Integrated Graphics: Xpress 200 vs. GMA 950
by Derek Wilson on May 26, 2005 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
These numbers serve to show that spending 50 to 75 USD on an add-in card can actually make the difference between a good gaming experience and a mediocre one. We chose not to highlight the fact that disabling advanced features, shaders, and effects do serve to boost performance to playable levels on today’s integrated platforms because the gap between lowest and highest quality on modern games continues to widen. The major advantage of current generation budget cards is not that they can deliver incredible performance, but that they can deliver something playable without sacrificing image quality to do so.For those who truly do not need or care about 3D, integrated graphics are fine. People who are nostalgic about Quake III and earlier 3D games will also be satisfied. If just running something with 3D is important, these solutions will get the job done. But integrated performance has still not reached a level where we can recommend it to anyone who wants to play the current generation titles.
We see the difficulty from a business standpoint of integrating products that compete with discrete budget parts, but we still feel that offering the option of slightly higher quality 3D onboard would be a welcome move. Intel has no motivation to do anything, but the minimum required by Microsoft for Longhorn as their loyalty lies with business customers. However, it seems that ATI and NVIDIA have an opportunity to compete with Intel by simply offering better 3D support along side their outstanding 2D functionality.
Out of the integrated cards that we tested, the ATI part came out on top in the performance tests. We can also expect ATI to put more effort into supporting (at least on some level) the latest games than Intel. On the other hand, Intel ships more graphics components than any other manufacturer in the world. We can expect their home and business graphics support to be of the same quality of which they provide for all their other components.
It is still a great thing that Intel and ATI have moved beyond the Extreme Graphics era where 3D applications would run very poorly (if at all). Compatibility is the first step, and performance of this generation of integrated components is indeed a step up from what we’ve seen in the past. Let us hope that the progression continues.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
View All Comments
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.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.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."
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.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.
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
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.
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 atiCosmic_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.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.