General Application Performance

Futuremark PCMark05

Futuremark PCMark Vantage 32-bit

Futuremark PCMark Vantage 64-bit

Video Encoding - DivX

Video Encoding - x264

Video Encoding - x264

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R10

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R10

Compared to the more expensive laptops we've tested, these two entry-level Gateway systems are quite slow. Performance is relative, of course, and even the Gateway laptops are plenty fast for typical office/Internet work.

Putting Performance in Perspective Synthetic Graphics Performance
Comments Locked

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • KidneyBean - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link

    It's nice to see some humor in these articles. Nice to change it up. Reminds me of reading Mark Minasi tech books, and how much easier occasional humor makes it for me to read tech info.
  • IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link

    Jarred, the 475MHz core clock on the GMA 4500 is wrong. That has been the clock speed for pre-launch platforms. The GM45's GMA 4500MHD runs at 533MHz. Minor mistake but still a mistake.
  • HexiumVII - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link

    Can anyone comment on the performance of Aero with comparing the G45 with the X3200? I had a tablet with an X3500 that was a bit clunky with Win7 Aero Beta. It got a little better with RC drivers, but still not as snappy as 2D mode or dedicated graphics.
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link

    I didn't notice any issues with normal applications in Windows Vista, but I don't know about Win7 yet. I will try to find time to do a follow-up looking at Win7 performance, and from what I've heard it's overall better than Vista (Gary for instance has it running on a netbook and he's very happy, whereas he hated Vista on the same netbook). Intel's Win7 drivers are likely still a work in progress as well, but at least you can get regular IGP driver updates from Intel.
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link

    All I know is that GPU-Z reported the GMA 4500MHD as 475MHz. I would guess that either the utility is wrong (possible), or Intel gives vendors some leeway in the GPU/chipset clocks (also possible). If you have another utility that will be more reliable for determining the Intel IGP clock, let me know.
  • IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link

    Just take a look at the datasheet, its that simple: http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/320122.p...">http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/320122.p...

    The GPU-Z utility is bad. It's nowhere near the CPU counterpart. That aside, Intel doesn't really give out reading the GPU clock easily, and the 475MHz was also what was used in the pre-launch(ie. beta) GM45 platforms.

    I heard Everest is more accurate, but in terms of actually measuring, there probably isn't one that measures the Intel IGPs properly.
  • IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link

    http://www.beareyes.com.cn/2/lib/200810/13/335/gpu...">http://www.beareyes.com.cn/2/lib/200810/13/335/gpu...

    Please see how G45(desktop version) shows on the GPU-Z. It should show similar thing to above, unless the newer version updated to change that its 800MHz.

    In reality, it isn't really measuring the clock.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now