Date: March 13th, 2003.
Article by: Nathan Glentworth (Owner, Head Editor & Hardware Reviewer)
<--CLICK FOR DEALS ON SOFTWARE IN THE UNITED STATES
<--CLICK FOR DEALS ON SOFTWARE IN CANADA
TESTING SETUP (cont'd)
Now I know this only represents one type of chipset being utilized on two different boards, but this driver release is intended for this actual chipset. At the time of testing, I unfortunately did not have access to a KT400 or an Athlon XP in my testing fleet, if you can help on this matter, drop me an email =D.
The only changing factor in the benchmarking is the actual version of the Hyperion driver, nothing more, nothing less. I benchmarked all programs with the 4.45 version and then installed the 4.46 version, and ran the benchmarks independently each time after a fresh reboot.
BENCHMARKING COMPUTER #1
Again, I will state the first computer set up:
Soyo P4X400 Dragon Platinum Edition
Intel P4 2.8Ghz 533Mhz FSB
ATI All in Wonder Radeon 9700 pro (8X AGP, R300 Core, DX9 Compliant)
Catalyst 3.1 Drivers
256 Megs Samsung DDR333
Maxtor ATA-133 7200rpm 30 gig Drive
Windows 2000 Pro SP3
Via Hyperion 4.45 & 4.46 Chipset Drivers
PCMark in my books is a good overall benchmarking utility for your computer and outputs scores which can easily be compared.
Here is the result with the Hyperion 4.45 Drivers
The results above can be seen as a starting point with the original release of the Hyperion drivers.
As you can see above, all scores were pretty well even. The important fact is that they are slightly less which bothers me, especially the hard drive score. Seeing that it is indeed the slowest component memory wise in your computer, slowing it down even more does not impress me. I thought this was an updated driver?
Now seeing that the rumour is that this driver is supposedly going to help out the computer's gaming performance via an improved 8X AGP utilization, let's see how it affect my All in Wonder 9700pro using a DirectX 9 based benchmarking program.
A decent score with the 4.45 drivers.
And yet again, the score is pretty well the same with a 4 point decrease. Although a small decrease is seen, I do not like it to be in the negative.....
Ok, now let's see if the ol' standby, 3dmark2001se has the same results as it's younger, more advanced brother.
Again, the 4.45 baseline....
Interesting, a 63 point increase. Seeing that the other benchmarks noted a small decrease, I have no clue why this benchmark would be higher.
<--CLICK FOR GREAT PRICES ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE