Intel 915 Graphics: Graphics Media Accelerator 900
by Derek Wilson on August 2, 2004 10:03 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Unreal Tournament 2004 Performance
Here, we can see one of the major problems with the Intel platform: the background would flicker in and out. Even though both ATI and Intel were lacking in visual appeal, the 9100 IGP at least rendered consistent and playable graphics.
Graphics Media Accelerator 900
Radeon 9100 IGP
In light of the display problems that we noted, it doesn't seem fair to have the GMA900 listed above the 9100 IGP in our performance graph; combine that with the fact that the ATI part is running on a much slower platform, and this is a major victory for ATI integrated graphics over Intel.
Again, we get large increases in performance per increase in clock speed due to the way the GMA architecture handles geometry processing.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
18 Comments
View All Comments
skiboysteve - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
"Gee thats funny i thought Longhorn required DX10 and PS3 minimum."longhorn requires DX9
kmmatney - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
I can probably dig up the numbers somewhere, but I wonder how this compares to the NForce2 IGP paired with an Athlon XP. Is there an IGP for the Athlon64?mczak - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
"...the ATI 9100 IGP numbers are based on a system running at a 600MHz lower processor frequency. Interestingly, this almost makes up for Intel's lack of hardware geometry processing."Well, the ATI 9100 IGP also completely lacks hardware geometry processing!
mkruer - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
Gee thats funny i thought Longhorn required DX10 and PS3 minimum. If tru the artical is a mute point . Intel is try to add value to the chipsete, when infact what is required is simplification of the chipset. Looks lke Blue Crystals to mesprockkets - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
With such low memory bandwidth available maybe running a DX9 integrated video system is a complete waste of time. So what if it supports PS2.0, playing a game at around 10FPS is a waste of time.mikecel79 - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
"So is this that Intel quality and 'reliability' that someone was talking about in the comments for the Sempron article? "Quality and reliability are different than performance. There's nothing here to show that the Intel Integrated graphics are not good quality or not reliable. Performance has nothing to do with quality or reliability.
tfranzese - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
So is this that Intel quality and 'reliability' that someone was talking about in the comments for the Sempron article?cosmotic - Monday, August 2, 2004 - link
I really like the Intel bashing comments at the end of the review. Intel DOES have the responibility of puting better graphics cards in these computers. If they didn't provide integrated graphics, OEMs would be required to use add-in cards, and since the cheapest add-in card performs better than Intels chip, there is NO reason at all for Intel to be providing such utter crap in their chipsets. It may even be more ecinomical to license nVidia's technology to use inside Intel chips. That would make everyone happy (except ATI).