So let’s take a look at what to expect in the way of performance, the strong and weak points of the two different chipsets, and the difference using a GeForce II MX 200 AGP card. First, let’s see how they compare under a business environment by using Winstone 2001, which includes some graphics oriented applications that the VIA C3 is not really intended to excel under.
As you can see the PLE133 scores the lowest, the PM133 in the middle and the GeForce II the best. Overall the scores aren’t bad at all, as long as the scores are at least about 20, the system should satisfy the average office user.
This is an interesting one. You would think the CPU score would stay constant. Why doesn’t it? Well the integrated video takes CPU resources, in this case you can see that the PLE133 uses less then the PM133 and the GeForce II clearly comes out ahead with no overhead.
You can see the same thing here. Fewer system resources are used when using an AGP card than when using the integrated graphics. One other thing – when using the integrated video you set aside some of the system memory for video use, when using an AGP card all is available so that could also help the disk scores slightly.
Overall they really aren’t that much different, sure the PLE133 is the slowest but the PM133 isn’t that much faster, and the GeForce II isn’t really that much faster than the PM133.
In a business environment I doubt if you would notice much difference between the three – especially the PM133 and GeForce II equipped systems.
Be the first to discuss this article!