Decent onboard video???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Noozer
  • Start date Start date
N

Noozer

Just wondering, with ATI and NVidia making chipsets, are there any
reasonably powered onboard graphics chipsets in use?

I was looking at the DFI RS482 Infinity mainboard with the Radeon X300
chipset onboard.

Games would all be run <1024x768. Racing games and Quake 3 will be the type
of games run.
 
Just wondering, with ATI and NVidia making chipsets, are there any
reasonably powered onboard graphics chipsets in use?

I was looking at the DFI RS482 Infinity mainboard with the Radeon X300
chipset onboard.

Games would all be run <1024x768. Racing games and Quake 3 will be the type
of games run.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2427

Heres a test on a X300 level board and from the test it sounds OK.
Im skeptical but lots of people have posted they are using X300 level
graphics and playing all sorts of new games.

The new RS482 etc should be faster though it uses the same core they
claim as the X300 below

Meanwhile, in Canada ...

ATI isn't going to stop with the Radeon Xpress 200. The company's
next-generation integrated parts are the RS482 (AMD) and RS410
(Intel), both of which feature 0.11-micron process architecture and a
much-improved Southbridge component that fixes a few issues the Xpress
200 had regarding USB and onboard audio. The graphics core is still
based on the Radeon X300, so although the die shrink should allow
higher clock speeds and hence performance, the IGP component will not
be a radical departure from present ATI offerings.


This was written in June 2005 and sounds interesting:


Where things should really get interesting is ATI's chipset after
next, which is rumored to hit sometime in early 2006. This will be the
RS6x00 series, and from all indications will bring a quantum jump in
integrated-graphics performance -- think about the Radeon X700 and
9800 Pro, which ATI are rapidly transforming into the mainstream today
and will likely be entry-level come next summer. Such a chipset could
have nForce2-like impact, as X700-level graphics and gaming
performance will be quite impressive compared to the competition. If
ATI can pull this off, it will be very tough for Nvidia to keep pace.


http://www.nordichardware.com/news,3149.html


ATI RS690 comes with full HDCP support
Written by Andreas G 27 February 2006 18:17

RS690 is a chipset from ATI that is expected to appear sometime in
June and as you perhaps know ATI's RS series comes with an integrated
graphics circuit. RS690 and RS600 comes, according to recent findings,
with a graphics circuit with both the HDMI interface and the copy
protection HDCP. A support ATI has been criticized for lately as it
has announced HDCP support, but then not actually delivering it. The
same source states that the RD550 chipset will be launched in March
and it will make it possible to run Crossfire setups without the
external cable used today. Exactly how ATI has solved this remains to
be seen.
 
Current on-board video chips cost the motherboard manufacturer roughly $10
each. Does that answer your question?
 
Just wondering, with ATI and NVidia making chipsets, are there any
reasonably powered onboard graphics chipsets in use?

I was looking at the DFI RS482 Infinity mainboard with the Radeon X300
chipset onboard.

Games would all be run <1024x768. Racing games and Quake 3 will be the type
of games run.


Under 1024x768, yes integrated graphics can cope providing
the system memory bus (the primary bottleneck) is high
enough. That merely means use a DDR memory based IGP, the
higher the better. 200MHz/PC3200 speed as the current
standard is fine. You might need to disable some eyecandy,
or rather use normal settings rather than maxing it all out.

I'd have to wonder though, why build a new system to do
these relatively low-performance things?
 
Under 1024x768, yes integrated graphics can cope providing
the system memory bus (the primary bottleneck) is high
enough. That merely means use a DDR memory based IGP, the
higher the better. 200MHz/PC3200 speed as the current
standard is fine. You might need to disable some eyecandy,
or rather use normal settings rather than maxing it all out.

I'd have to wonder though, why build a new system to do
these relatively low-performance things?

That RS690 sounds interesting --- 9800 level graphics built in?
Wow. Not bad. Supposedly itll come out anytime now but knowing ATI
who knows when itll come out. Unless It has and Im clueless.

Of course by the time its out in qty who knows what the min power to
play games will be at around Xmas time.


Ive been playing DOOM3 more to test the 9600XT level + AMD 3200 combo.
At res higher than 800x600 it looks really fine min jaggies. And
though there is a very slight laggy feel to it all around its
acceptable. The big problem is the few times when multiple
effects/monsters come on the scene. Thats when it seems to freeze like
its loading something while your in mid action.

Im not sure why that is. Do you need a 256 card vs a 128 card?
Do you need more than 512 megs on your system?
Is it some tweak? And why does it seem to be loading like it can hold
all the data in memory? or is it some sort of data throughput
bottleneck ?
 
That RS690 sounds interesting --- 9800 level graphics built in?
Wow. Not bad. Supposedly itll come out anytime now but knowing ATI
who knows when itll come out. Unless It has and Im clueless.

It sounds promising then but I'd still be weary of using it
unless it had a dedicated frame buffer. It's a bit funny
that years ago everyone saw integrated video as bad then it
got even worse by moving towards using main system memory
for the frame buffer and now finally when they're getting
the process sizes down to where they could integrate an IGP
that could play games at *most common* resolutions, it'll
once again be limited by the memory. I like downsized mATX
boards if/when the onboard features would be used (though I
seldom do use them, just have plenty of spare (sound cards
for example) that might as well be used) but for the video
it would seem allocating a few dozen mm³ for 64MB of memory
would be worthwhile, especially with memory prices so low.

Of course by the time its out in qty who knows what the min power to
play games will be at around Xmas time.

True, though I'm not so picky about this anymore... decided
to play some Farcry the other day on a system that had an
o'c FX5700 Personal Cinema card in it, it played fairly well
at 1280x1024 so long as the lighting quality as set to low
and most of the rest of the settings at medium and only
2+Quini FSAA/AF. Not bad at all considering the card only
cost $45 but it's a pity nVidia didn't continue developing
their video capture software so I use WinPVR with it.

Ive been playing DOOM3 more to test the 9600XT level + AMD 3200 combo.
At res higher than 800x600 it looks really fine min jaggies. And
though there is a very slight laggy feel to it all around its
acceptable. The big problem is the few times when multiple
effects/monsters come on the scene. Thats when it seems to freeze like
its loading something while your in mid action.

Im not sure why that is. Do you need a 256 card vs a 128 card?

No, at one point shortly after Doom3 was released I had a
couple of GF4TI4200 cards that I benchmarked. One had 64MB
memory, the other 128. At stock speed the 128MB card was
about 15% faster in the more complex levels but it didn't
o'c very well at all, barely went above 4200 stock for the
memory while the 64MB version o'c to about 4600 speeds so it
was then faster at some levels but about 5% slower at the
rest. 128MB is definitely enough till you crank up the
eyecandy. That is, based on the differences between these
two- with GF4TI, the GPU itself struggled at 1024x768 at
moderate settings on complex levels, was too choppy to play
those levels till resolution was backed down to 800x600.
Unfortunately I can't recall if FSAA and AF were enabled or
not. Probably not though or if so, no more than 2X ea.
Do you need more than 512 megs on your system?

I don't recall the exact figure but it seems like the peak
memory usage on a Win2K system (via Task Manager) running
one of the GF4 was just under 400MB. I don't recall exactly
what was running in the (OS) background though, probably
about 80MB worth, IOW add 40MB or so for XP, less if
services are kept under tight reign. However, it might
speed up level reloading a lot to have more memory for a
filecache.

Is it some tweak? And why does it seem to be loading like it can hold
all the data in memory? or is it some sort of data throughput
bottleneck ?

When it freezes, is there any HDD activity? Do you have any
hardware monitoring software or bios settings checking for
CPU temp (shutdown) or fan speeds, anything like that which
might check at regular (n) second intervals? I should first
ask how long each incident lasts and if there were a regular
interval to it... even if only in complex scenes, perhaps
THEN at a regular interval?

I could even ignore ATI's driver either, even if you tried
other versions, it seems their policy towards drivers is
that whatever they had at the time the card was a current
generation, not much more work gets done on the driver after
that point, you may be left hanging being told "buy our next
card" even if all that was wrong was a driver bug. I don't
know for certain of any such issues with their drivers and
Doom3 though but I'd never checked, IIRC.

You might see if changing some parameters in your game
config file helps. There are some examples on the following
link but it's been so long since I tried them that I have no
particular recollection about them, only that they exist and
may help some on less endowed cards.
http://ucguides.savagehelp.com/Doom3/FPSConfigs.htm
 
When it freezes, is there any HDD activity? Do you have any
hardware monitoring software or bios settings checking for
CPU temp (shutdown) or fan speeds, anything like that which
might check at regular (n) second intervals? I should first
ask how long each incident lasts and if there were a regular
interval to it... even if only in complex scenes, perhaps
THEN at a regular interval?

Yeah theres TONS of HD activity. And theres a direct correlation
between scene complexity - effects and action and number of things
moving in the scene and the big freeze.

Its actually at the WORST TIMES which why you can tell so clearly.
Hot and heavy action starts . You are just fire a shot and it freezes
in mid shot for 10-20 seconds as the HD is furiously working and the
sounds loops repeating some gun shot etc.

Its surprising if it MUST have 1 gig cause I dont picture everyone
playing this with 1 gig. I remember when it first came out many were
playing it on modest systems though at low quality settings but this
is ridiculous.
I could even ignore ATI's driver either, even if you tried
other versions, it seems their policy towards drivers is
that whatever they had at the time the card was a current
generation, not much more work gets done on the driver after
that point, you may be left hanging being told "buy our next
card" even if all that was wrong was a driver bug. I don't
know for certain of any such issues with their drivers and
Doom3 though but I'd never checked, IIRC.

Its so severe that Im doubting whether an update to 1.3 or driver
tweak would THAT much difference but you never know. It really seems
like it cant hold crucial data in mem so its furiously getting it from
the HD al lhe time at the worst times.

If it was pausing with little or no HD activity I would be suspecting
overheating, minor tweaks etc -- more thatn mem. Still its strange if
it must have 1 gig which seems like a fairly high amount as a minimum.
 
Yeah theres TONS of HD activity. And theres a direct correlation
between scene complexity - effects and action and number of things
moving in the scene and the big freeze.

Check Task Manager memory figures when the gaming session is
finished. Just make sure you hadn't ran any other demanding
tasks prior to this or it might inflate the figures. I am
sure though, that when I'd benched the GF4200, the system
didn't have 1GB in it, at the most that box had 768MB but
probably 512MB.


Its actually at the WORST TIMES which why you can tell so clearly.
Hot and heavy action starts . You are just fire a shot and it freezes
in mid shot for 10-20 seconds as the HD is furiously working and the
sounds loops repeating some gun shot etc.

Hmm, is it possible there is some special sound effect that
is causing an error and this is a windows error log created?
You might do a find-files for anything seemingly coinciding
with this HDD activity.

Its surprising if it MUST have 1 gig cause I dont picture everyone
playing this with 1 gig. I remember when it first came out many were
playing it on modest systems though at low quality settings but this
is ridiculous.

Agreed, it should not take 1GB for medium-low settings.

Its so severe that Im doubting whether an update to 1.3 or driver
tweak would THAT much difference but you never know. It really seems
like it cant hold crucial data in mem so its furiously getting it from
the HD al lhe time at the worst times.

If it was pausing with little or no HD activity I would be suspecting
overheating, minor tweaks etc -- more thatn mem. Still its strange if
it must have 1 gig which seems like a fairly high amount as a minimum.

I dont' suppose your HDD is highly fragmented?
 
I dont' suppose your HDD is highly fragmented?

Nope. I had to cobble this system together fast since my main was RMAd
and I bought new motherboards --- the ECS nforce3 Sempron 2800 deals
at Frys.

I decided to use that board though its a cheapo ECS but its a real
nforce 3 board as my 2nd PC and swap my COMPAQ I bought 3200 754
socket 64 CPU into it cause I didnt like the ASUS microATX with
graphics builtin etc --- you now the usual cheap type boards they use
in prebuilt systems even if it has a the ASUS name.

Im using that ASUS board with the SEMPRON 2800 that came with the
Nforce3. So with the system Im using now --- 3200 AMD 64 754 with ECS
nforce3 , I just bought yet another seagate and Samsung disk --- my
10th HD and am using that . Its brand new 160 gigs , clean install.

I am using a different than usual WIN XP install disk though. I should
benchmark everything cause you can never tell objectively whats going
on many times with real benchmarking. You can be fooled so easily. For
all I know there might some general drop off in HD data throughput or
some other basic system problem.
 
Back
Top