Radeon XPRESS X200

I was just wondering how the video card in the ZV6000/R4000 compares to the Radeon 9600 mobile I have in my EMachines M6809. Is it better on paper? The same basically? not quite as good? Asking this because Im having problems with my M6809 which is still under warranty at Best Buy and may be replacing it with the ZV6000/R4000.

-Morgan

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by Morgan

 

Worse. It's kinda a crippled X300 level in the Xpress 200M ATI chipset used. X300 in a desktop might be better than your 9600, but this is not it Of course, that's one benchmark by one individual in a quick post, so take it for what it's worth. 3Dmark03 is about 2500 for the 9600; I think a reviewer reported the benchmark on the ZV6000 at about 1500+, which surprised me.

Rich

 

Does anyone with the a new ZV6000/R4000 have 3DmarkXX scores that they could post?

-Morgan

 

Hey Guys,

I tested my new R4000 with 3dMark05 and got a score of 686 for the following specs:

AMD Athlon 64 3200+
512 MB Memory
80 GB 4200 rpm HD
ATI Radeon Xpress 200M 128 MB

Had DeskopX and Norton AntiVirus running in the background, not sure if that would affect the results at all.

Hope this helps.

 

Ahh! I just found some other benchmarks:
http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=79539

Rich[8D]

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by RichBenn

 

I hope I don't sound like a shmuck, but a 3dMark2001 score of ~5000 is a impossibility with a Athlon 64. A score of ~5000 is the score you should expect with a ~1GHz processor and a GF2 MX. In fact, I remember getting ~4000 with a Voodoo 5 5500 and a 800MHz PIII.

I have a feeling these benchmarks were done incorrectly. A Nvidia Go5200 clears these scores by 3000+ points..and the main reason is the processor. My media box with a GF3 and a XP 3200+ clears the 10,000 mark.

the 3DMark 2005 score I can believe cause that measures the GPU performance, but the performance of this person's CPU/ram is HORRIBLE to score a 5000. I have a feeling that was actually a 3dMark 2003 score, because a 9500 (which has theoretically less bandwidth than the 200M) scores ~5000. I'm not going to trust that review... Anyone else with actual benchmarking knowledge wanna put up some numbers?

 

On the HP ZV6000 thread on page 23 one proud owner states 10fps on Doom3
just thought I'd put some real world #'s for ya.

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by HeXeD

 

yeah..I saw that...

Very concerning however I'm gonna wait till I see a reformat..new drivers...and also what type of specs that guy has. But it's guys like him who give us some REAL info... so I appreciate things like that.

In fact..if people could just put ANY benchmarks down on "real" games..I would be very happy.. Like Q3..Call of Duty..Max Payne..WOW..UT 2004..etc..etc. And of course ANY other games we could compare with other card's performance

When I get mine..I'll definintely run a barage of benchmarks..

tick tock tick tock

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by HeXeD

 

I personally would not have minded paying $300 more. I mean, a gaming notebook for around $1300 is still very very cheap.

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by bOOm

 

The really sad part is that HP has finally put a socket 939 mobo into a notebook that allows the usage of the FX-55 (and even offers the rebadged FX53-the Athlon 64 4000 ans a CTO option), and they still cripple it with the absolute worst discrete graphics processor available. It would have been better if they had equipped it with an MX440. Just when I was thinking of buying a new system, this happens. HP just does not get it, especially with the great power offered in the ZD8000. Intel must have bought someone over at HP. It is a complete shame.

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by scottman

 

Actually, maybe there is a chance that it has a 64-bit interface. I had based my comment on what I had read on tomshardware, but if you check out these specs from ATI, it looks like both 32 and 64 are possible:

http://www.ati.com/products/radeonxpress200p/specs.html

Does anyone know how to check what configuration is on this?

 

God I hope you are right. But even if.. there hasn't had a 64bit memory interface since the GeForce 2 MX... I mean, even the GeForce 2 GTS had a 128-bit.

Now it makes the wait for this laptop even worse!

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by HeXeD
AHHHHHHHHH


I was very skeptical of your review only because the average score of a Inspiron 9300 in 3dmark 2005 w/ a GeForce go 6800 was in the neighborhood of 4000, so I figured you were just running the benchmarks with all the bloated crap HP and Dell puts on their computers.
<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'></font id='quote'></blockquote id='quote'>

Good luck on whatever you end up with. But just in case you're considering the 9300, the stock 3dmark05 for the 6800go is around 3000. Only overclocking or tweaked drivers will give you 4000. Not that you'll even need better than stock for quite a while though. The XPS2 with the 6800go ultra will give you about 5000 stock.

Also, I can't imagine that HP wouldn't make use of the xpress 200 with at least an x700 in it. Maybe the zd9000 with an Athlon64???? Or a future upgrade for the zv6000 should be easy to do. They just seem to be ignoring the gamers market.

 

unfortunately..I just cancelled my order. That 32-bit/64-bit pipe scared me away. I just wanted to be able to play things like CS..world of warcraft, swat 4, halflife2... at at LEAST 800x600

I'm either gonna wait for HP/Compaq to put at LEAST a X600 in their smaller laptops..or go with Acer or something of that nature..

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by scottman

 

HeXed, Scottman and whoever else that thinks that the 200M has 32 or 64 bit memory : check this out.

The link posted on this forum to the Radeon 200 specs were for the 200P chipset. The 200M in the R4000 is 128bit. If you don't believe me, read the correct specs: http://www.ati.com/products/Radeonxpress200m/index.html
"Radeon® Xpress 200M is built on a .13-micron process with 350MHz graphics core speed, and 128-bit system memory interface ensuring best-in-class graphics performance with mobile applications."

Although, the benchmarks are pretty bad for this card nonetheless. I'm hoping better drivers come out. I already ordered my r4000

 

The ATI page I linked to says it has a 128 bit memory interface. Isn't that what they were talking about?

 

sorry i didnt see that but if you look hear under memory interface it says 32bit or 64.
http://www.ati.com/products/radeonxpress200p/specs.html
that is so weired since they are both off of ATI site.

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by LightC

 

All I can do for now is pray that ATI comes out with better drivers between now and the time it takes for my R4000 to get here. Estimated ship date is 5/24 I think.

System specs:
Athlon64 4000+
1GB RAM
Hitachi 60GB 7200RPM (swapping with another laptop)
bluetooth & 802.11g
dvd+-rw

 

The link LightC gave should be the right one. I assumed the 200m was the same architecture as the 200p, but maybe not.

Here is the specs link:

http://www.ati.com/products/radeonxpress200m/specs.html

It also shows a few other possible interfaces. If there was any way that I could tell what's in mine, I'd check it out. The bios tells me nothing. There are a few ATI options within the control panel that might affect performance, but I wouldn't know which to change.

 

"Built-in DirectX™ 9.0 and OpenGL™ graphics for gaming
The Radeon® Xpress 200M offers a Radeon® graphics core, that is a derivative of Radeon® X300 PCI Express technology designed for DirectX 9.0 and OpenGL compatible games. It offers high-performance graphics, unleashing the competitive power you need for playing the latest game titles on your notebook."
http://www.ati.com/products/Radeonxpress200m/index.html

I've read that paragraph a couple times now and taking into consideration what people have been saying about horrible gaming performance just doesn't add up. There's something wrong here. If this doesn't clear up soon, this is definitely false advertising.

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by LightC

 

ohh really try playing either Prince of Persia game and tell me how it looks and at what settings you were able to use.

 

can someone test an online fps? CS? Wolfenstein ET? Battlefield? also, does anyone think this can handle Battlefield 2 when it comes out?

 

well i know it'll have the specs to 'run' it, but everyone is trashing it with 10fps in doom3. that's pretty cool though, the 23rd. How many of you are planning to get this?

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by bOOm

 

I reran 3dmark01 with the ati opengl and direct3d settings changed to "high performance" instead of "balanced" and I got a whopping 80 more points. [ ] Ha ha big whoop. When I tried the settings at the highest performance levels, 3dmark gave an error.

10fps for Doom3 isn't good, but check out this article about what doom 3 would need.

http://www20.graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040809/index.html

I think the xpress 200 would probably be close to the 9600se in this comparison. So I don't think anything below an x600 or maybe even an x700 would be acceptable for doom 3 in the ati family.

 

i think zv6000 is [:X]

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by scottman

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by bOOm

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by bOOm
yeah, i guess doom3 has high expectations. but it should be able to run Battlefield 2 smoothly, shouldn't it? after all, everyone plays with the lowest graphics online.
<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'></font id='quote'></blockquote id='quote'>

I play WoW at 1920x1200 with max detail. []

Graphics detail should not be the bottleneck as long as your net connection is fast enough. I.e. if you have a low ping to begin with, you can crank up the graphics to as detailed as you want, and it wouldn't lag. But if your ping is high -- lowering your graphics res or detail doesn't help.

Personally I hated doom3 -- after crawling around brownish-grey tunnels for 2 hrs I shelved the game, and hasn't touched it for months. I think the x200/300 can handle the older games just fine, but if you are planning on getting in on the latest/yet to be announced games -- you might want to look elsewhere.

cheers,

yass