Showing posts with label Graphics Cards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Graphics Cards. Show all posts

Saturday, May 16, 2009

How to not review the Nvidia Ion



There's been a lot of buzz lately surround the Nvidia Ion Platform.
For those of you who don't know, the Nvidia Ion platform is an Intel Atom CPU combined with the Nvidia Geforce 9400 core logic chipset. The Intel Atom is a regular, but very low-power, CPU. The Geforce 9400 core logic chipset is everything that a northbridge and a southbridge typically do, a memory controller, audio, LAN, storage (Serial SATA) controller, and of course, the best integrated graphics every made. The point of putting such a nice GPU with such as weak CPU is to run 3d simulations (games) better, offload (upto 1080p) video processing to the GPU, or offload general purpose calculations to the GPU (CUDA, openCL.)

Now, the intel Atom isn't brand new. Models came out with it last year roughly around August. Combined with the old Intel GMA 945 GSE chipset, it was not a stellar performer. It had a FSB of only 533 mhz, and the memory controller on the intel chipset would only provide 533 mhz memory.

But performance was not the point of the Atom, as the intel atom was low power (a maximum 2.5 watts for the netbook model @ 1.6 ghz) and low price ($43 for that model.) Performance showed that the atom was roughly as fast as 2.0 ghz pentium 4 CPU. That fact is important. In the days of CPU's with model numbers like T7100 and E2220, it is hard to have any clue how a processor compares to another processor. However, considering that LegitReviews found the Atom 230 (1.6 ghz, 533 mhz FSB, just like the netbook N270) to get 477 CPU Marks in 3DMark06, and a sample score from the Online Result Database shows a 2.0 ghz Pentium-4 to get 524 CPU Marks, it's obvious that they are pretty similar.

So from now on when deciding what games to test a single-core atom CPU with, we should look for games that require nothing more than a 2.0 Ghz Pentium 4. Since cranking up the graphics detail puts more stress on the CPU, and the minimum requirements are for minimal graphics settings, logic would dictate that we would run the games at minimum detail if they require a 1.6 ghz to 2.0 ghz pentium-4. If a game requires something greather than a 2.0 ghz pentium-4, we shouldn't waste our time testing it. If a game requires something between 2.0 ghz and 4.0 ghz in processor speed, it is worth testing it with the dual-core atom N330, and the results will likely depend heavily on how well multi-threaded the game is.

Guess what professional reviewers did? First XbitLabs tested the Atom N230 (1.6 ghz) with three games; Quake 4 (minimum CPU: 2.0 ghz P4), Trackmania: Nations Forever (minimum CPU: 1.6 ghz P4), and World of Warcraft (minimum CPU: 1.3 ghz P4 or Athlon XP 1500+).

Considering these requirements, it would make since definitely to run Quake 4 on low detail. Trackmania and WoW should be tested out definitely on low, and probably on medium detail.

What did they do? They tested out all the games on medium! The results were pathetic, but they hardly gave it a chance. Remember that 30 FPS or so is necessary for a game to be playable.




In fact, the supposedly 5 to 10x faster Geforce 9400 wasn't much faster in trackmania than the Intel chipset. This highly suggests that the game was CPU limited at that detail level.

Next I came across Hot Hardware's Nvidia Ion review. Much like XbitLabs, they prepared a very professional review, with meticulous detail as to how they tested the system. I am glad they tested out the Atom 330, which proved to be far superior to the 230 at certain games. However, they tortured the poor Atom CPU even worse. They ran Left 4 Dead, which has a minimum CPU of a 3.0 ghz Pentium 4, and Quake Wars, which has a 2.8 ghz Pentium 4 requirement! Again, the Atom 1.6 ghz Pentium-4 CPU is only equivalent to roughly a 2.0 ghz Pentium 4. Only the Atom 330 deserved to run these games. However, they then did something even worse. They tested them "with gaming quality settings set to medium or high, depending on the feature!"



Here are the lackluster results:




I'm honestly impressed with the Intel Atom's ability to run games that greatly outclass it, but the average reader has no clue how fast the atom is supposed to be relative to the games requirements.

I believe testing these games was unfair to the Atom N270 and the Atom N230 CPUs, as well as the Ion platform in general. It made them look like they were incapable of gaming, when at the appropriate detail level on the appropriate games, it could have performed well.

I'm guessing the reason this mistake was made was that reviewers aren't used to testing integrated graphics chipsets like this. Typically, they test them with the fastest possible CPUs, where the minimum CPU requirements of a game are never an issue. When testing the Ion Platform, they are testing the Geforce 9400 with either a very weak CPU (the Atom N230 or N270) or a very specialized CPU (the Atom N330.)

What games could Hot Hardware have tested the atom with? Let's look at the top sellers on steam. Civ4 complete edition is up there, and Civ4 itself only requires a 1.2 ghz P4, Athlon, or equivalent.

So please, next time you test out either a low-end CPU or a low-end GPU, make sure you test it under conditions it is made for. By default, test it out under games with low or minimum detail, and include games that it matches the minimum requirements for.

Friday, December 19, 2008

The Unimportance of Graphics Card Memory

Often I see/hear people saying "I have a 256MB graphics card, I should be able to run Crysis."

The fact that you may have 256MB of video ram on your graphics card is largely irrelevant. You may have 1GB of memory on your computer, but if it merely has a pentium-3 1.0 ghz, it still isn't going to run it at all. The video memory is a very poor indicator of performance, especially because graphics card companies like to pad the memory on lower end cards. They do that because low-end memory is cheap and makes it look faster than it really is.

In order to show how much 256MB cards can differ, I decided to collect benchmarks around the web. They will all have a fairly high end Core 2 Duo or so, an nvidia graphics card and they will demonstrate 3DMark06. This won't be an exact science, but it'll be good enough.



Here's hardwarezone's review of the 8800GT 256MB. I have this card in my desktop. They are using an Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66GHz.)

Resolutions: Score (with an 8800GT 256MB) : Score with an 8800GT 512MB
1280x1024: 10752 : 10968
1600x1200: 9541 : 9783

Next we have hardwaresecret's review of the Geforce 8500GT, but also showing off a few other cards. They used a Core 2 Extreme X6800 (dual-core, 2.93 GHz.)

Score with an 8600GT 256MB:
1024x768: 5743
1600x1200: 3797

Score with an 8500GT:
1024x768: 2927
1600x1200: 1784

Score with a 7300GT:
1024x768: 2046
1600x1200: 1281

So the 8800GT is 634 % faster than the 7300GT.

Finally, we have the 7300GS 256MB. This reviewer used a slower athlon 64 x2 3800+, but that can't make too much of a difference.
(Unspecified Resolution, probably 1024x768 or 1280x1024):
693

But now, how about the ultimate question! Can your 256MB card run crysis at high detail? This was done using a an exact scientific comparison by Tom's Hardware.



ATI Radeon 3850 256MB: 25.50 FPS
ATI Radeon x1300 256MB: 1.90 FPS

The 3850 is 1242% faster than the x1300!

So simply put, a fast GPU with 256MB can barely run crysis at high detail, a slow GPU with 256MB can't make it playable at all.

So please, don't ever say "I have a xxxMB Graphics card."