31
Hardware / OS/2 Video Performance
« on: October 21, 2021, 01:47:28 am »
People ask me what video card to buy to run OS/2. I usually tell them to run the graphics built into the motherboard. For some time, Intel CPU have graphics built in. This is an inherently better design than having a separate video card.
I ran the SysBench benchmark program on my Quebopeep (Lenovo M93p Tower computer) with Intel Core-i7 CPU connected to the monitor with a standard VGA cable. I installed the standard AMD Radeon HD8490 PCIe-16 video card with 1 GB video RAM. The graphics card has no VGA, but I used a DisplayPort to VGA adapter to connect the monitor. Here is how the two graphics setups compared.
Intel HDA Graphics
PM Graphics Marks: 268
DIVE Marks: 18062
AMD Radeon HD8490
PM Graphics Marks: 127
DIVE Marks: 2917
So you can see that the high performance video card is between 2 and 6 times slower than the built-in graphics on the motherboard.
I ran the SysBench benchmark program on my Quebopeep (Lenovo M93p Tower computer) with Intel Core-i7 CPU connected to the monitor with a standard VGA cable. I installed the standard AMD Radeon HD8490 PCIe-16 video card with 1 GB video RAM. The graphics card has no VGA, but I used a DisplayPort to VGA adapter to connect the monitor. Here is how the two graphics setups compared.
Intel HDA Graphics
PM Graphics Marks: 268
DIVE Marks: 18062
AMD Radeon HD8490
PM Graphics Marks: 127
DIVE Marks: 2917
So you can see that the high performance video card is between 2 and 6 times slower than the built-in graphics on the motherboard.