What's your per iteration time?

[hyh1048576]

Celeron 1100Mhz,256MB RAM,60G harddisk,17"screen......

[Dresdenboy]

One of the very view chipsets where onboard gfx doesn't have such a big impact on prime95 performance would be nVidias nForce series. They have dual channel mem controller and if one puts 2 dimms on it there is enough bandwith for CPU+graphics.

Some HW site (I think it was anandtech) made a review of onboard gfx chipsets some time ago and somewhere else compared nForce2 IGP to intels latest IGP at that time.

Results:

10% average performance decrease (would be much more with Prime95) for the intel IGP solution when you compare it to using a real graphics card on that board.

The difference for nForce2 was nearly nothing (some 0.x % AFAIR)

Matthias
(or Matthew if you like :))

[Xyzzy]

Originally Posted by Dresdenboy

One of the very view chipsets where onboard gfx doesn't have such a big impact on prime95 performance would be nVidias nForce series. They have dual channel mem controller and if one puts 2 dimms on it there is enough bandwith for CPU+graphics.

nForce2, 2x128MB PC2700, XP2500+, Onboard video @ 1024x768x32

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2500+
CPU speed: 1825.13 MHz
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE
L1 cache size: 64 KB
L2 cache size: 512 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 64 bytes
L1 TLBS: 32
L2 TLBS: 256
Prime95 version 23.4, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 384K FFT length: 33.208 ms.
Best time for 448K FFT length: 37.506 ms.
Best time for 512K FFT length: 41.122 ms.
Best time for 640K FFT length: 53.971 ms.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 66.978 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 77.678 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 89.316 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 114.711 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 138.853 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 168.683 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 186.225 ms.


nForce2, 2x128MB PC2700, XP2500+, PCI Matrox @ 1024x768x32

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2500+
CPU speed: 1825.15 MHz
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE
L1 cache size: 64 KB
L2 cache size: 512 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 64 bytes
L1 TLBS: 32
L2 TLBS: 256
Prime95 version 23.4, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 384K FFT length: 32.847 ms.
Best time for 448K FFT length: 36.994 ms.
Best time for 512K FFT length: 40.547 ms.
Best time for 640K FFT length: 53.046 ms.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 65.746 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 76.508 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 88.054 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 113.288 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 136.520 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 166.374 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 183.181 ms.


Not bad really, for an integrated video...

[xtreme2k]

Dual Channel DDR2700 vs Single Channel PC133...

5.4GB/s of bandwidth vs 1.06GB/s of bandwidth.

Surely the PC133 system will have much more impact.

[QuintLeo]

1280x1024 is a common resolution.

43 aspect ratio isn't universal, it's just common.

Next common resolution larger - 1600x1280 - is ALSO not a 43 ratio.

[hyh1048576]

But on my PC,the next resolution larger is 1600*1200?!?!?!?!?!?!? :?

[eepiccolo]

I tested my computer at home, and boy do I feel silly for inefficient crunching. I keep the resolution at 32bit, 1280x960, and had an iteration time of .208 s. The highest resolution, 1280x1024, runs practically the same. But when I switched to 16bit, 640x480, I got an iteration time of .183 s. So I was running at only 88% efficiency! .

It's a 1.7 Ghz Celeron system, with Intel integrated graphics.

Oh, and I tried using the power saving feature of automatically turning off the monitor after a couple minutes, but there was no change in the iteration time while the computer had the monitor off.

I'm going to be buying a graphics upgrade soon (ATI Radeon 9800 pro, baby!), so it shouild be interesting to see what happens then.

[Xyzzy]

Originally Posted by eepiccolo

I'm going to be buying a graphics upgrade soon (ATI Radeon 9800 pro, baby!), so it shouild be interesting to see what happens then.

In the meantime a $5 PCI Matrox Millennium 2 (4MB) would fix you right up... They are everywhere, super cheap, very reliable, fairly cool running and they have great 2D... Drivers for it are built-in to XP...

[eepiccolo]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

In the meantime a $5 PCI Matrox Millennium 2 (4MB) would fix you right up... They are everywhere, super cheap, very reliable, fairly cool running and they have great 2D... Drivers for it are built-in to XP...

Cool, I'll keep that in mind :)

[patrik]

Can anyone explain how this thing with integrated graphics works? Does it get turned off if one plugs in a graphics card in the AGP slot? Does it get turned off if I just don't plug in a monitor? Or can I turn it off somehow?

I am asking since I am planning to build a few dedicated cruchers later this year. Then it would be easier if I could use onboard graphics while setting it up, overclocking etc. instead of temporarily plugging in a graphics card. But if this would affect the speed when I run it without monitor and without graphics card, then I should perhaps choose a motherboard without onboard graphics.

[eepiccolo]

Originally Posted by patrik

Can anyone explain how this thing with integrated graphics works? Does it get turned off if one plugs in a graphics card in the AGP slot? Does it get turned off if I just don't plug in a monitor? Or can I turn it off somehow?

With some motherboards you can turn off the integrated graphics manually from the BIOS, but with others the integrated graphics will only turn off automatically, when you plug in a seperate graphics card. You should be able to consult a motherboard manual to find out exactly how the integrated graphics work for that particular board.