that Intel is taking their sweet time releasing drivers. OpenGL support is terrible right now, which is why Doom 3 and Quake 4 run so bad. How well the GMA X3000's architecture is designed has yet to be seen since very little of the features have been activated yet much less optimized.

In regards to the games you mentioned, if you didn't noticed HL2 was included and that G965 actually outperforms the GeForce 6150 by a third. More games would be nice, but it'd be pointless until at least driver 14.26 is released to have at least initial support for HW VS, PS, and T&L.

Sorry but I think it’s hard to believe that it outperforms NVIDIA.
Maybe image quality issues?
Maybe disabled in games features with the Intel IGP that gets enabled with Nvidia?

Intel beating Nvidia or Ati IGP?
I don’t believe!

9. You are using the wrong AMD CPU. Proof:

HP A1630n, 4600+, Nvidia 6500 2GB, 250GB HDD: $769
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/HP-Pavilion-Media-Center-Desktop-PC-A1630N/sem/rpsm/oid/160200/catOid/-12962/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

HP A1640n, E6300, G965, 2GB, 250GB HDD: $869
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/HP-Pavilion-Media-Center-Desktop-PC-A1640N/sem/rpsm/oid/161395/catOid/-12962/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

So, for $100 less, you get a 4600+ versus an E6300. A 4200+ is completely unfair comparison to a E6300. At a minimum, retest with a 4600+, but if you want to be fair, test with a 5000+.

1K pricing is B.S. and everyone "in the know", knows it. Look at the real systems you can buy to makre true CPU distinctions.

Please retest with the more comparable CPU, a 5000+ or 4600+.

10. "The rear panel carries two monitor connectors: a D-Sub and a DVI, which we haven’t yet seen on any Intel based mainboards. "...Maybe true for uATX/ATX FF...But untrue fo uBTX/pBTX FF....Intel DQ965GCO, DQ965WC, DG965MQ and DG965PZ do have the DVI + D-Sub.....check out http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/DG965MQ/index.htm

11. What? You tested an AMD 6150 board and did not include the Abit NF-M2 nView??? It quite possibly is the best mATX board for AMD!

~Ibrahim~

12. why didn't you guys review the ati xpress 200m?

13. Why do you test only third-party MB? Intel also makes MB like DG965WH for instance...

14. It would have been interesting to compare the overall performance of a pc with integrated video and the same with an external video card.
Just an idea, good work anyway !

15. People do you really believe that Intel beat NVIDIA?
I mean AMD got beaten by Intel not new, but Intel beat NVIDIA?

Intel: Game issues, corrupted graphics, slowdowns (slide show effect).
Nvidia: Minor issues, good image quality, no big slowdowns.
^That I believe.

So, I don’t believe in this review.

And the result from power consuming maybe wrong too:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/25/green_machine/page4.html

Reports of decent performance from the GMA X3000 actually aren't new.

http://deadmoo.com/articles/2006/09/28/intels-new-onboard-video-benchmarked

On linux, the GMA X3000 turns out to be faster than a X550 and nearly as fast as a 7300GS. Obviously this is only a single benchmark but it is a step in the right direction. Especially given the newness of the linux drivers for the GMA X3000.

16. As far as I can tell, the article was pretty fair - similar solutions from the same manufacturer vis a vis the motherboards.

To make it truly a GPU to GPU solution, perhaps it would have been "fairer" to underclock the C2D. But then a real-world customer would not do that and the price of the solutions are actually pretty close. So, fairness is in the eye ofthe beholder, I guess.

Who woulda thought Intel is the GPU performance king? HA! Or as I've heard said for IGP solutions, the "cream of the crap."

Good article for those of us specifying IGP for customers.

To the poster above, truth is not a morphable property. You can disagree with conclusions but not the objective evidence.

17. Forgot something.......

A little bird told me that NVidia had a hand in developing the X3000 GMA. Looks like they did a good job.

18. The authour uses the word "encoding" on several occasions when really what was been discussed was "decoding"

19. Never in my life have i seen such a big bunch of noob posters here on XBit forum. Obviously you people bearly use computers.
First of all, why would the reviewer lie? He never did and obviously for the good of the website, he never will.

I'll explain why Intel is faster.
The main cause of the slow IGP performance on the AMD platform is the platform itself. Putting the memory controller in the cpu causes the IGP to get extra latency and less bandwidth. On Intel the IGP resides next to the memory controller. This is one of the main issues from the start and both ATI and SIS tried to fix it by putting frame buffer next to the northbridge. The ATI RS690 will have the same thing. This problem will remain until Hypertransport 3.0 is introduced.

Next thing people forget is that the 6150 is jus a 2 pipe core based on the 6200. So it's basicly half a 6200 with even less memory bandwidth (only 1 vertex shader). It runs 425Mhz compared to the 667Mhz of G965. The 945G runs 400Mhz but is 4 pipe.

Also this year i've noticed that Intel made big improvements in their drivers. They are MUCH more compatible with games and run much faster. 14.26 and 14.27 drivers will make the G965 even faster.

So i would say, get used to it. For now in the IGP market Intel is master and i don't see it changing soon since the RS690 will be bandwidth starved.
Having 12.8GB memory bandwidth directly next to the IGP will be hard to beat for the AM2 platform.

One more thing, these chipsets are not cpu limited. So even putting a FX60 in the AMD system won't change anything.

No read my post(s).

Want one realist review:
http://www.digital-daily.com/motherboard/foxconn-6100k8ma-rs/index06.htm

Some coments from the review:
"No wonder surprising about the high results for the Intel GMA950 core. The thing is that so many scene components are most simplified (example - instead of meteorites, the user sees only dark objects on the screen), thus the results proved higher. nVidia graphic cores handle all the objects "in earnest", so their results are most impartial. "

"Gunmetal failed to run with the Intel GMA950 core (the only thing we saw was the game menu turned by 90 degrees). "

"Comanche4 refused to start with the Intel GMA950 core (like with all the previous integrated Intel chipsets). "

Date of your review: 10/10/2005.

That's more than a year ago.
Like i said, Intel drivers got much better this year.
Find me a recent article ...... i've found one .... yeah this review.

20. Humm... Quite surprising that X3000 can run well most of the games though fps is

[1-20 | 21-27]