14. 3DMark05 Benchmarks, Continued

As with the PCMark05 tests, the 3DMark05 Score and CPU Score are scaled to reflect scores obtained by what were considered entry and high-end systems at the time 3DMark05 was developed. The range at that time was 1000 to 5000. Like PCMark05 scores, 3DMark05 scores have reached beyond 5000 as computer and graphics hardware has gotten better and faster. Scores lower than 1000 have also been measured. As with PCMark05, we will adjust the score range on our charts as we obtain test results beyond 5000.

Some mobile computers do not have graphics subsystems that can support the 3DMark05 tests. Others can support the tests, but perform poorly because their graphics subsystems and processors are slow. These often achieve 3DMark05 scores in the 200 - 600 range and frames per second rates that hover around 1. In this case we report but do not chart the overall 3DMark05 score and note that the particular computer under test is not suited to more demanding 3D graphics applications. This is clearly the case for the WinBook X610, which posted a dismal 266 3DMark05 overall score.

As with the other three test suites, we run 3DMark05 on Windows XP SP2. Like PCMark05 it requires Microsoft Media Player 10 and Microsoft Media Encoder 9. We use the same system and Windows settings as for SYSmark 2004 SE; you can find a reference to these in the section "Preparing for and Running SYSmark 2004 SE."

Since the low results we obtained from the WinBook X610 means we won't be providing 3DMark05 charts for that unit, we'll jump straight to our conclusions next, in something of a departure from our preceding reporting and analysis sections.

3DMark05 Benchmarks Conclusions

The Intel i915GM graphics chipset, while adequate for office productivity and simple 2D graphics, is clearly not up to the job of handling complex, shaded 3D materials. The 266 overall score reflects a middling CPU score of 2078 in the 1000 to 5000 standard scale for 3DMark05, but also reflects frame rates from as low as 0.8 per second for FireFly Forest to a high of 1.3 fps for Canyon Flight. Simply put, these low rates are intolerable for this kind of material, which is impossible to follow because of the many skips and jumps in action that dropping the vast majority of frames causes (rates of at least 25 fps are needed to keep up with the action, and rates over 60 to deliver smooth, flowing motion that doesn't distract the eye). The X610 is not suitable for gaming, nor does it really do a great job of handling DVD playback, either as the MobileMark 2005 DVD Playing scenario showed us during testing.