12. 3D Benchmarks

Now, since each of the four notebooks claims to have 3D features, we were of course obliged to test that. Due to the fact that none of the test candidates comes with vertex or pixel shaders and only two have integrated T&L, our choice of benchmarks was somewhat restricted. We simply used Mad Onion's 3DMark 2001SE and Quake 3.

3DMark 2001 SE Results

I don't really know how VIA has the nerve to call its KN133 "ProSavage" a 3D-chipset. Here's the marketing blurb: "Delivers rich AGP4X graphics capabilities for demanding software..." Well, I'll let you decide about that. A score of 319 in 3DMark 2001SE speaks its own language. To give you the full picture, I may add that the benchmark doesn't even run properly. Basically, an owner of a Presario 725 does NOT play 3D. Period!

It comes as no surprise that the two notebooks with discrete graphics chipsets are beating the crap out of the other two, but the 1500 score of the Radeon IGP320M prototype notebook is rather respectable. This notebook lets you play 3D-games indeed, and after all it does not always have to be 1024x768x32. A lower screen resolution and especially color depth will allow fluid game play.

The fill rate numbers show the truth, because it's still fill rate that limits today's notebook 3D-graphics. The 39 Mpixels/s score of VIA's "ProSavage" chipset is rather humorous, as it is less than what the first Voodoo chip was able to deliver more than 5 years ago (45 Mpixels/s, in case anyone still remembers). Radeon IGP320M is clearly limited by its UMA-based video memory interface, because its theoretical fill rate is 160 Mpixels/s. At 1024x768x32, this fill rate cannot be achieved due to lack of memory bandwidth.