iXBT Labs - Computer Hardware in Detail

Platform

Video

Multimedia

Mobile

Other

ATI Radeon Xpress 200 for Intel processors: New Integrated Video from ATI

July 27, 2005




Almost six months after the release of the very interesting (and even unique in some respect) Xpress 200 chipset for AMD64 processors, ATI has presented a product with similar characteristics for Intel processors. Unfortunately, like NVIDIA a tad earlier, the Canadian manufacturer decided to keep the name of the chipset, having just added "for Intel processors". Perhaps, such a nomenclature looks logical. But it's very inconvenient to speak of a product and to spell out its full name, as if enumerating all the titles of an emperor. Let's abbreviate it to Xpress 200 IE (on the analogy of the NVIDIA nForce4 SLI IE). The new chipset looks rather mediocre as far as its functionality is concerned compared to representatives of the Intel platform. It differs little from its counterpart for AMD64. That's why we decided that this article should contain the Xpress 200 IE review and a roundup of all modern integrated chipsets for Pentium 4. The reason for this comparison is obvious, as integrated video is a trump card (perhaps even the strongest aspect) of ATI products. And Intel has been developing muscles in this very area of late.

ATI Radeon Xpress 200 IE

Read about the ATI Xpress 200, because the functionality of the chipset for Intel differs only insignificantly. It goes without saying that the interface connecting the chipset with a processor is the proprietary Intel QPB bus. Memory controller is now integrated into the chipset. There is also one little difference in the integrated video core — no HyperMemory support. Indeed, we have never seen a production-line motherboard based on ATI Xpress 200, which would support this technology. Even considering that a dedicated frame buffer is (theoretically) much more necessary for AMD64 systems than for Intel Pentium 4 platform. We don't know the reasons of motherboard manufacturers, but they obviously voted with their feet. Besides, the HyperMemory idea consisted in saving power for mobile ATI chipsets in the first place: if a system is idle, the processor may go to one of the sleep modes and there is no need to wake it up to refresh the screen (this information is stored in the dedicated frame buffer).




  • RS400 northbridge:
    • Supports Intel Celeron D, Pentium 4, Pentium 4 Extreme Edition with the 533/800/1066 MHz FSB (dual core processors are not supported, FSB works quite well at 1066 MHz, but this clock is officially not supported either)
    • Dual channel DDR2-400/533/667 or DDR266/333/400 memory controller supporting up to four DIMM modules without ECC, up to 4 GB total
    • PCIEx16 graphics interface
    • Up to four PCI Express x1 slots (from the northbridge exactly)

  • PCI Express x2 bus to the IXP400/450 southbridge (or another one, compatible by the bus interface — for example, ULi M1573)
  • IXP400 southbridge (SB400):
    • Up to seven PCI slots
    • Up to four SATA devices that can form two independent RAIDs 0 and 1 (based on two independent integrated two-port RAID controllers from Silicon Image)
    • Up to four ATA133 devices (2 channels)
    • Up to eight USB 2.0 devices
    • AC'97-audio (5.1 or 7.1) and MC'97 modem
    • Binding for low-speed and outdated periphery.

An obvious competitor to Xpress 200 IE is the widest-spread (in its sector) series of Intel 915/925 chipsets. There start to appear motherboards on the improved i945/955 version already on a mass scale, their most important advantage being probably the support for dual core processors from Intel. (At the same time, i915-based products got cheaper.) There are practically no other modern (supporting PCI Express) solutions for the Socket 775 platform: VIA/SiS/ULi chipsets are scarcely represented in our stores and motherboards based on NVIDIA nForce4 SLI IE (as well as Intel 925/955) are too expensive and don't have integrated video, that is they cannot compete with Xpress 200 IE directly.

Thus, comparing the comparable, the ATI chipset under review is inferior to the i945 in terms of Pentium D support, but it theoretically outperforms the i915/945 as far as PCI Express peripheral slots are concerned (that's because they are connected to the northbridge instead of the southbridge). It also has an advantage over the i945 consisting in its support for both memory standards (and the fastest DDR2). It's harder to compare south bridges, as the ATI product can use ULi M1573 (or any future bridge from one of these companies), so that the lack of High Definition Audio is no longer a disadvantage of Xpress 200 IE. In brief: ATI IXP400 supports more Parallel ATA devices; but Intel chipsets offer more RAID modes (the i945), sterling SATA - not the almost useless 300 MB/s transfer rate in the i945, but AHCI functions providing real boost for SATA hard disks (in both Intel chipsets), and HDA support (also in both chipsets). The IXP400 does not have an integrated gigabit (or any other) network adapter. But we share the ATI's position on this issue (as well as positions of most other chipset manufacturers) - an external PCIE adapter is preferable (unless an integrated adapter has such interesting functions as a semi-hardware firewall).

Integrated video in the ATI Xpress 200 IE is quite a different issue. ATI prefers not to expatiate on parameters of this accelerator, just officially announcing its similarity to the Radeon X300 (Radeon 9600 modification for PCI Express). But we still found out that there are significant differences between them. Firstly, the number of pixel pipelines is halved — from 4 to 2. Secondly, the hardware T&L unit is either absent or severely limited in its functions (but T&L operations are fully supported on the driver level, they are just processed by the CPU). And finally, the operating clock of a chip is not clear: the theoretical range is 200—350 MHz (325 MHz for X300), but the only motherboard that we tested does not allow to specify/view this clock in BIOS. Memory bandwidth in the X300 is 128 bit, X300 SE — 64 bit, Xpress 200 IE — 128 bit in case of the dual channel memory mode. But it's system memory, so it's hard to tell its effective bandwidth in games, where CPU also actively accesses memory (it will hardly exceed 64 bit).

Performance tests

Testbed configuration:

  • CPU: Intel Pentium 4 650 (3.4 GHz, 800 MHz bus, Prescott-2M core), Socket 775
  • Motherboards:

  • Memory: 2x512 MB PC5400(DDR2-675) DDR2 SDRAM DIMM Corsair (CM2X512-5400C4), 4-4-4-12 for DDR2-667 mode and 3-3-3-8 for DDR2-533 mode
  • External video card: [PCIEx16] ASUS AX300SE (ATI Radeon X300 SE 128 MB)
  • HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 (SATA), 7200 rpm

Software:

  • OS and drivers:
    • Windows XP Professional SP2
    • DirectX 9.0c
    • ATI SMBus 5.10.1000.5
    • Intel chipset 7.0.0.1019
    • ATI Catalyst 5.2
    • Intel VGA 14.13 (6.14.10.4308)

  • Test applications:
    • RightMark Memory Analyzer 3.55
    • 7-Zip 4.10b
    • WinRAR 3.41
    • Doom 3 (v1.0.1282)
    • Painkiller (v1.35)
    • FarCry (v1.1.3.1337)
    • Unreal Tournament 2004 (v3339)

Test results

At first, let's analyze the pure performance of the ATI Xpress 200 IE in comparison with its competitors and evaluate the performance drop with enabled integrated video. Note that this chipset does not have a discrete modification, so its "pure" performance is of no interest (there is no point in overpaying for integrated video, if you are not going to use it. And the Xpress 200 IE has no other unique features).

The i915G outperforms the ATI chipset in maximum (without prefetch) memory read rate by 7%. We already mentioned that integrated video in modern Intel chipsets results in almost unnoticeable performance drop (6%), while Xpress 200 IE loses much more — about 16%. We have a curious situation with memory write rates: the chipset from ATI steadily demonstrates lower performance with an external video card. However, we are inclined to attribute this phenomenon to peculiarities of a given motherboard — future tests of motherboards on Xpress 200 IE will clear up this issue. On the whole, considering nearly zero performance loss from enabling integrated video in the i915G, the chipset from Intel wins this round easily, having outperformed its competitor from ATI almost by two thirds. Note that DDR2-667 memory provides some advantage to the Xpress 200 IE, though the expedience of this combination is questionable.

Results of the pseudo random access latency test are still more regrettable for the ATI chipset: the i915G (again almost no slow-downs with enabled integrated video) wins about 35% with an external card and over 40% without it. DDR2-667 is again a tad more efficient in the Xpress 200 IE, but it's like poultice for a coroner's client. Well, the last chance — a trial in real applications: we are not expecting a miracle, but perhaps it will not be outperformed by Intel chipsets so heavily?

Indeed, the i915G leads in archiving, but only by 10% with an external video card and by 12% in case of integrated video. As archivers are the most critical applications to memory performance, the results of other tests from our method of testing are quite predictable. For example, the difference in video encoding will be 2-3%, while audio encoding and final rendering in 3ds max will be completed practically at the same time. We could just as well finish our tests at this point. But as the priority usage of Xpress 200 IE is with enabled integrated video, the most interesting tests are still ahead — games. The competition among integrated chipsets is quite obvious. We shall also publish the results of the X300 SE (which 64-bit bus should make up for the architectural cripples of the RS400 relative to the X300).

In Doom 3, integrated video in the ATI Xpress 200 IE and the i945G is approximately on a par, the i915G is outperformed by 20—30% (it's not much actually in terms of absolute figures). The only noticeable difference is between the integrated RS400 and the external X300 SE, where the ATI chipset under review is 1.5-2 times as slow.

In Painkiller, the X300 SE also outperforms the integrated video from ATI by about 1.5 times, while the integrated video from Intel fails this test, as this game checks for hardware T&L support at startup. (It's not a sterling unit in the RS400, if it's available at all. But ATI video driver obviously reports about hardware support, while the same driver from Intel is more honest.) Interestingly, there is almost no performance drop in senior modes with high graphics quality; CPU load is very high here, minimum fps dropped to fractions of a frame per second.

In Unreal Tournament 2004 all integrated video accelerators go on a par at 640x480, the GMA900 (i915G) starts to lag behind at 800x600, and at 1024x768 the Xpress 200 IE lags behind the GMA950 (i945G) by approximately 15%. Moreover, the X300 SE (unconditional leader in low modes) goes down almost to the level of the RS400 at 1024x768 and it is also outperformed by the i945G.



The alignment of forces in FarCry remains the same irregardless of a demo, but the absolute figures and their ratios differ much in different video accelerators. We published the results in a couple of the most polar scenes. In the first case, the X300 SE outperforms the integrated video in the Xpress 200 IE at 640x480 by more than 125%, but they look the same in high graphics quality at 1024x768 (FarCry uses FSAA in High mode). This game is the only one where both Intel GMA accelerators are heavily outperformed (more than twofold) by the integrated novice from ATI. Besides, they failed to startup in High mode, because they don't support FSAA.



The gap between all the contenders is smaller in the training demo (but the alignment of forces remains the same): +70% in the external/integrated modifications of X300, +80% in the competition between the RS400 and the GMA900/950. Pay your attention that the X300 SE not only wins much in terms of the average fps, but its minimal fps is also much better.

Bottom line under the performance of integrated video in games:

  • Doom 3 — the average fps is about 10-15, the GMA950 is slightly better than the RS400, the GMA900 is obviously weaker
  • Painkiller — the average fps is about 20-25, the GMA900 and the GMA950 cannot start up
  • UT2004 — the average fps is about 25-30, the GMA950 is slightly better than the RS400, the GMA900 is significantly outperformed by both competitors
  • FarCry — a large spread of the average fps depending on a mode and an accelerator (Xpress 200 IE offer comfortable gameplay at 640x480, 800x600 - acceptable), the RS400 is certainly better than the GMA900/950.

Conclusions

ATI Xpress 200 IE is an attractive modern chipset, slightly inferior in its functionality to competing solutions from Intel, but making up for it with its low costs. Besides, its performance characteristics are not very good: the i915/945 outperforms it by 5—10% in real tasks, critical to memory performance. The only notable advantage of motherboards on Xpress 200 IE is their integrated video. However, this issue is also controversial: according to our tests in modern games, integrated video RS400 demonstrates convincing superiority over integrated video in the latest Intel chipsets only in FarCry (Painkiller is out of the question, because i915G/945G cannot cope with this game). Besides, such popular engines as Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament 2004 make no special difference between them, or even prefer GMA950 (but we cannot say the same about the GMA900 — the previous generation of integrated video from Intel looks much weaker in these tests).

Practical value of the reviewed integrated chipsets in modern games is certainly doubtful (look at the absolute figures on the diagrams), but you can try and extrapolate the results for older games/engines. You should also pay attention to the alignment of forces of the integrated video RS400 and an external video card based on X300 SE. The difference is almost always very large (1.5-2 or more times), even though the competitor is taken from the lowest end, ATI offers no slower cards (with PCI Express interface). Thereby we shall not even try and analyze the situation in games or understand the effect of defeaturing the X300 into the RS400 in terms of pixel pipelines or other parameters. ATI Xpress 200 IE should be taken as is — it's currently the most powerful integrated video on the market. However, ATI is too pressed for time to rest on its oars: Intel is steadily gaining the gap, GMA950 in i945G being quite a decent competitor.




Sergei Pikalov (peek@ixbt.com)
July 20, 2005


Write a comment below. No registration needed!


Article navigation:



blog comments powered by Disqus

  Most Popular Reviews More    RSS  

AMD Phenom II X4 955, Phenom II X4 960T, Phenom II X6 1075T, and Intel Pentium G2120, Core i3-3220, Core i5-3330 Processors

Comparing old, cheap solutions from AMD with new, budget offerings from Intel.
February 1, 2013 · Processor Roundups

Inno3D GeForce GTX 670 iChill, Inno3D GeForce GTX 660 Ti Graphics Cards

A couple of mid-range adapters with original cooling systems.
January 30, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1

An external X-Fi solution in tests.
September 9, 2008 · Sound Cards

AMD FX-8350 Processor

The first worthwhile Piledriver CPU.
September 11, 2012 · Processors: AMD

Consumed Power, Energy Consumption: Ivy Bridge vs. Sandy Bridge

Trying out the new method.
September 18, 2012 · Processors: Intel
  Latest Reviews More    RSS  

i3DSpeed, September 2013

Retested all graphics cards with the new drivers.
Oct 18, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, August 2013

Added new benchmarks: BioShock Infinite and Metro: Last Light.
Sep 06, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, July 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 and AMD Radeon HD 7730.
Aug 05, 2013 · 3Digests

Gainward GeForce GTX 650 Ti BOOST 2GB Golden Sample Graphics Card

An excellent hybrid of GeForce GTX 650 Ti and GeForce GTX 660.
Jun 24, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

i3DSpeed, May 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770/780.
Jun 03, 2013 · 3Digests
  Latest News More    RSS  

Platform  ·  Video  ·  Multimedia  ·  Mobile  ·  Other  ||  About us & Privacy policy  ·  Twitter  ·  Facebook


24

Copyright © Byrds Research & Publishing, Ltd., 1997–2011. All rights reserved.