my GMA x3000 benchmarks...

[hans007]

well as promised i did some benchmarks of the new intel x3000 GMA graphics..


I'm not exactly Anandtech but here are the specs which should max either of the cards i used out anyway.

Intel DG965MS microBTX
Intel Core 2 Duo e6300 @ 1.86 ghz stock
512x2 ddr2-667 5-5-5 Micron ram
Hitachi t7k250
onboard sigmatel HD audio

i dont have many apps running outside of a wifi driver client thing, and im running sp2 all updates installed. i doubt those matter.

all numbers are for 1280x1024 , all default settings no AA/ no AF (well as far as I know). the drivers were installed and at complete defaults.

the nvidia driver was 91.47 and the intel was 14.21.1.4642 , both latest.

so i did 2 runs each. the only game i could run this on was wolf ET (not much of a gamer and it was free). wolf ET version 2.55 . the benchmark i used was 3dcenters railgun demo.

http://www.3dcenter.org/downloads/files/cb46p71/enemy-territory-railgun.zip

anandtech, i am not sure what demo or versions they use in the article they had here about the x200 radeon and the gma 950. honestly anandtech probably should provide this info. anyhow this railgun level demo seems to be popular enough that some other sites have said they used it.

that said, i had to change the suffix to 82 from 83. not really sure why, but it ran after that so whatever. you extract that to a folder you make called 'demos' in the 'etmain' folder

if you guys could try the same on your systems i'd like to compare with you guys.

below is how to run the timedemo in wolf ET

go the console, then:
timedemo 1.
then :
demo railgun
(this took me a while to find out how to do as there dont seem to be very good instructions online).

that said...
gma x3000 , run 1= 15.4 fps, run 2 =15.2 fps

compared to my state of the art video card
jaton geforce 6600gt @ 500/1000 stock , run 1 = 100.4 fps , run 2 = 100.8 fps

so uh yeah... i also have company of heroes but just didnt bother. i suppose the gma x3000 at this point might be playable at 800x600. but 1280x1024 was definitely sluggish.

I suppose it might be a bit faster if i had ddr2-800 or whatever. I'm pretty sure the cpu makes no difference. My system is basically what the typical "dell" will be in 4-5 months once they clear out all the pentium Ds. hopefully intel will have improved the driver by then. at least the game ran and had no visual problems. the driver still isnt on the main downloads page for intel desktop boards at intel.com even.

 

[dug777]

Thanks for taking the time to do that mate

Could you run 3dmark05 for us? Do you have hl2? The CS:S Source stress test would be interesting...

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: dug777
Thanks for taking the time to do that mate

Could you run 3dmark05 for us? Do you have hl2? The CS:S Source stress test would be interesting...

im assuming i could download 3dmark05. i have a hl2 license, but i just dont have the time to download that all again fromsteam. maybe ill do it if i have the time, but i'm pretty sure its gonna be god awfully slow. probably could play original CS ok.

i have company of heroes installed. if i have time later this week, ill try the built in demo. the demo even kills the 6600gt...

 

[BFG10K]

Wow that's a poor score. :thumbsdown:

 

[Nightmare225]

Integrated is still not the way to go...

 

[hans007]

well i would assume the speed will improve as they fix the driver. if they can get that frame rate to around 50fps, i coudl see it as not being too bad.

 

[BFG10K]

if they can get that frame rate to around 50fps

That's still a terrible score for a four year old game.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

if they can get that frame rate to around 50fps

That's still a terrible score for a four year old game.

well yeah , but it would be faster than anything else ou there. it would be geforce 6200 Turbo cache or x1300 hyper memory class .

 

[bluemax]

Nope. The Integrated graphics of ATI's x200 and nVidia's 6150 are still far superior to Intel. I'm sure AMD/nVidia's scores would be at least double that - which is far more tolerable for "free".

 

[anandtechrocks]

Thanks a lot for running those benchmarks hans007. Hopefully some of these bigger review sites will have an artilcle soon so we can see how much of an improvement the X3000 has over the GMA 950.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: anandtechrocks
Thanks a lot for running those benchmarks hans007. Hopefully some of these bigger review sites will have an artilcle soon so we can see how much of an improvement the X3000 has over the GMA 950.

So far, I've only seen one or two reviews and the benchmarks are almost identical to the GMA950. It could be that the GMA3000 drivers are not yet complete and is still running in GMA950 mode (which I've read somewhere before... forget where.)

Either way, ATI or nVidia are sure showing Intel up good.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: anandtechrocks
Thanks a lot for running those benchmarks hans007. Hopefully some of these bigger review sites will have an artilcle soon so we can see how much of an improvement the X3000 has over the GMA 950.

So far, I've only seen one or two reviews and the benchmarks are almost identical to the GMA950. It could be that the GMA3000 drivers are not yet complete and is still running in GMA950 mode (which I've read somewhere before... forget where.)

Either way, ATI or nVidia are sure showing Intel up good.

well a x200 or 6150 probably would score about 30fps on the wolf benchmark at 1280x1024. if intel gets it up to 50, they'd be ahead obviously and be near really low end discrete cards (like the 6200tc/7100gs)


that said... supposedly the dx10 portions of the gma x3000 arent turned on yet in the driver. so i will try it again when they realease a new driver.

the intel integrated graphics do have a few advantages right now as is.

first off you can add hdcp or dvi easily with an add2 card, such as the add2-n (which i have for adding a dvi port). nvidia and ati do not have similar functionality. also assumign the driver ever gets fixed, they would have the only dx10 integrated gpu (albiet painfully slow).

 

[IntelUser2000]

So far, I've only seen one or two reviews and the benchmarks are almost identical to the GMA950. It could be that the GMA3000 drivers are not yet complete and is still running in GMA950 mode (which I've read somewhere before... forget where.)

Either way, ATI or nVidia are sure showing Intel up good.

It IS not ready.

Take a look here: http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=675499

Basically:
14.25: Supports SM 3.0 in software
14.26: Supports SM 2.0 in hardware(meaning Pixel/Vertex Shader 2.0, T&L)
14.27: All Clear Video features, SM 3.0 in hardware

The driver releases actually got delayed.

the nvidia driver was 91.47 and the intel was 14.21.1.4642 , both latest.

BTW hans007, the latest driver is 14.24. 14.24 came out late last month. Not sure if it changes anything.

Currently, the features on GMA X3000 aren't even supported by drivers in software mode. 14.25 will.

 

[IntelUser2000]

pretty sure the cpu makes no difference.

It seems it does quite a bit. Some of the sites have variations in scores which only difference is the CPU. GMA950 got quite a lot faster when going with Core 2 Duo. GMA950 does geometry/vertex shader on the CPU, and on the current drivers for G965, it looks like it also does geometry processing on CPU too.

GMA950 got 600 in 3dmark05 here: http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard...ocache_hypermemory/6/#abschnitt_3dmark. Core 2 Duo systems with GMA 950 gets 700-800.

(Notice small drops for GMA900/950 by going to higher resolutions. Limited by geometry processing performance)

 

[hans007]

weird. when i downloaded the driver from intel.com 14.21 was the latest on there.

apparently they do not update their support site that much.

if you go through the motherboard model, it is 14.21. if you search for "gma x3000 driver" you can find 14.24 .

thanks for the headsup.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

pretty sure the cpu makes no difference.

It seems it does quite a bit. Some of the sites have variations in scores which only difference is the CPU. GMA950 got quite a lot faster when going with Core 2 Duo. GMA950 does geometry/vertex shader on the CPU, and on the current drivers for G965, it looks like it also does geometry processing on CPU too.

GMA950 got 600 in 3dmark05 here: http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard...ocache_hypermemory/6/#abschnitt_3dmark. Core 2 Duo systems with GMA 950 gets 700-800.

(Notice small drops for GMA900/950 by going to higher resolutions. Limited by geometry processing performance)

well what i meant was, im pretty sure a core 2 duo e6300 is enough power to push it to the max.

but i could be wrong, if anyone wants to send me a qx6700 to test it out with , let me know.

 

[IntelUser2000]

weird. when i downloaded the driver from intel.com 14.21 was the latest on there.

apparently they do not update their support site that much.

if you go through the motherboard model, it is 14.21. if you search for "gma x3000 driver" you can find 14.24 .

thanks for the headsup.

Ah. I know why people can't find the latest drivers now. Here's the step.

1. Support & Downloads at the top.
2. Browse By Product at the left side
3. You can choose any section but the fastest is selecting Graphics
4. Intel 82G965 Graphics and Memory Controller Hub
5. Now you can see its 14.24

I noticed they don't do a through update of the entire site .

well what i meant was, im pretty sure a core 2 duo e6300 is enough power to push it to the max.

but i could be wrong, if anyone wants to send me a qx6700 to test it out with , let me know.

. Ok didn't mean anything bad. Intel graphics at current state scale very well with CPU because it currently lacks hardware geometry engine. I would guess 80% scaling for 100% CPU performance increase. Don't know if it will change when GMA X3000 gets hardware support for rest of the features.

I get 3600 in 3dmark 01 with Celeron D 325(2.53GHz) with 1GB single channel DDR2-533 on a GMA 950, and I could perhaps get 4500 at most with dual channel. Core 2 Duo systems get upwards of 8500.

 

[hans007]

ah i see. yeah i wasnt offended at all. i was just hoping someone would give me a quad core. haha. i looked at the link at hkepc. shame that the "good" driver wont be out until early next year. well hopefully this means, ill be able to get a sonoma based laptop next year for dirt cheap with reasonable 3d speed.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: hans007
ah i see. yeah i wasnt offended at all. i was just hoping someone would give me a quad core. haha. i looked at the link at hkepc. shame that the "good" driver wont be out until early next year. well hopefully this means, ill be able to get a sonoma based laptop next year for dirt cheap with reasonable 3d speed.

Dont get your hopes too high because even with those drives, i bet they would only reach the 6150/xpress200 performance. It would be something of a fool's errand to actually think IGP would do you good.

Now when is that IGP with the R580core stuck to that RD700 board?

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: hans007
ah i see. yeah i wasnt offended at all. i was just hoping someone would give me a quad core. haha. i looked at the link at hkepc. shame that the "good" driver wont be out until early next year. well hopefully this means, ill be able to get a sonoma based laptop next year for dirt cheap with reasonable 3d speed.

Dont get your hopes too high because even with those drives, i bet they would only reach the 6150/xpress200 performance. It would be something of a fool's errand to actually think IGP would do you good.

Now when is that IGP with the R580core stuck to that RD700 board?

well i've got my hopes high. Intel generally has the best chipset fab plants so they can squeeze abit more in there.

the x200 and 6150 are only 2pipe designs. i dont think the x200 even has hardware vertex shaders. i've had a few xpress 200s and they are clocked at maybe 350mhz too. the x3000 is running 667 with 8 pixel shaders. that said i'm expecting geforce 6200 or so speed out of it with ddr2-800 dual channel.

 

[dguy6789]

For a card that was supposed to top the 9800 Pro and 6600GT, I am very disappointed. Oh well.

 

[IntelUser2000]

well i've got my hopes high. Intel generally has the best chipset fab plants so they can squeeze abit more in there.

the x200 and 6150 are only 2pipe designs. i dont think the x200 even has hardware vertex shaders. i've had a few xpress 200s and they are clocked at maybe 350mhz too. the x3000 is running 667 with 8 pixel shaders. that said i'm expecting geforce 6200 or so speed out of it with ddr2-800 dual channel.

According to Intel, GMA X3000 is also 2 pixel pipeline design in terms of fixed function. It could be that later drivers enable unified pipeline, but not currently. From the reports of Inquirer saying its 2 pixel pipeline along with 4-6 vertex shaders, it may turn out to be 2 pixel pipeline and 6 vertex shaders.

One of the reasons of poor performance on GMA 950 was it had no hardware geometry, and the performance in most later games was limited by it.

It doesn't even support SM 3.0 in software yet, the driver coming soon, the 14.25 is supposed to enable SM 3.0 in software.

With integrated graphics, reaching X300 performance with next gen is difficult. From ATI's reports that RD600 integrated is twice as fast as Xpress 200, it'll roughly match X300 in performance.

Next generation integrated=X300, pretty sad.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
Next generation integrated=X300, pretty sad.

Especially since it was supposed to perform close to an X700. Bah!

Maybe once AMD/ATI make a CPU/CPU combo.

 

[ltcommanderdata]

Sorry for bringing up an old topic, but Intel has released new 14.25 drivers and it's supposed to enabled Pixel Shader 3.0 support. Earlier reports are that the 14.25 driver only adds software Pixel Shader 3.0 support and certainly Vertex Shader and T&L aren't added yet, but maybe someone could test out the new drivers and see what type of performance increase it gets over 14.24.

http://downloadmirror.intel.com/df-support/11913/ENG/relnotes_2k_xp_gfx.htm

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=675499&starttime=0&endtime=0

Anandtech keeps mentioning they'll have a full G965 review up soon, but I'm still waiting. Maybe with this new driver out and 14.26 in Beta right now, we'll see a decent review from them.

 

[TecHNooB]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

So far, I've only seen one or two reviews and the benchmarks are almost identical to the GMA950. It could be that the GMA3000 drivers are not yet complete and is still running in GMA950 mode (which I've read somewhere before... forget where.)

Either way, ATI or nVidia are sure showing Intel up good.

It IS not ready.

Take a look here: http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=675499

Basically:
14.25: Supports SM 3.0 in software
14.26: Supports SM 2.0 in hardware(meaning Pixel/Vertex Shader 2.0, T&L)
14.27: All Clear Video features, SM 3.0 in hardware

The driver releases actually got delayed.

the nvidia driver was 91.47 and the intel was 14.21.1.4642 , both latest.

BTW hans007, the latest driver is 14.24. 14.24 came out late last month. Not sure if it changes anything.

Currently, the features on GMA X3000 aren't even supported by drivers in software mode. 14.25 will.

Ahhh... grammar peeve. Why would you stress 'IS'? Omg omg~