Performance Test Configuration: Integrated Graphics
Performance Test Configuration | |
Processor(s): | Intel 2.8E Prescott (Retail) Intel 2.8C Northwood (Retail) |
RAM: | 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3500 Platinum Ltd OR 2 x 512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II |
Hard Drive(s): | Seagate 120GB 7200RPM (8Mb buffer) |
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: | ATI Platform Driver 8.01 Beta Intel Chipset Drivers |
Video Card(s): | Integrated 9100 IGP PRO (64MB Frame Buffer) Integrated 865G (64MB Frame Buffer) |
Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 2.2 Platform Intel Graphics Driver 14.1 (2/10/04) |
Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
Motherboards: | ATI 9100 IGP PRO Reference Board Intel D865GBF (865G) |
Benchmarks used either Mushkin PC3500 Level II or OCZ PC3500 Platinum Ltd memory modules. Both DIMMs use Winbond BH5 chips and perform virtually the same in our tests.
All performance tests were run with the onboard integrated graphics using a 64MB frame buffer for the fairest comparison. Intel 865G graphics have a maximum 64MB frame buffer while the ATI integrated 9100 graphics allow a frame buffer to 128MB. The AGP aperture was set to 256MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32 unless otherwise noted.
24 Comments
View All Comments
araczynski - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
Who that comes to this site give a flying f*ck about integrated graphics?? Whether you're comparing a Yugo GV or a Yugo GVX, ITS STILL A FRICKING YUGO!!!where are the x800 bencharks?? that's what we care about.
Regs - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
To bad the 2.8 Prescott's are worthless considering how they hardly out shine their Northwood counter parts. But it's interesting to see how a Prescott tweaked mobo performed.Marsumane - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
Integrated graphics that still suck!Although they are just like the comparison between the 9800xt and the 6800u. 2x as fast)
MAME - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
nVidia -> King of AthlonXPsATI -> King of Prescotts