RS690, X3000, C51 benchmarks

[IntelUser2000]

GMA X3000 with 14.24 drivers on E6700: http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/main/reviews/0608/856535_4.html

Earlier drivers(14.21) compared to 14.25 on E6400: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/15...iew_intel_vs_amd_integrated/page3.html

14.25 and E6300 and 945G: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipsets/display/ig965-gf6150_12.html

E6300 X3000(14.24) and C51: http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/main/reviews/0611/913243_5.html

RS690 and C51: http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/main/reviews/0612/926222_7.html

Fastest is.... 945G . Dec is supposed to be the 14.26 driver for G965 and upcoming Anand's review, it can't come fast enough.

 

[Avalon]

In a few of your links, the Intel system has a CPU speed advantage, so I don't really know what to make of some of the benchmarks.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Avalon
In a few of your links, the Intel system has a CPU speed advantage, so I don't really know what to make of some of the benchmarks.

QFT.

Low res means its likely to be more CPU limited.
I dont understand why your trying to pimp out intel integrated graphics when clearly compared with its competitors are quite not as impressive. (especially trying to do so by having the intel's solution paired with a much faster CPU and tis competitors the slowest)

 

[IntelUser2000]

Ok, explain this then: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipsets/display/ig965-gf6150_12.html

You see in Quake 4/UT2004/FEAR/HL2 GMA 950(aka 945G) is quite a bit faster than the Geforce 6150.

What's the performance difference between Athlon X2 4200+ and E6300?? Less than 10% in lots of cases. What's the spread between 945G and GF6150?? 40-50% in favor of 945G.

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard..._hypermemory/15/#abschnitt_half_life_2

945G has no performance difference between resolution changes for HL2. Because it uses software Vertex Shader, and that is run by the CPU.

Because Nvidia GF6150 has two hardware vertex shader/T&L, it relies on the CPU much less for performance than Intel's 945G. This is a side benefit of having a software vertex shader, by having a Core 2 Duo, it can beat the GF6150, while GF6150 stays the same regardless of CPU.

Low res means its likely to be more CPU limited.

BS, the performance of GF6150 is low enough to be GPU bound at 800x600 with the games tested. It doesn't even reach the 64-bit memory based X300.


Conclusion: Back when Pentium 4/D was paired with 945G, performance was low, and Xpress 200 and GF6150 substantially outperformed it. With Core 2 Duo being substantially faster than the P4/PD CPU, and the fact that vertex shader/T&L is done by CPU, 945G can equal/outperform the GF6150. GF6150 stay nearly the same since its bottlenecked by the GPU.