A comprehensive list of games that are only problematic on AMD/ATI graphics cards

[Danyal Zia]

Once. To benchmark it using the cube.iso test. It actually did better than my current (but still very old) Core 2 Duo laptop with a 4670 HD.

Which blew my mind.

Here're the links to the benchmark on the forums. Afaik, it was a thread made by daxtsu that's submerged.

The procedure (follow it precisely):-
http://forums.ppsspp.org/showthread.php?...4#pid26564

My P4 result:-
http://forums.ppsspp.org/showthread.php?...2#pid26872

My Core 2 result (the same rig in my signature):-
http://forums.ppsspp.org/showthread.php?...1#pid26571

The P4 with the X800XL actually scores higher than the Core 2 with the 4670 HD lol. Which is insane.

(4670 is usually 300-400% faster than the X800XL in various benchmarks, the Core 2 is supposed to be 4-5x faster than the P4.

The only other difference between them is the OS, XP vs Windows 7, and like I've mentioned before, AMD's Windows 7 OGL drivers are really bad when compared to the XP OGL drivers.)

I think I've seen these threads before and replied there as well

---

The Pentium M is actually pretty powerful for its time. A Pentium M at 2.0 GHz is actually performing the same amount of work as a P4 @ 2.5 (roughly) GHz. It has a higher IPC and is actually the basis of the Intel Core microarchitecture that would be used in the Core 2 later on.

The M X300 on the other hand, is very weak, but should still be enough for 2D games lol.

As far as I know, I've read somewhere that Pentium M @ 1.86 ghz performs like P4 @ 2.8 ghz. So Pentium M @ 2.0 ghz should perform like P4 @ 3.0 ghz. Also I have Dothan Pentium M which has 2 MB L2 cache as compared to 512 MB L2 cache of P4 or 1 MB L2 cache of P4 @ 3.0 ghz. So, it make sense that clock speed isn't the precise measurement of a performance.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth)

M X300 was powerful for a laptop of it's time. Of course, X800 beats it easily since it has 256 bit Bus Width and other excellent core features of it's time.