Geforce 6150SE vs Radeon 4350

[Bateluer]

We all know IGPs pretty much stink even compared to the lowest end GPUs. I stuck a Radeon 4350 into one of my test bed systems last night and ran some 3Dmark tests. The system is a Dell Inspiron 531 with an A64 X2 4000, 2GB of DDR2 running Vista 32.

Under the original Nvidia 6150SE IGP, it scored the following.

NV 6150SE

3Dmark 2001 - 3879
3Dmark 2003 - 1346
3Dmark 2005 - 720
3Dmark 2006 - 383

Under the Radeon 4350.

Radeon 4350

3Dmark 2001 - 12338
3Dmark 2003 - 7617
3Dmark 2005 - 5463
3Dmark 2006 - 3130

As you can see, this is a dramatic improvement. I didn't bench any 'real' games on it because its not really a gaming PC, but I was curious to see how much more powerful the card is.

The card is an MSI branded 4350, a fan less design. The heat sink seems to idle around 49-50 C, according to CCC, so its a bit on the toasty side. I may attach a small fan to the heat sink, to reduce the temperature a little, but I'm not too worried about the heat think produces.

 

[bluemax]

Having this very IGP (in my Dell c521) I need a video upgrade like there's no tomorrow. I could spend $50 and get a 4350 or keep squirreling away for the soon-coming 4650. The 9600GT is extremely tempting and worked in this c521 before, but I'm worried about the power supply with so much draw. The 4650 is a better choice there...

...until we can finally get the 9600GT "Green".

 

[toyota]

49-50 C for idle is not that hot at all so I wouldnt worry about that at all. anything would have been an upgrade over the 6150 so of course your gaming options have completely changed. the 4000 X2 is a pretty big bottleneck for that 4830 though so you arent getting all of what that card is even capable of. those 3dmark scores dont look right at all though. with a 5000 X2 and 8600gt I got nearly twice(5584) what you got in 3dmark06 with your 4830.

 

[footballrunner800]

Originally posted by: toyota
49-50 C for idle is not that hot at all so I wouldnt worry about that at all. anything would have been an upgrade over the 6150 so of course your gaming options have completely changed. the 4000 X2 is a pretty big bottleneck for that 4830 though so you arent getting all of what that card is even capable of. those 3dmark scores dont look right at all though. with a 5000 X2 and 8600gt I got nearly twice(5584) what you got in 3dmark06 with your 4830.

he has a 4350 not a 4830.

 

[alcoholbob]

What really needs to be designed is a intel atom-like GPU that can run completely passively without a heatsink (or produces very little heat), and is low-profile. That way media center PCs can actually play some games, not catch on fire while gaming. so the media center PCs aren't relegated to emulator boxes.

 

[StarBlast]

Originally posted by: bluemax
Having this very IGP (in my Dell c521) I need a video upgrade like there's no tomorrow. I could spend $50 and get a 4350 or keep squirreling away for the soon-coming 4650. The 9600GT is extremely tempting and worked in this c521 before, but I'm worried about the power supply with so much draw. The 4650 is a better choice there...

...until we can finally get the 9600GT "Green".

I thought the 521C was a slimline case and, therefore, can only take low profile cards. Also with probably a 250 watt power supply, I don't think I would be running a 9600GT. I think your best bet is the 9500 GT

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: footballrunner800

Originally posted by: toyota
49-50 C for idle is not that hot at all so I wouldnt worry about that at all. anything would have been an upgrade over the 6150 so of course your gaming options have completely changed. the 4000 X2 is a pretty big bottleneck for that 4830 though so you arent getting all of what that card is even capable of. those 3dmark scores dont look right at all though. with a 5000 X2 and 8600gt I got nearly twice(5584) what you got in 3dmark06 with your 4830.

he has a 4350 not a 4830.

oops my bad

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Radeon 4350

3Dmark 2001 - 12338

What a difference a CPU can make. I'm running Radeon X1650 Pro 512MB PCI-E on a Celeron D 3.06 (LGA775) and 2GB RAM. It scores a little over 11,000 in 3DMark 2001, when it should be a good notch above HD 4350 (not by a huge margin or anything). Blah. These graphics benchmarks are way too influenced by the CPU.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Radeon 4350

3Dmark 2001 - 12338

What a difference a CPU can make. I'm running Radeon X1650 Pro 512MB PCI-E on a Celeron D 3.06 (LGA775) and 2GB RAM. It scores a little over 11,000 in 3DMark 2001, when it should be a good notch above HD 4350 (not by a huge margin or anything). Blah. These graphics benchmarks are way too influenced by the CPU.

Actually, the item you quoted appears to show the opposite. The GPU is the independent variable as nothing else changes. The scores reflect that.

 

[Bateluer]

I have another Inspiron 531 with a slightly slower X2. Later this summer, I plan to upgrade my desktop's 4870 512MB and move it over to the Inspiron. Probably have to upgrade its power supply though. I still have my 2900XT sitting in a box on the shelf if nothing good comes out in the next 5 to 7 months.

These Dell motherboards are kinda crappy, the highest X2 they'll support is a 5600, at least, according to Dell. That's with the latest BIOS, by the way. I'd like to bump them both up to 5600s from their current Brisbane 3900 and 4000s, but that's a project for Fall 2009.

Edit - Just an update, it seems the idle temp was lower than I originally posted. After sitting all day, running only the S@H CPU client, CCC is reporting 44C.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Actually, the item you quoted appears to show the opposite. The GPU is the independent variable as nothing else changes. The scores reflect that.

Huh? Both the CPU and GPU changed between his and my results. My CPU is inferior to his, but my GPU is superior, and resulted in a lower 3DMark 2001 score.

The impact of CPU differences on GPU comparisons is fairly inarguable and well documented, particularly with 3DMark products. I'm not sure what I'm (you're) missing?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Actually, the item you quoted appears to show the opposite. The GPU is the independent variable as nothing else changes. The scores reflect that.

Huh? Both the CPU and GPU changed between his and my results. My CPU is inferior to his, but my GPU is superior, and resulted in a lower 3DMark 2001 score.

The impact of CPU differences on GPU comparisons is fairly inarguable and well documented, particularly with 3DMark products. I'm not sure what I'm (you're) missing?

I see. I didn't get into all that well.

One thing, the 4350 might *actually* be right up there with the x1650. With legacy games one true SP (the 4350 has 16) roughly equates to one pixel pipeline. With memory speeds being consistent and nothing else really changes, the x1650 might not be as powerful.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: StarBlast
I thought the 521C was a slimline case and, therefore, can only take low profile cards. Also with probably a 250 watt power supply, I don't think I would be running a 9600GT. I think your best bet is the 9500 GT

Yes, it's a slimline and yes, I've used the Galaxy 9600GT low-profile. It was a bit of a stretch for the 305W power supply so I don't want to do that again.

Having a 45W processor gives me some headroom at least.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
One thing, the 4350 might *actually* be right up there with the x1650. With legacy games one true SP (the 4350 has 16) roughly equates to one pixel pipeline. With memory speeds being consistent and nothing else really changes, the x1650 might not be as powerful.

With 80 stream processor (double the 40 of the 3450) it's not half bad... a notable improvement over the generation before it. Not bad for a low-end part.... though I wish it were cheaper.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
One thing, the 4350 might *actually* be right up there with the x1650. With legacy games one true SP (the 4350 has 16) roughly equates to one pixel pipeline. With memory speeds being consistent and nothing else really changes, the x1650 might not be as powerful.

With 80 stream processor (double the 40 of the 3450) it's not half bad... a notable improvement over the generation before it. Not bad for a low-end part.... though I wish it were cheaper.

actually the 4350 is really bad at gaming unless you run all low settings in newer games at 1024x768. it only has about half the power of an 8600gt.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
One thing, the 4350 might *actually* be right up there with the x1650. With legacy games one true SP (the 4350 has 16) roughly equates to one pixel pipeline. With memory speeds being consistent and nothing else really changes, the x1650 might not be as powerful.

With 80 stream processor (double the 40 of the 3450) it's not half bad... a notable improvement over the generation before it. Not bad for a low-end part.... though I wish it were cheaper.

actually the 4350 is really bad at gaming unless you run all low settings in newer games at 1024x768. it only has about half the power of an 8600gt.

It has a 64 bit memory bus and uses DDR2. A 128 bit bus and DDR3 would provide more speed, but raise the cost. The 4350 is a sub-40 dollar card, its designed to be cheap.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: bluemax
actually the 4350 is really bad at gaming unless you run all low settings in newer games at 1024x768. it only has about half the power of an 8600gt.

It wasn't very long ago that an 8600GT was considered pretty good for gaming. Unfortunately, it takes a 4550 to get close to the 8600's speed and a 4650 to beat it... the 4350's slower memory hampers it noticably.

 

[Bateluer]

Some more information, but no hard numbers.

I bought the Unreal Deal Pack on Steam over New Years. I downloaded and installed UT99 and UT2k4 and ran through a few quick deathmatches. The detail settings for each were 1024x768x32, all detail options set for maximum, though no AA turned on. Frame rate was estimated with FRAPS.

UT99 was pretty much pegged at over 100fps at all times, no slowdowns at all no matter how many bots or weapons were flying around the screen. Not particularly impressive though, considering the game is nearly 10 years old.

UT2k4 was nearly max'ed out as well, with the frame rate around 75-80 at all times, never dropping below 60.

I haven't fired up anything more current that UT2004 though. I sincerely doubt the 4350 is going to handle Fallout 3 or something similar.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I think it will handle Fallout 3 on low/medium settings.