Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

nForce2 IGP is lot better than R9100 IGP

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 11, 2004 7:38:01 PM

After reading THG R9100 IGP perfromance review, I've came to this conclusion. Though it's the best IGP platform for P4, nForce2 IGP remains the IGP performance king.

Moreover, R9100 IGP is lot more confusing than Integrated GeForce4 MX. nForce2 Integrated GeForce4 MX spec. is not different from real GeForce4 MX (2x2 vs. 2x2), the reason for worse pefromance is shared memory architecture. But R9100 IGP specs differ a lot from real R9100 (2x1 vs. 4x2, big difference). So many people may guess it performs somewhat like R9100 from it's name

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
a b U Graphics card
February 11, 2004 8:14:24 PM

yeah, I read that review earlier too. I didn't come away thinking the NForce 2 IGP "is lot better" than the R9100 IGP. It does edge out the 9100 IGP in every test, but honestly, they both blow. 22fps as apposed to 19 isn't my idea of a blowout. With such low fps, Might be just as well off having the DX8 one rather than the faster DX7. Who knows, I just don't get too excited about IGP. It is stricktly for non-gamers.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 12, 2004 12:11:50 AM

It's good to see that ATi came out with a comparable solution to the Nforce Chip...even if its not quite as good.

My gripe with the artical was that not enough was said about tri monitors. how does/will the system hold up when 3 monitors are going at it.

aslo curious... will the chip support flat panel displays? i know that they are VGA right now... however I forsee lots of people buying these boards simply for cost effective ways to get more virtual desktop. Be it becasue they want 3 monitors or becasue the want an AIW but want 2 monitors too. but physical deskspace is limited and 2 or 3 VGA's is too much. so there may be alot of people with one Main VGA and a flat panel on one side or both...that is if this on board chip can support flat panels too...

or am i just silly and is there a simple adaptor, like there is for the other way around.

<b><A HREF="http://www.1112.net/lastpage.html" target="_new">Finally...the LAST PAGE</A></b>
ASUS P4S8X-P4 2.4B - 2x512M DDR333 - ATI 9500Pro - WD80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW
a b U Graphics card
February 12, 2004 2:12:50 AM

Drop the resolutions, no AA or AF, I like my DX8.1 features, thanks.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
February 12, 2004 4:45:43 AM

Quote:
R9100 IGP = DX8.1, onboard shaders, etc...
nForce 2's MX = DX7, teh suck...

R9100 IGP = Poor DX7, Unplayable DX8.1 (so the shaders are useless)
nForce2 IGP = Above average DX7, Unplayable DX8.1

Overall = nForce2 IGP is better

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
February 12, 2004 12:53:15 PM

Personally, I think the onboard versions of BOTH graphics chipsets are useless for gaming. Crikey, a crappy 9200SE would beat both of them.

The Nforce2 is better... but not because of the integrated graphics, but because of the improved memory performance of the chipset.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
February 12, 2004 1:10:27 PM

I think it's the Title of your thread that I dissagree with most. It isn't alot better. It's a little better, and they both stink.

As far as your comment on people thinking it is the same as a R9100 Card, that is useful info for some people. Most people with a little GPU knowledge have heard the integrated solutions don't keep up with the seperate cards. But, if you had read the review, and posted a thread titled. "R9100 Card much better than R9100 IGP", it would have made more sense to help people not make the mistake you mentioned of thinking they are the same. But to make it an NVidia vs ATI thread, (or NVidia much better than ATI thread), and then say you want to make people aware that the 9100IGP is not equal to the 9100 add in Card, makes little sense.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
a b U Graphics card
February 12, 2004 9:44:53 PM

Quote:
nForce2 IGP is surely better than R9200


Huh, what?

Quote's from Tom's Hardware Review:

"Still, none of the candidates' scores are anywhere near those of the low-cost Radeon 9200"

"The results of this comparison are sobering. Integrated graphics chips represent the lowest level of graphics performance available in the market today. Even inexpensive add-in cards in the $50 price category play in another performance league altogether."

I think you better look at that review again, as the R9200 Blew out the NF2 IGP in every test except the long outdated Quake 3 benchmark. So actually R9200 IS SURELY BETTER THAN NF2 IGP. (yet still nothing to brag about)

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040211/radeon_910..." target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040211/radeon_910...;/A>




ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
a b U Graphics card
February 12, 2004 10:33:21 PM

Quoted from test setup in that review.
"Drivers & Configuration
Graphics Driver Detonator FX v45.23
ATI Catalyst v3.6
ATI Catalyst v4.1
<font color=red>Graphics Cards Radeon 9200 SE 64MB</font color=red>
Radeon 9800 PRO 256MB
DirectX Version 9.0b
OS Windows XP Professional SP"



According to that review, in the test setup description, the video cards tested were a Radeon 9800 Pro and a RADEON 9600SE. And he states over and over again a $50 card. The 9200SE is the $50 card, regular 9200's are much higher priced. It's the 9200SE that proved it was in "another performance class altogether" compared to all the IGP's (the mighty NF2 IGP included)

They also went on to say " In the end, we can only recommend PCs with integrated graphics with a clear conscience to users who are sure they will never play a 3D game on their PC."

Did you read the whole review, or just look at the performance numbers and see it as a chance to throw an NVidia IGP Victory in our faces. Honestly. If Mr. NVidia NF2 IGP were a person, he could benchpress 25 Lbs. While Mr. ATI 9100 IGP lost to Mr. NVidia by only benchpressing 22LBS. Now in comes the absolute worst "real" weightlifter (card) of the day, Mr. Radeon 9200SE. Who trounces both of them with an amazing 45lb benchpress. Well this silly story comes to an end. I just want to ask if it would make sense going to a weightlifters forum and bragging about the IGP victory. Wouldn't those benchpressing 380LBS find the whole topic a bit rediculous? So why then brag about an IGP NF2 victory on a Grahics card forum, when half these people own the big boys and wouldn't waste a minute gaming on any IGP. I mean, you are going nutso supporting a NF2 IGP when a lowly 9200SE is far superior. Ugh






ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
February 12, 2004 11:01:35 PM

I've read the whole review. They said Radeon 9200 everywhere, not SE at everywhere except this place (not only charts, but also in comments below charts). This is most possibly a typo.

<A HREF="http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review&dId=..." target="_new">Tweaktown R9100 IGP review</A>

Here they compared R9100 IGP with R9200SE. Their R9200SE scores are much worse than THG R9200 score, which suggests THG used R9200, not R9200SE.

R9200SE is usually slower (sometimes equal) than R9100 IGP. Now you decide, the "test setup" page had typo or not.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
a b U Graphics card
February 12, 2004 11:46:01 PM

Review sites usually quote prices that are higher than actual street price. I have yet to see a R9200 for $50, yet that is right on target with 9200SE pricing. I am surprised they would keep saying $50 card when street price is higher and list price much higher.

You may be right on it being a typo. They may have used a real R9200. Would be nice if it was spelled out completely listing clock speeds and 64 or 128 bit card used for this review. If so they made the mistake in the very worst spot in the entire review. The test setup page is usually where they spell out exactly what is being used and then throughout the test figure we know what the system specs are, so no need to be as clear. They have left "pro" out in the charts before while clearly stating it is a Pro they used. I hear what you are saying, and I can see that it could be an SE or a real 9200. In that light, you may be right. But still is this something to get excited or brag about. I mean who here on this forum would actually recommned the real R9200? So why brag about a much slower IGP?

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
a b U Graphics card
February 13, 2004 2:50:09 AM

By the way, despite out arguement here, I appreciate your work on the buyers guide.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
February 14, 2004 12:04:23 AM

Well, I read the article, but something just didn't seem right. I was gratified that the xp3000+ showed how well it deserved it's PR number, so that wasn't it. Then it hit me. The Ati igp is designed to run on 800 fsb while the nvidia is designed for 333. They dont even say if they ran the ram on theintel boards syncronously or not. At syncronous the memory would be taking a 40% speed hit on rated.
I realize that it is hard to compare apples to oranges, but think it is a bad idea to dehidrate the apples first. ( esp when you have been accussed of being an orange fan in the past)
!