Unreal Tournament 2004 Performance

As Unreal Tournament 2004 sports graphics based on older DirectX 7/8 code, the game serves as a good indicator that integrated graphics can handle older games at playable frame rates. Turning down some of the settings also grants a little headroom. The ATI solution again proves itself better than the Intel part in terms of performance.

Unreal Tournament 2004 Performance


Half Life 2 Performance Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory Performance
POST A COMMENT

30 Comments

View All Comments

  • 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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now