Intel 915 Graphics: Graphics Media Accelerator 900
by Derek Wilson on August 2, 2004 10:03 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Quake III Arena Performance
These games look about the same, but we should definitely hope that years-old OpenGL code wouldn't show a quality difference between two recently released graphics solutions (even if the market segment is notoriously lagging in features and performance).
Graphics Media Accelerator 900
Radeon 9100 IGP
Performance here shows the GMA900 beating the ATI solution, but Quake III is a very CPU intensive benchmark, and using a 2.8GHz processor with the ATI part is crippling. If we peak down at the CPU scaling numbers, we can see that the Intel performs much worse than the ATI part when running alongside a 2.8C.
Performance increases here again reflect the fact that both CPU and GPU dependant benchmarks benefit from a faster processor when the game isn't limited by pixel engine functionality.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
18 Comments
View All Comments
skiboysteve - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
"Gee thats funny i thought Longhorn required DX10 and PS3 minimum."longhorn requires DX9
kmmatney - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
I can probably dig up the numbers somewhere, but I wonder how this compares to the NForce2 IGP paired with an Athlon XP. Is there an IGP for the Athlon64?mczak - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
"...the ATI 9100 IGP numbers are based on a system running at a 600MHz lower processor frequency. Interestingly, this almost makes up for Intel's lack of hardware geometry processing."Well, the ATI 9100 IGP also completely lacks hardware geometry processing!
mkruer - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
Gee thats funny i thought Longhorn required DX10 and PS3 minimum. If tru the artical is a mute point . Intel is try to add value to the chipsete, when infact what is required is simplification of the chipset. Looks lke Blue Crystals to mesprockkets - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
With such low memory bandwidth available maybe running a DX9 integrated video system is a complete waste of time. So what if it supports PS2.0, playing a game at around 10FPS is a waste of time.mikecel79 - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
"So is this that Intel quality and 'reliability' that someone was talking about in the comments for the Sempron article? "Quality and reliability are different than performance. There's nothing here to show that the Intel Integrated graphics are not good quality or not reliable. Performance has nothing to do with quality or reliability.
tfranzese - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
So is this that Intel quality and 'reliability' that someone was talking about in the comments for the Sempron article?cosmotic - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
I really like the Intel bashing comments at the end of the review. Intel DOES have the responibility of puting better graphics cards in these computers. If they didn't provide integrated graphics, OEMs would be required to use add-in cards, and since the cheapest add-in card performs better than Intels chip, there is NO reason at all for Intel to be providing such utter crap in their chipsets. It may even be more ecinomical to license nVidia's technology to use inside Intel chips. That would make everyone happy (except ATI).