Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,411

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    824

    Default

    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?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    332

    Default

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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    71

    Thumbs down 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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    592

    Default

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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    592

    Default

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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    565

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    115

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,646

    Default

    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •