Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Atom: NVIDIA ION vs. Radeon HD 4330 Graphics

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intel Atom: NVIDIA ION vs. Radeon HD 4330 Graphics

    Phoronix: Intel Atom: NVIDIA ION vs. Radeon HD 4330 Graphics

    Last week we featured a review on two MSI WindBox Atom 330 NetTops that we had purchased to add to our testing farm, which as you may now know went into our Phoromatic Ubuntu Tracker setup that is monitoring the performance of the latest Ubuntu development packages on a daily basis. Before devoting this hardware to the farm, we ran a few benchmarks comparing the performance of NVIDIA's ION GeForce 9400M graphics processor to the ATI Radeon HD 4330 graphics processor found on the MSI 6667BB-004US and several other Atom-powered devices.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14683

  • #2
    Comparing apples with peaches again?

    Proprietary driver vs. a free one which is still in development for R600+ on different boards (okay, the choice in boards was limited by HW indeed) with a limited number of tests.

    Useless.

    Compare xf86-video-nv with xf86-video-ati with that setup next time.


    OT: And still using ext4? Just because it is the default in that over-hyped Ubuntu?

    Comment


    • #3
      just for the the record.
      in windows benchmarks the 4330 ist 40% to 50% faster compared to the 9400 used in the ion platform

      Comment


      • #4
        What's the purpose?

        In other news, water is wet and the sun is hot.

        Sorry, but I have to express my disappointment with this article -- it seems to be time wasted both from the part of Phoronix and any visitors that care to read it, and invites the question "why?"

        The title implied a comparison, but that was sadly not the case, since it is obvious that the proprietary Nvidia drivers have no competition at the moment, especially from the very young and pre-alpha stage AMD open-source ones. I was expecting either nvidia-blob vs. amd-blob or nouveau vs. ati-radeon, at the least (preferably BOTH) -- it would've offered an insight into what people can expect from the respective platforms on Linux.

        Furthermore, the reasons given for this weird comparison are quite superficial and basically amount to "didn't care enough" -- either driver can be made to work, even on Ubuntu, if there is time and will. If there is not, better spend the time on more useful endeavours, of which there are plenty...

        Just my thoughts on the article, don't take them personally -- hopefully a follow-up will make things right.

        Comment


        • #5
          I would have been much more interested to have seen Nvidia blob vs fglrx blob vs Nouveau Gallium vs r600 mesa

          Comment


          • #6
            Also why has this thread been moved from the RSS forum already?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FireBurn View Post
              I would have been much more interested to have seen Nvidia blob vs fglrx blob vs Nouveau Gallium vs r600 mesa
              This.

              Would have made the article much more interesting and relevant.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think the reason the comparison uses the OSS drivers for ATI is that in Ubuntu 10.04 the Catalyst driver is not supported at this time. But adding a plot for Ubuntu 9.10 with Catalyst would have helped.

                In my machine (Radeon HD3450), Ubuntu 9.10 + Catalyst gives four times the fps you get with 10.04 and the open source stack (Padman @ 1920x1080). This would place the ATI results slightly higher than the ION overall.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm a member of the Phoronix Forums since (literally!) the very first day. My Phoronix Premium Subscription is about to be renewed these days, for the second time. That makes the year to come my third year of supporting Phoronix with actual cold, hard cash. I'm sorry to say that it will be my last, if article quality doesn't improve drastically. I'll give it another year, and then decide.

                  If you want to keep my as a paying member of this community, please establish a sensible modus operandi of what to benchmark, and how to benchmark it. This article makes about as much sense as running a crapload of 3D-rendering benchmarks on similar setups where, say, only the mainboard differs, and then declare a winnder because somehow, one setup came in 0.2% ahead of the other. I don't want to spend my time with crap like that, and it _always_ takes a little bit of my precious time away when an article pops up in my feed reader. Make quality a priority over quantity - if an article - like this one here I'm commenting - seems kinda moot, it's not worth writing or publishing it.

                  And finally make the fscking PTS graphing output more readable. Please. Pretty-please.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Isn't it already time for a new fglrx beta driver for U 10.4? About 1 year ago it hit U repository as first release for Xserver 1.6, why is it different this year?

                    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=NzE0Nw

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                      I think the reason the comparison uses the OSS drivers for ATI is that in Ubuntu 10.04 the Catalyst driver is not supported at this time. But adding a plot for Ubuntu 9.10 with Catalyst would have helped.

                      In my machine (Radeon HD3450), Ubuntu 9.10 + Catalyst gives four times the fps you get with 10.04 and the open source stack (Padman @ 1920x1080). This would place the ATI results slightly higher than the ION overall.
                      Are there no other distros that could have been used?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kano View Post
                        Isn't it already time for a new fglrx beta driver for U 10.4? About 1 year ago it hit U repository as first release for Xserver 1.6, why is it different this year?

                        http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=NzE0Nw
                        Should be out soon.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                          In my machine (Radeon HD3450), Ubuntu 9.10 + Catalyst gives four times the fps you get with 10.04 and the open source stack (Padman @ 1920x1080). This would place the ATI results slightly higher than the ION overall.
                          Are you using a Atom 330? If not then your "performance comparison" is useless.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This was just intended to be a very quick comparison, take it for what you want. The proprietary Catalyst driver would have been used if a public X Server 1.7 supporting release was available.
                            Michael Larabel
                            http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              As some people said, this is a useless comparison. I'm all for comparing closed vs open drivers for the same chip, but comparing open vs closed drivers when its pretty much known what the results would be is really pointless.

                              I was actually interested in seeing the performance difference between the chips. My conclusion after this review: err, none at all...

                              You might as well just used nouveau and concluded that using open-source ati is faster than using mesa software rendering.

                              I too am very disappointed with this comparison.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X