3D Performance: 3DMark2001 SE
To evaluate AMD 690G 3D performance we installed two low-end video cards on MSI K9AGM2-FIH: GeForce 6200 TurboCache with 64 MB and 64-bit interface (from XFX) and GeForce 6200 with 128 MB and 128-bit interface (from Leadtek).
We also installed a high-end video card, an overclocked GeForce 8800 GTS from MSI, on it and compared its performance to a high-end motherboard with the same video card installed, ASUS M2N32-SLI De Luxe. The goal here was to see if by installing a high-end video card the reviewed board achieved the same performance level of a high-end motherboard.
We ran several programs, as you will see in the next pages. The amount of RAM memory the chipset “steals” from the main RAM memory to be used as video memory was left on the motherboard default value, which was “auto” for the reviewed motherboard.
The first one, 3DMark2001 SE, measures 3D performance by making DirectX 8.1 simulations, and the results you can see below (we ran it using its default configuration). All the listed video cards were installed on MSI K9AGM2-FIH.
On 3DMark2001 SE MSI K9AGM2-FIH achieved the same performance level of ECS RS485M-M (ATI Radeon Xpress 1100), ECS AMD690GM-M2 (AMD 690G) and Abit AN-M2 (GeForce 7025), being 6.78% faster than Foxconn A690GM2MA (AMD 690G) and 11.05% faster than ECS GeForce6100SM-M.
The problem is that even the “worst” PCI Express video card is a lot faster than on-board video solutions: GeForce 6200 with 64-bit memory interface and TurboCache technology was 66% faster than MSI K9AGM2-FIH. This is a huge difference. GeForce 6200 with 128-bit memory interface was 138% faster.
When we installed our overclocked GeForce 8800 GTS on the reviewed board it achieved the same performance level of ASUS M2N32-SLI De Luxe, what is great.