One of the most common requests we have received is to see how an integrated graphics chipset on the typical µATX platform compares to a more performance-oriented graphics chipset designed for mainstream configurations. We're not trying to turn our µATX roundup into a graphics card shootout, but we decided to look at solutions that range in price from $60 to $125 to see just what type of performance and feature improvements an extra week's paycheck could buy.
Here we go...exactly the kind of spurious comparison I recommended against in response to
Gary's solicitation of suggestions for the mATX roundup:
How about testing integrated graphics against sensible entry-level discrete GPUs? e.g. GF6200, 7300GS, RADEON X300, X600.
None of this "Well golly, none of our [free] integrated graphics competitors remotely approach the peformance of the $300 value segment 8800GTS."
Obviously, I used the ~$300 8800GTS as an exaggeration of the pointless comparisons some review sites have made in testing IGP against discrete GPUs they deem to be "mainstream" performance cards that cost as much or substantially more than the motherboard alone. However, the price-performance point at which such comparisons clearly become spurious is actually much less.
$60 ~ $70 is the entry point for cards like GF 7300GT and X1650PRO, with 7600GS available for a mere $15 more, all of which we know will trounce any current IGP by triple digit percentages and it just gets worse from there. $125 is squarely into GF 8600GT territory. This is not unlike comparing how the 'free' stereo speakers built-in to an LCD monitor compare with 5.1 surround systems priced between $60 ~ $125. But hey, why stop there...
- How good are the OEM PSUs bundled with PC cases compared to aftermarket PSUs costing $60 ~ $125?
- How does MS Paint compare to applications such as Corel Paint Shop Pro or Adobe Photoshop Elements?
Cripe! We already know beyond any doubt that most low-end GPUs out there
under $60.00 readily out-perform current IGP, some by large margins. Heck, based on the following 3DMark scores, I'm fairly confident my
six year-old Radeon 8500 128MB AGP 4x with default clocks (275/275) would make a fair showing against current IGP in both DX8.0 and DX9.0 (using DX8 path) benchmarks:
3DMark01SE = 9000+
3DMark03 = 1300+
This was using S478 P4 2.8GHz (533FSB) on a crappy ECS PM800-M2 motherboard + single channel 512MB DDR333 RAM! I can't imagine the R8500 scoring any worse on a mid-range AMD64 X2 or Intel C2D + dual channel 2GB DDR400 or DDR2-667 RAM.
Including entry-level GPUs in the $30 ~ $60 range such as GF 6200TC, 7200GS, 7300LE, 7300GS, Radeon X1050 and X1550 would have answered any question about the relative performance of everything above those cards. By neglecting this lower-end, it leaves open the question of just where the price-point begins to clearly differentiate integrated and discrete graphics in performance. IOW, how much will it cost to obtain 2x...3x...4x performance gain over IGP?
There are already plenty of reviews of the 7600GT, X1650PRO, and higher GPUs for those who want to know how those discrete GPUs perform relative to other discrete GPUs. Comparing these discrete GPUs to IGP is purely an academic interest of no practical value.