GMA X4500 benchmarked-G45 and G43

Here are the benchmarks of the GMA X4500 and GMA X4500HD with Vista 15.9.8 drivers.

G43: http://www.hkepc.com/?id=1525&page=3&fs=idn#view
G45: http://www.hkepc.com/?id=1510&page=5&fs=idn#view

Performance of the G43 chipset is approximately equal to what the upcoming mobile GM47 chipset will perform.

The 15.9.8 drivers are not yet OpenGL 2.0 capable. We might see one with 15.10 or 15.11 drivers.

HD playback capability is very good.

My opinion:
-We can see the enormous improvement in Crysis especially with DX10(3x+ faster), which will be the best case scenario of 25% more shaders, 20% higher core clock, and 2x faster Vertex Shaders along with other architectural improvements. At 800x600 Low, it might become bare minimum playable(20 fps ).
-FEAR: Sensitive to Vertex Shaders, and compute performance(aka shaders and clock speed)
-Crysis: Same as FEAR
-Lost Planet/Company of Heroes/Far Cry: Only sensitive to compute performance
-3DMark 05/06: Mostly sensitive to Vertex Shaders and architecture improvements

I can see another 10-20% easily from drivers. At least in modern games, X4500 should best Nvidia's 8200 IGP. The desktop version, the G45 might be able to catch up to 780G with the best config and better drivers, but it won't be possible with the mobile GPUs.

Hopefully we don't have wait-and-see approach to the drivers and hardware again with the X4500. With earlier 15.9/15.9.3 drivers, G45 only scored ~770 in 3DMark06. The latest 15.9.8 drivers improved things a lot. Luckily, the hardware is not here for purchase yet .

 

So it'll play Crysis about as well as the 945GM plays Half-Life 2? Groovy!










How does this compare to... say, a desktop quad-SLI'd 9800 GTX? On the upside, I bet it has a slightly better battery life.

 

I was playing Crysis the other day, all low bare physics on medium and it was 20-25fps average.

NOT WORTH IT!

 

That site says ...

Maybe they only played it on only 12 pixels x 10 pixels and it still only got 3 FPS ... but besides the fact, even though it does offer more performance, in the end it is still totally unplayable at 3 FPS ... come on.

 

so its about 3x as fast as the intel x3100? thats pretty cool.

i have a totally unrelated question for you. i need this answered.

what is 3 * 0?

 

Well, let's see, adding pi, divided by the square root of e, multiplied by 6.8923 at the 6th power, added to 5812.9 , all multiplied by 7.



0

 

Pi is a ratio. You don't add by Pi.

 

You can certainly add Pi ... it is just a number ... 3.14 and forever and ever.

 

a ratio is a fraction, a fraction is a number. you can add numbers.

i think the problematic thinking stems from us thinking about everything separately, when really its all one in the same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

 

Yes. You can add it, but you don't. Because, out of it's proper context, you're just adding an arbitrary number - which makes whole equation useless.

Not that it wasn't a joke equation to begin with... Arguing semantics! <- Isn't that what the internet's really about?

 

pi?pie? I`d love some pi in that case!

 

Even though GMA X4500 lacks, it's still heading towards right direction. Before we know it, IGP will be more than sufficient to play modern games.

 

Same can be said for low-cost dedicated video cards. You really need 8800 to play Crysis well.

It'll actually become one of the best IGPs. The 780G they tested isn't too much out of reach. With better drivers and DDR3-1333, it'll get there.

 

C'mon guys. This is NBR not math class. Besides, we let our dual-cores do the math.

 

Guys can you explain to me what is the bottomline of this benchmark?

Is it better than the HD 3200?

 

Well, now it's still good for an IGP, right ?

THAT... no way! You're seeing the slow improvements in IGPs, but not the much more rapid improvement in dedicated GPUs (along the lines of which *modern* games are actually made!) ?

 

If the X4500 can't compete with the Puma platform, then there's little hope for a great leap forward for Intel IGPs.

 

While the 3D performance may be lacking somewhat, it looks like driver level compatibility is much improved. Even though the 3200HD is faster, neither are really playable in any of the benchmarks listed. I am happy to see however that the HD decode reduces CPU usage so much. This will be a boon for the ultraportable market. Hello new Macbook with HD 1080P support? =)

 

X4500 doesn't even come close to performing in 3200HD's ball park.

That being said, 3200HD is still only slightly faster than a 8400GT (I believe), so no, it won't play modern games well.

 

I have to admit that the resolutions that they tested on aren't very useful since they are too high for IGPs. They are likely 1280x1024 and 1900x1200, not 12x10.

I think the critical part of the comparison was that the GMA X4500 anywhere from 19-228% faster than the GMA X3500 in actual games, not just 3DMark, and is within 10-30% of the HD 3200 in the 780G. And this is on pretty early drivers too while the HD 3200's drivers are pretty mature now. I'm not sure if more reasonable resolutions like 800x600 or 1024x768 will change the relative differences, but if it doesn't, it's quite clear that the GMA X4500 has the potential to nearly match the HD 3200. That is likely why AMD chose today to launch the 790GX chipset for desktop and the HD 3300 which is just the HD 3200 in the 780G overclocked from 500MHz to 700MHz to make sure they stay ahead of the GMA X4500.

It's unclear how things translate in mobile, but the GM45 could likely come close to the graphics performance of Puma. Admittedly though it depends on how quickly Intel can optimize their drivers. There is also supposed to be a GM47, which is probably an overclocked version that Intel's holding back so there may be hope yet of Intel's IGP.

 

Haha~ I wouldn't hold my breath for that

 

Actually, if you go to the link that I gave, its not out of reach. G45 still needs driver optimization and the motherboards that'll use DDR3-1333 is yet to come out. The desktop G45 should catch up to 780G.

Mobile versions surely won't without some miracle. The mobile version of the 780G isn't slower than the desktop version, while GM45/47 is slower than G45.

 

but if it was...... then u could put 22/7 in place of pi and just convert any number into a fraction with a denominator of 7 and do the adding.......

or..... just let the dual cores do the math

 

I'm considering buying an ultraportable with an X4500. I don't intend to play Crysis or anything, but do you think it would it play games like Civilization IV or Starcraft 2 at reasonable frame rates?

Also, I've heard that Intel driver support is really shoddy. Is there a general expectation that upcoming new drivers will boost the performance of the X4500 significantly?

 

I say that's a big negative on playing starcraft 2 on a x4500.

 

Check this out in comparison for hd video playback the dv5z uses the 780g while the dv5t is using the intel x4500. Inteluser please stop trying to spread false information. So instead of 1 fps on crysis I can have 3 fps now on a x4500 awesome! not!

 

I'm not spreading false information: http://www.hkepc.com/?id=1510&page=5&fs=idn#view