X2: The Threat Performance

Under X2, Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900 seemed to handle textures incorrectly. The asteroids, ships, and most objects rendered under Intel looked poor in comparison to the ATI solutions.



Graphics Media Accelerator 900



Radeon 9100 IGP


In addition to leading in visual quality, the ATI 9100 IGP blows the GMA900 away in performance.

X2: The Threat

Again, more of the same with CPU scaling.

CPU Scaling: X2

Quake III Arena Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

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 me
  • sprockkets - 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).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now