RyanSmithAT: Well, the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti didn't show up today.Despite making billions of dollars profits for 2021 on th… RyanSmithAT: It's still a bit weird to me how 'normal' all of this is.

RyanSmithAT: Of course, AMD is the beneficiary of a chip crunch while also eating Intel's lunch.

IanCutress: No, we don't have a Steam Deck.

That keeps chips boring, but also flexible, like leg…

IanCutress: It's important to ensure that chips are designed to standards.

IanCutress: CPU support doesn't mean cooling support.RyanSmithAT: Unless Valve were to sample the press, not any time soon.RyanSmithAT: That information isn't in Intel's ARK, but it is around.IanCutress: It can be in the technical documents Intel makes available online for each family.The Radeon Xpress 200 doesn't disappoint, performing within 10% of the X300 SE. Granted we are comparing $0 to $80, so a performance difference is expected.īased on the Quake 3 engine, performance here is important because the types of games that will be mostly playable on integrated graphics solutions will be older titles. It's better than Intel's GMA 900 in that it is able to offer this level of performance at much better image quality, but the performance isn't anything to get incredibly excited about as the $80 X300 SE wipes the floor with the Radeon Xpress 200. But with the complexity of implementing fully floating point DX9 compliant rendering pipelines, it's tough to do more than 2 pipes at this stage without increasing cost significantly.Īlso playable, even at 800 x 600 (in actual gameplay), the Radeon Xpress 200 continues to do 'ok' in the performance tests. Despite the fact that the Radeon Xpress 200 has much more memory bandwidth than the X300 SE thanks to the dual-channel DDR400 interface of the Socket-939 Athlon 64, its performance is significantly impaired by the reduction in rendering pipelines. We will have to wait another week to see if it actually means that the integrated graphics will be playable in Half Life 2, but if the VST is any indication things are looking good.Īt 800 x 600 the Radeon Xpress 200 is playable, despite the fact that the X300 SE is 23% faster. The Radeon Xpress 200 manages to perform reasonably well, definitely not as well as the X300 SE, but nothing that isn't playable. Using the Source Visual Stress Test we look at a preview of Half Life 2 performance on these integrated graphics solutions. We have informed ATI of the issue and they are looking into it for us, but as far as we are concerned even with the image quality issues fixed, Doom 3 isn't really the type of game to be playing on integrated graphics, not even with the Radeon Xpress 200. It doesn't make sense since, architecturally, there shouldn't be any difference between it and the X300 SE we compared it to (other than fewer rendering pipelines but that shouldn't cause the issue).įirst, here's what Doom 3 should look like as rendered on our test Radeon X300 SE:īut here's what we get with the Radeon Xpress 200: We did encounter a strange issue with the Radeon Xpress 200 in our testing, there are significant image quality issues with it under Doom 3. The lowly Radeon X300 SE is basically twice as fast as the Radeon Xpress 200, which isn't saying much as the X300 SE is basically the minimum level of playability for Doom 3. The game is not very playable with the integrated graphics core, even at 640 x 480. The Radeon Xpress 200 does hold an advantage over Intel's GMA 900 in that it actually runs Doom 3, but that's really where the advantages end. Integrated Graphics Performance Comparison Doom 3 Performance

Amethystm ati radeon xpress 200