Integrated Graphics: Xpress 200 vs. GMA 950

by Derek Wilson on 5/26/2005 12:00 AM EST
POST A COMMENT

30 Comments

Back to Article

  • fishman - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link

    You can get these with either shared memory or dedicated memory - which configuration was used in the tests? Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, June 02, 2005 - link

    Sis and Via's integrated graphics solution is even more below Intel. They are more than one generation behind Intel's graphics. Even though Sis 660 or something had 2 pixel pipelines and hardware T&L, Intel's Extreme Graphics 2 beat it hands down, and IEG2 only has single pixel pipeline. Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, June 02, 2005 - link

    Apparently dual core doesn't help much if you look at other Intel GMA950 benchmarks. The only one helped is HL2 score, which went up by 30%, and 3dmark2005, which is multi-threaded so it doesn't count. Reply
  • ET - Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - link

    I'd find it interesting to see results with Intel's low end dual core CPU. Since the CPU is used for vertex processing, dual core might have a good effect on this. Reply
  • crucibelle - Saturday, May 28, 2005 - link

    #11,

    I agree with you completely!

    I particularly wish that the reviewer would have ran a benchmark for Sims 2. Perhaps they can do this in the near future? I certainly hope so.

    Reply
  • tbrooks40 - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    nice write up...

    i don't necessarily agree with akozak - memory is cheap enough now-a-days that seeing a basic system with 1gb of memory won't be all that surprising. i doubt that it's the norm but it's conceivable with memory prices continuing to drop.

    i have a question, one i'm sure akozak would roll his eyes to, would a dual core chip increase the performance of integrated graphics?

    i know an entry level system wouldn't likely have a dual core chip - i'm more curious than anything after reading the dual core performance article.
    Reply
  • ET - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    #19, I don't think it's useless. They're benchmarking the graphics, so seeing how fast it can perform given optimal conditions is helpful. With a slower CPU and less RAM you get other bottlenecks, so the graphics scores will have less of a difference, but this won't really give you a better feeling for the integrated graphics.

    BTW, I'd consider 1GB pretty much necessary for a system running integrated graphics, if they take RAM away from the system. 512MB may be too little in such a case.

    That said, an article about game performance on entry level machines (Semprons with integrated graphics or whatever) might be of some interest.
    Reply
  • flloyd - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Thanks #18 but I know about refresh rates. Unfortunately the 915G that I have is much more "stable" and clear at 75Hz than 85Hz so I have to deal with that for now. Reply
  • abakshi - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Well yes, comparisons to older standalone cards like an R8500/GF4 would interesting, but you'd have to test these integrated chipsets on the same platform to get any meaningful results, which isn't possible here (at least yet) -- PCIe instead of AGP... Reply
  • iwodo - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Can anybody check if they have updated the benchmark? I am sure it wasn't this bad last time i check. As my news reader inform me something in this article has changed. Reply
  • Houdani - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Whoah. Deja vu. Reply
  • akozak - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Once again you are benchmarking entry level systems with 1GB of RAM


    This review is useless for someone looking to purchase an entry level system. Guess I'll check out the other sites.

    Reply
  • gibhunter - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    #13 you get headaches from the 75HZ refresh rate. Change it to 85Hz and the headaches will go away. 85Hz is the bare minimum in my opinion, unless you're on an LCD which runs on a different technology and thus can be run at 60Hz with no headaches. Reply
  • ET - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    > Also throw in games that people with such dated hardware are more likely to play

    I disagree that people who have older hardware stick only to older games. I tend to use older hardware until performance is unacceptable. My brother in law is playing Half Life 2 on a GeForce3. In fact, Valve specifically put a GeForce2 rendering path into the game. My brother in law would not touch Warcraft 3 or Sims2 with a ten foot pole. Seems to me that HL2 runs well enough on the Xpress 200 -- better than the GeForce3 (and certainly with higher quality).
    Reply
  • Calin - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    flloyd, I can testify that going from an old PCI Matrox video card (4MB) to an GeForce2 MX400 (built by Palit-Daytona), the difference in quality is like day and night. Not to mention the G200 I used some time ago :(
    This is not a problem only for integrated graphics
    Reply
  • ksherman - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    still amazes me that Intel wases the fab on their video cores... seems like a waste of silicon. they should have just gone to the experts to get their integrated video Reply
  • cryptonomicon - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    damn. on board chips just beat my ti4200. guess i'll have to upgrade now im so ashamed. Reply
  • flloyd - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    I think these integrated graphics chips makers should stop trying to be weak 3D chips and instead work on having top-notch 2D graphics, a la Matrox. Most computer users who use integrated graphics are most interested in a clear, bright, high resolution image rather than playing 3D games at 15 fps. I personally got a GMA 900 as I only use my computer for text, photo editing, video editing and movie watching but am going to have to get a separate graphics card because the image quality is so bad. Even at 1024x768 and 75Hz the image is fuzzy and gives me a headache. I regret the day I upgraded my mobo and can no longer use my Matrox G450, the difference in qulaity is like night and day. Reply
  • yacoub - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Totally agree - compare these integrated solutions to past generation GPUs like Ti4200 and Radeon 8500, etc. Also throw in games that people with such dated hardware are more likely to play. Sims2, CounterStrike (not Source), WarCraft3, online MMORPGs, etc. Reply
  • iwodo - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    May be Anantech can do a more details Review on Intergrated GFx? Becoz so far i find none on the web and are currently very disapointed with the current reviews.

    Why would anyone want to play Doom3/HalfLife2/FarCry with IGFX? I suppose include one or 2 of these bechmark is ok. But Most people who buy IGFX are cacsal gamers. They play may be games like Sims2. How about online games like WOW?

    And Since most of use have been following computer for at least 3 - 5 years. It would be good to known what GMA950 is equal to. Radeon 9000? Geforce2MX? Of coz they are not Dx9 HW but it will still be interesting to know.

    And did they intentionaly saved the GMA915 vs GMA950 fight?

    And i think Intergated GFX serve another purpose like now. You don't want to buy a GFX becox you may want to wait for ATI next update of GFX, which the lowest gfx will be at least 8 pipline.....
    Reply
  • Chadder007 - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    I'd like to see some older cards thrown in to compare....like an ATI 8500 or 9600 and Nvidia 4200ti or something. Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Plus, including of Doom 3 for benchmarking means that compatibility must have improved, I remember Anandtech didn't for the GMA900 benchmarks. Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    >Another thing is that I remember the GMA 900 >having quite a few graphical glitches when >originally reviewed. I'd have liked a comment >about current compatibility and some comparison >of image quality.

    They do.

    Here: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427...

    "Unlike the last time that we tested Far Cry with Intel graphics, we were greeted with the visual quality that we expected to see. This is due to the driver revisions that Intel has made over the course of time."
    Reply
  • BPB - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    My daughter's system uses an MSI RS480M2-IL setup. This socket 939 (Athlon 64 3000+) setup runs great. She doesn't run anything like HL2, so she's very happy. Down the road we'll slap an All in Wonder in there once ATI comes out with a PCI-e version that's worth getting. From what I read their current PCI-e All in Wonder is not worth the cost. Reply
  • ET - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    #2, I agree. I was wondering a couple of weeks ago if the X200 will be a good upgrade for a GeForce3.

    Still, I appreciate Anandtech taking the time to compare integrated chipsets.

    Another thing is that I remember the GMA 900 having quite a few graphical glitches when originally reviewed. I'd have liked a comment about current compatibility and some comparison of image quality.
    Reply
  • Calin - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    I think that choosing an integrated graphics solution makes sense only when the presence of a discrete video card is not an good option. In every other case, one can buy a mainboard that is having everything one desire (or a much more easy to find one). I thought about buying a micro ATX mainboard with integrated graphics for a very small computer. I would still choose one over a discrete solution, but for every other use I would choose something else.
    Or I would use integrated graphics as a stop gap measure until money for a real graphic card become available
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Do you have any comparable benchmark numbers available for other integrated graphics past and present? Such as Nforce2, K8M800, SIS 760GX, Intel 915G, 865G?

    Myself, I'm specifically interested in a replacement for the NForce2, as I've got a customer who uses low-cost NForce2 IGP boxes for light OpenGL stuff on their shop floor (MasterCAM and AutoCAD); I want to move them up to A64 and S754 Semprons, but I don't trust the performance or drivers of any of the other integrated graphics available.
    Reply
  • ShadowVlican - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    the ati xpress200 will be a good platform for my uncle, who does mostly office based work and plays the occasional CS.. good stuff ati Reply
  • Cosmic_Horror - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    shame you guys didn't run any benchmarks with an older stand alone cards (eg ti4200, or something with similar feature set) so we could get a comparison of how well they are performing. Reply
  • UzairH - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    More powerful integrated graphics hardware is good as long as the cost is not increased beyond a couple of dollars. The whole poing of integrated graphics is OK performance at the lowest possible cost. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now