Using 6150 IGP for the 1st time...

[bluemax]

...and would you believe my 128MB Radeon 8500LE performed *better*??

3DMark 2001SE:
Radeon 8500LE, Mobile Sempron 2800+ desktop CPU: 6000-6100
nForce 6150, A64-X2 3800+ AM2 (Dell E521): 5700-5800


I was hoping for more. Not a great deal more... but more.

Oh well... maybe I can fanangle a video card out of Dell.

 

[BobDaMenkey]

I'm not terribly supprised by this. Onboard video is not very good. It's been getting better, but it's not quite there yet. And an 8500 was a pretty decent card for it's era. So the onboard has well surpassed GeForce 2 like speeds, finally, haha.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: BobDaMenkey
I'm not terribly supprised by this. Onboard video is not very good. It's been getting better, but it's not quite there yet. And an 8500 was a pretty decent card for it's era. So the onboard has well surpassed GeForce 2 like speeds, finally, haha.

quick question. would the 6150 igp be faster than a geforce mx 440 ?

 

[moonboy403]

i think i've read somewhere that 6150 is a little slower than a geforce 6200
which really tells me nothing...lol

sorry for posting bunch of crap!

 

[StrangerGuy]

My Gigabyte 6100 IGP has blurry 2D IQ.

 

[BobDaMenkey]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven

Originally posted by: BobDaMenkey
I'm not terribly supprised by this. Onboard video is not very good. It's been getting better, but it's not quite there yet. And an 8500 was a pretty decent card for it's era. So the onboard has well surpassed GeForce 2 like speeds, finally, haha.

quick question. would the 6150 igp be faster than a geforce mx 440 ?

Maybe. Not rightly sure. You can use those 3dMark scores to compare though. I'll be getting a GeForce 4 MX 4000 tomorrow, I could run 3dMark 01 on it if you want when it gets here if it plays nice with my AXP 3000+.

 

[mikeford]

If you don't need a graphics card, onboard should be fine, otherwise you need a graphics card and not much money was wasted by including the on board.

 

[Fox5]

Use a more recent 3dmark, I think the 8500LE had higher fillrate and that's why it outperforms in 2001, it should fall behind on just about everything else.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Use a more recent 3dmark, I think the 8500LE had higher fillrate and that's why it outperforms in 2001, it should fall behind on just about everything else.

That sounds really plausible. C'mon, OP, let's see some 3DMark03 and 05 benchies! (forget 06 unless you want to watch a slideshow )

 

[bluemax]

Well... I did notice that Civilization 4 looked faster on the IGP, but that could just be the faster processor. I never ran '03 on my 8500 to compare.

DX9 is good.

 

[BlackTigers]

Well, I played BF2 on the 6150 for about a month, and I had no complaints, if that helps anything :0.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: bluemax
Well... I did notice that Civilization 4 looked faster on the IGP, but that could just be the faster processor. I never ran '03 on my 8500 to compare.

DX9 is good.

Well, that's what madonion's website is good for, however it shows the 8500 as still edging out the 6150igp in 03. Looks to be due almost soley to the clock speed advantage however, I'd imagine things might turn out differently in 05, of course the 8500 can't run that.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Well, that's what madonion's website is good for, however it shows the 8500 as still edging out the 6150igp in 03.

How much faster is "edging out?" Is the IGP still competitive?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: Fox5
Well, that's what madonion's website is good for, however it shows the 8500 as still edging out the 6150igp in 03.

How much faster is "edging out?" Is the IGP still competitive?

It performs about as much better (perhaps slightly worse) as its clock speed advantage (240~mhz for the low end 8500, 270~mhz for the high end versus 200mhz for the IGP). I guess because they're both 4 pipe chips, 3dmark03 must still be primarily fillrate bound. Hmm, try halo in dx8.1 mode on both and see which one pulls ahead, or maybe battlefield 2.

 

[bluemax]

The difference isn't big - maybe 10% either way on average.

Definately no way I'll be using AA on this. ...but it's a far cry better than the SiS IGP I was using up until last week!

Is it competitive? Sure. It's enough to ru games at low/moderate settings at an "acceptable" framerate. No, it won't impress hardcore gamers, but it'll play stuff like "Sims2" a lot better than GMA900 will.

It's okay. Not impressive, but at least doesn't leave me wanting to beat the machine with a wrench because it sucks so bad (ala SiS IGP!)

 

[Zap]

Thanks for the assessment. We all know the general consensus of "IGP sucks" but the Nvidia and ATI solutions sound kinda-sorta okay. Nice to hear from someone who's actually lived with it (if only for a few days) and used it for gaming.

 

[bluemax]

Well, Civ4 is a little less 3D intensive than some fancy FPS, but I'm content with it. There's a reason so many users were quite pleased with ATI's integrated X200 graphics, and so excited when the 6100/6150 came out and was a whopping 5-10% faster.

It's good. Acceptable. Some may have the misfortune of fuzzy video though, if a manufacturer cheaps out on you. The 6150 used in the Dell E521 seems to be pretty sharp - better than the SiS I was using. That was fuzz-EE!

I do wish ATI would get of their butts and release their new IGP which was supposed to be (but apparently not) X700 level.

 

[IntelUser2000]

It performs about as much better (perhaps slightly worse) as its clock speed advantage (240~mhz for the low end 8500, 270~mhz for the high end versus 200mhz for the IGP). I guess because they're both 4 pipe chips, 3dmark03 must still be primarily fillrate bound. Hmm, try halo in dx8.1 mode on both and see which one pulls ahead, or maybe battlefield 2.

Actually the 8500LE bluemax is using has 250MHz core clock and 4 pixel pipeline for 1Gpixel/s, and with 2 texture units per pipeline, 2GTexels/s.

The 6150 IGP has 475MHz core with 2 pixel pipeline and 1 texture units per pipeline for 950MPixels/s and 950MTexels/s.

No, it won't impress hardcore gamers, but it'll play stuff like "Sims2" a lot better than GMA900 will.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2269&p=19

Actually, GMA900 can achieve decent(relatively) Sims 2 performance compared to other integrated solutions, and there is also GMA950.

quick question. would the 6150 igp be faster than a geforce mx 440 ?

Absolutely, as shown here, http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1583&p=8 8500LE is anywhere from 20-50% faster than Geforce 4 MX 440, Radeon 8500LE isn't good in today's terms, but not AS bad as GF4MX440. Geforce 4 MX 440 doesn't even support full DX8 as its based on Geforce 2.

 

[IntelUser2000]

3DMark 2001SE:
Radeon 8500LE, Mobile Sempron 2800+ desktop CPU: 6000-6100
nForce 6150, A64-X2 3800+ AM2 (Dell E521): 5700-5800

I thought it would be much better. Especially with vastly better CPU. With such video cards, it might be that they are limited by the video cards and 3dmark2001 scores won't be different with a faster CPU, but I doubt it with such a huge difference in CPU performance.

Intel's GMA integrated actually have advantage here that it scales nearly linearly with CPU, with Core 2 Duo E6300 it can score 9000 in 3dmark 2001 SE, while other integrated from Nvidia and ATI's won't scale linearly because it has hardware geometry.