µATX Part 1: ATI Radeon Xpress 1250 Performance Review
by Gary Key on August 28, 2007 7:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Audio Encoding Performance
We will utilize iTunes 7.3 for our audio encoding tests as it is one of the most utilized audio applications available due to the immense popularity of the iPod.
Our first task was to figure out what test CD to utilize. We needed one that contained a significant number of tracks and had over 600MB of data in order to properly stress our platforms. As in previous articles, we are using an INXS Greatest Hits CD for testing, which contains 16 tracks totaling 606MB of songs. Our first test consists of utilizing iTunes to rip our INXS CD in WAV format onto our hard drive. Even though CPU speed and optical drive selection have a great impact on these test results we are using the same optical drive between platforms for each test.
Our test platforms score within 1% of each other. This test was very consistent with each result never varying more than one second from the base score as the test heavily relies on the performance of the optical drive which results in margins that are minimal.
Our next two tests have us utilizing iTunes to convert our WAV files into ACC or MP3 compatible formats. We utilize the 320kbps and variable bit rate option for both tests.
We usually see iTunes favoring a system with excellent CPU throughput and these tests indicate the Radeon X1250 is up to speed in this area. The difference between the Intel equipped MSI G33M and the two X1250 boards is around 1% in both tests. While Intel based chipsets usually have an advantage over their competitors in CPU throughput, it is refreshing to see some competition in this area, even if this is the last Intel based chipset from AMD/ATI.
We will utilize iTunes 7.3 for our audio encoding tests as it is one of the most utilized audio applications available due to the immense popularity of the iPod.
Our first task was to figure out what test CD to utilize. We needed one that contained a significant number of tracks and had over 600MB of data in order to properly stress our platforms. As in previous articles, we are using an INXS Greatest Hits CD for testing, which contains 16 tracks totaling 606MB of songs. Our first test consists of utilizing iTunes to rip our INXS CD in WAV format onto our hard drive. Even though CPU speed and optical drive selection have a great impact on these test results we are using the same optical drive between platforms for each test.
Our test platforms score within 1% of each other. This test was very consistent with each result never varying more than one second from the base score as the test heavily relies on the performance of the optical drive which results in margins that are minimal.
Our next two tests have us utilizing iTunes to convert our WAV files into ACC or MP3 compatible formats. We utilize the 320kbps and variable bit rate option for both tests.
We usually see iTunes favoring a system with excellent CPU throughput and these tests indicate the Radeon X1250 is up to speed in this area. The difference between the Intel equipped MSI G33M and the two X1250 boards is around 1% in both tests. While Intel based chipsets usually have an advantage over their competitors in CPU throughput, it is refreshing to see some competition in this area, even if this is the last Intel based chipset from AMD/ATI.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
View All Comments
Sargo - Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - link
Nice review but there's no X3100 on Intel G33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_3100">GMA 3100 is based on much older arhitechture. Thus even the new drivers won't help that much.ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - link
Exactly. The G33 was never intended to replace the G965 chipset, it replaces the 945G chipset and the GMA 950. The G33's IGP is not the GMA X3100 but the GMA 3100 (no "X") and the IGP is virtually identical to the GMA 950 but with higher clock speeds and better video support. The GMA 950, GMA 3000, and GMA 3100 all only have SM2.0 pixel shaders with no vertex shaders and no hardware T&L engine. The G965 and the GMA X3000 remains the top Intel IGP until the launch of the G35 and GMA X3500. I can't believe Anandtech made such an obvious mistake, but I have to admit Intel isn't helping matters with there ever expanding portfolio of IGPs.Here's Intel's nice PR chart explaining the different IGPs:
http://download.intel.com/products/graphics/intel_...">http://download.intel.com/products/graphics/intel_...
Could you please run a review with the G965 chipset and the GMA X3100 using XP and the latest 14.31 drivers? They are now out of beta and Intel claims full DX9.0c SM3.0 hardware acceleration. I would love to see the GMA X3000 compared with the common GMA 950 (also supported in the 14.31 drivers although it has no VS to activate), the Xpress X1250, the GeForce 6150 or 7050, and some low-end GPUs like the X1300 or HD 2400. A comparison between the 14.31 and previous 14.29 drivers that had no hardware support would also show how much things have increased.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - link
I did look at gaming performance under Vista with a 965GM chipset in the http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=306...">PC Club ENP660 review. However, that was also tested under Vista. I would assume that with drivers working in all respects, GMA X3100 performance would probably come close to that of the Radeon Xpress 1250, but when will the drivers truly reach that point? In the end, IGP is still only sufficient for playing with all the details turned down at 1280x800 or lower resolutions, at least in recent titles. Often it can't even do that, and 800x600 might be required. Want to play games at all? Just spend the $120 on something like an 8600 GT.IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - link
It has the drivers at XP.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - link
Unless the XP drivers are somehow 100% faster (or more) than the last Vista drivers I tried, it still doesn't matter. Minimum details in Battlefield 2 at 800x600 got around 20 FPS. It was sort of playable, but nothing to write home about. Half-Life 2 engine stuff is still totally messed up on the chipset; it runs DX9 mode, but it gets <10 FPS regardless of resolution.IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - link
I get 35-45 fps on the demo Single Player for the first 5 mins at 800x600 min. Didn't check more as its limited.E6600
DG965WH
14.31 production driver
2x1GB DDR2-800
WD360GD Raptor 36GB
WinXP SP2
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - link
Jarred, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE BENCHMARK/SETTINGS/PATCHES used for BF2 so I can provide equal testing as you have done on the Pt.1 article.Like:
-What version of BF2 used
-What demos are supposed to be used
-How do I load up the demos
-etc
R101 - Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - link
Just for the fun of it, for us to see what can X3100 do with these new betas. I've been looking for that test since those drivers came out, and still nothing.erwos - Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - link
I'm looking forward to seeing the benchmarks on the G35 motherboards (which I'm sure won't be in this series). The X3500 really does seem to have a promising feature set, at least on paper.Lonyo - Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - link
Bioshock requires SM3.0.