PERFORMANCE UPDATE: NVIDIA GeForce 6100 vs. ATI RS482
by Wesley Fink on October 6, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The web ether had barely dried on our first test results of the GeForce 6100 when ATI contacted AnandTech to question our test results. We had run the ATI RS480/482 benchmarks on an ATI Grouper Reference Board with integrated ATI graphics. ATI's own internal test results were quite different with Radeon Xpress 200 boards from those that we had published. They showed the RS480/482 outperforming the new GeForce 6100 chipset in most of the same benchmarks. Since we are always interested in bringing you the facts regarding component performance, we agreed to work with ATI to try to find what was wrong.
After quite a bit of sleuthing, ATI discovered that the BIOS of the Grouper Reference Board, which was designed for Enthusiast and Overclocking qualification, did not completely implement or optimize the features of the on-board RS482 Graphics. There were also issues with integrated 480/482 graphics switches in BIOS. After further testing in their lab to verify performance comparable to shipping ATI RS480/482 boards, ATI sent an updated BIOS and asked if we could retest performance with a new Radeon Xpress 200 BIOS that fully implemented integrated graphics.
We reran all benchmarks on the ATI Grouper Integrated Graphics and updated the comparisons to the NVIDIA GeForce 6100/nForce 410 on the Biostar TForce 6100 motherboard.
After quite a bit of sleuthing, ATI discovered that the BIOS of the Grouper Reference Board, which was designed for Enthusiast and Overclocking qualification, did not completely implement or optimize the features of the on-board RS482 Graphics. There were also issues with integrated 480/482 graphics switches in BIOS. After further testing in their lab to verify performance comparable to shipping ATI RS480/482 boards, ATI sent an updated BIOS and asked if we could retest performance with a new Radeon Xpress 200 BIOS that fully implemented integrated graphics.
We reran all benchmarks on the ATI Grouper Integrated Graphics and updated the comparisons to the NVIDIA GeForce 6100/nForce 410 on the Biostar TForce 6100 motherboard.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
yacoub - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Werd. Well for future reference it would show more integrity to explain that in the article instead of trying to pass a falsified 480 picture off as a 482. While the 482 may very much look just like your photoshopped picture, you aren't being true to your readers and that wouldn't pass muster at a real news outlet. You might even be fired for it if they have high enough standards. Just something to keep in mind if you are seeking a career in journalism. Your article is very good otherwise.yacoub - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Hahah, they actually fixed it now with a better pic. Thanks for correcting that, it was pretty shoddy. :)deathwalker - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
I'm sorry, but perhaps I'm just out of touch with the real world..or then perhaps "AT" is!! Somehow I just don't see benching a Integrated Graphics solution with a AMD64 4000+ processor as providing a set of bench marks that most users of Integrated Graphics solutions will be able to relate to. I don't think I'm far off the mark in my assessment that very few if any users of such a graphics solution will be using what amounts to the about the highest performing CPU solution on the market. We see this time and again with "AT"...not matching up appropriate hardware solutions vs. real world enviroment useage. I think it renders these test results nearly useless for someone that is "really" interested in this type of graphics solution. Harsh opinion I know...but...at least it's mine.Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
The 4000+ is hardly top end any more, it is mid-range. Current selling price is $368 at New Egg. The 3000+ is $146, the 3200+ is $190 and the 3500+ $219. The 4200+, 4400+, 4600+. 4800+ and FX57 occupy the $473 to $1000+ price space.That's not really the point though. The 4000+ has been our standard for AMD benchmarking for a while. The capabilities of the test 4000+ chips are well known, so test results are easier to compare to previous test results and put in perspective.
deathwalker - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Wesley...thanks for taking time to respond to my post. I may not be in 100% agreement but your position on this test setup is better understood after a little reflection.glennpratt - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I think thier is a ton of interest in these boards from the HTPC crowd, not just budget...Also, you should note that in ANY modern game this thing will be totally GPU bound.
R3MF - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
i'd love MSI to release an s280 with an 25W 2GHz Turion and a 6150/430 chipset.Brian23 - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
I'm glad ATI has a good hold on the integrated video market. As much as I like Nvidia cards, I'd hate it if Nvidia became a monopoly.I myself am supporting ATI. I just bought a X800GTO2 because the price was too good to pass up. I'm sure that this video card will be short lived though. ATI wants to make money, not sell excelent cards for cheap. Honestly, if there was a similar deal with a 7800 card, I would have bought Nvidia, but hey, I got a fast card for cheap.
bob661 - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Bang for the buck bro...that's what it's all about.johnsonx - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Could AT perhaps get their hands on and test a GeForce 6100 and Xpress 200 for Socket 754, perhaps using both a low-end Sempron and a mid-range A64 (say a 2600 and a 3200)? It would be interesting to see what effect single-channel DDR will have on the graphics performance, and if it will hurt one chipset more than the other. Such a comparo might also require re-testing the S939 boards with a 3200 as well, just to get an apples-to-apples comparo.Myself, I found it quite odd that almost all available Xpress 200 boards were and are Socket-939 (for the first 9 months or so, there were NO socket 754 Xpress 200 boards actually available to buy, at least not in the USA, and even now there's 1 or maybe 2). Integrated graphics are low-end solutions by definition, while socket-939 chips are mid-range at a minimum (hell, to me socket 939 is the exotic high-end, but that's me...).
I was pleased that Biostar shipped socket-754 and 939 T6100 boards almost simultaneously, and I have two on the shelf already waiting to be installed with Sempron64 2600+ cpus.
I do realize that at some point next year, performance A64's will go to socket M2, and then Sempron64s will eventually transition to 939, but that's got to be at least a year away... socket 939 integrated gfx solutions don't make much sense until then.