ATI Radeon Xpress 200: Performance, PCI Express & DX9 for Athlon 64
by Wesley Fink on November 8, 2004 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Radeon Xpress' Integrated DirectX 9 GPU
Although we generally focus on the performance of desktop chipsets with the fastest discrete graphics solutions, in order to truly be successful in the chipset business, you have to gain significant OEM market share. And what do the majority of computers sold use? Chipsets with integrated graphics.The integrated graphics core on a North Bridge comprises almost 90% of the die, but despite this figure, in terms of GPU performance, integrated graphics solutions generally perform far worse than even the cheapest discrete graphics solutions. Part of the reason behind this phenomenon is that the major chipset manufacturers (Intel, SiS, VIA) are not graphics companies, and they operate on fairly long 2-year product cycles for major changes in their graphics designs.
When NVIDIA first made an effort to get into the chipset business, they brought their graphics expertise to the market - quickly raising the performance bar with integrated graphics solutions. But with the nForce4, NVIDIA lacks an integrated graphics solution for the Athlon 64 platform, paving the way for ATI's Radeon Xpress 200 to make a splash.
In the past, you could integrate the slowest desktop GPU into a chipset unmodified, but with the extreme complexity and FP requirements of DirectX 9 GPUs, this is no longer possible. The Radeon Xpress 200 features a modified version of the X300 core, modified to have only two operational pixel pipelines. As a desktop part, only having two pipes would be terrible for performance, but keeping in mind that the market for integrated graphics solution is much less performance-conscious, then it's much more acceptable.
With only two pixel pipes, the Radeon Xpress integrated graphics core can render up to two pixels per clock, with the ability of applying one texture operation per pixel per clock. Compared to Intel's Graphics Media Accelerator 900 (the integrated graphics core of the 915G chipset), ATI is actually at a disadvantage here, with the GMA 900 capable of rendering 4 pixels per clock. Where the Radeon Xpress integrated graphics pulls ahead in the specs is in its two hardware vertex engines. Intel's GMA 900 features no hardware vertex acceleration and instead, depends on the host CPU to handle all vertex operations.
The Radeon Xpress 200 is built on a 0.13-micron process, a larger process than what the 110nm process the X300 is built on, and thus, the integrated GPU runs at a slower core clock speed of 300MHz.
Since the Radeon Xpress' integrated graphics core is based on the X300's core, game compatibility - a weakness for Intel's GMA 900 - should not be an issue with the integrated graphics. If you look back at our recent review of NVIDIA's GeForce 6200, out of the 8 games that we tested, only 5 would run on Intel's integrated graphics solution. Given that integrated graphics is usually all that first-time gamers have access to, game compatibility is quite important.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Maetryx - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
Soooo.... given the products that are on the horizon, and the holiday season, would a person be best off waiting until Q1 2005 to do a fairly comprehensive upgrade to their system... or is the stiff holiday competition and Black Friday going to be the right time to do a massive upgrade?I know it's slightly off topic, but everytime I start to visualize the right combination of parts and pieces, something new gets announced with a future ship date.... Oh well, at least my expensive hobby is still exciting.
DAPUNISHER - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
#21I have the ATi320M in my Compaq 900z and it is good for what it is. The only thing ATi has had trouble with till now is the memory controller's performance and A64 takes that out of the mix so that ATi can really show what they can do :-) For instance,They paired a POS ALi with my 320M that makes the bandwidth, even for 2100DDR terrible. Don't know why they couldmn't use ATi's version? Must have been cheaper=par for the course.
DAPUNISHER - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
"As you can see, the Halo score for nVidia on nVidia is about the same as our past tests of ATI on ATI. nVidia on ATI is about 3% slower than the nVidia on nF4. Far Cry continues the pattern of best performance on an ATI chipset and/or an ATI graphics card. Doom 3 and Aquamark 3 are also very slightly slower on nVidia/ATI than nVidia/nVidia, but the % change of 2% to 3% is hardly significant.The ATI Bullhead is equivalent to slightly slower with an nVidia PCIe card than an nVidia nForce4 chipset running the same nVidia card. nVidia has claimed that nVidia on nVidia is a faster combination than ATI on nVidia, but we can only conclude that these performance differences are so small as to be negligible. ATI/ATI and nVidia/nVidia are the fastest combinations in our comparisons, but the differences are so tiny that they really don't matter. You can run any of these in combination with each other without any concern that you have to match Athlon 64 chipset to Graphics chipset."
WOW! You can say that yet still push ram with tight timings despite similar small performance differences over slightly more conservatively timed but much cheaper ram?
landrew - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
What about sound and IDE performance? It seems you totaly ignored this! What about nVidia firewall and RAID? Does ATI do anything like that?I want ot know because I'll be buying an A64 soon and want the best motherboard.
mczak - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
"The RX480/RS480 is the first ATI chipset for AMD" - this is not true. IGP 320/320M was a chipset for Athlon XP, especially the mobile version was somewhat succesful.jamawass - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
Motherboards based on this chipset would be ideal for a cheap htpc. It would have been helpful if the reviewer had looked at video decoding performance for dvd and especially hdtv. Both the fusion gold hdtv and HDTV wonder require dx9 graphics.This forces a lot of people in the htpc community to purchase dx9 cards even though they don't game, just to improve hdtv performance.Wesley Fink - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
#14 and #17 - If you check older reviews you will see that ATI and nVidia perform very differently in Specviewperf 7.1 benches. The performance we see here is nothing unusual.We were trying to establish baselines for both PCIe cards for the future and to compare to the past. Comparing ATI and nVidia performance with Specviewperf doesn't really tell you much. Comparing ATI to ATI in specviewperf or nVidia to nVidia can be useful.
We will also be updating to Version 8 of Specviewperf for motherboard tests in the near future.
Wesley Fink - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
#2 - Corrected.#6 - We could have used the $1,020 3.46EE to compare to the $856 FX55, but the 3.6 P4 560 performs better in many benches. The 560 costs about $500 these days. As #14 said our goal was to compare top to top. We included the 560 for Reference. We did price/performance comparisons in our last CPU launch article.
#10 - I agree with you. The mfgs don't think ATI when they think AMD chipset. IF they look at RX480 they will change their minds, but that is a big IF.
#11 - We will do this in an upcoming nF4 retail review.
#12 - Cool'n'Quiet appears to be working properly with 2 or 4 dimms, but we did not focus on that feature. We will ask ATI about question 2.
#15 - ATI claims Gigabit PCI Express LAN is just as fast and just as cheap as on-chip Gigabit LAN. PCIe Gigabit LAN is fine, but PCI LAN can also be used with this chipset - an option the low-cost providers will probably exploit. Then again, some Tier 1 mfgs have been using PCI LAN with nForce3 Ultra to save costs.
#16 - ATI tells us the RX480 will be cheaper than the top Nforce4 Ultra chipset and more expensive than the VIA K8T890 chipset. ATI wants to underscut nVidia prices but still be a premium compared to the cheaper VIA boards.
ALL - some boards are already shipping. I have seen pics from Germany of a retail board exactly like the Bullhead except it is red. When we have more availability data we will post an update.
Ecmaster76 - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
Anyone know what is up witht the benchmarks on page 15? They look a little strange.knitecrow - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
what will make or break this product is the price.If mobo's based on the said chipsets are cheaper than nforce3/4 ... it can be a good budget overclocker.
No frills, just performance.