Intel Application Accelerator - do I want this or not?

Discussion in 'Soyo' started by Joe, Oct 17, 2004.

  1. Joe

    Joe Guest

    Ran Zif Davis WinBench 99 V2.0 before and after installing Intel
    Application accelerator (IAA). Winbench results are generally WORSE
    after installing IAA.

    Bisiness Disk WinMark 99 (thousand bytes/sec):
    Before IAA: 8140
    After IAA: 6140
    (same results for Disk Playback/Bus:eek:verall)

    Other tests (Front page, Microstation, photoshop, premiere, etc) also
    worse after IAA. Only 1 test (Sick Playback/HE:AVS/Express 3.4) was
    slightly better after IAA. Frontpage 98 was a lot worse (36,500 vs
    106,000). Visual C++5.0 was also a lot worse (7,660 vs 27,900)

    So what's the deal with IAA?
    It doesn't seem to have added any programs in the RUN section of the
    registry.

    Does it change system settings? Does it load any driver at startup?

    Does it really improve performance - or should I un-install it?

    Details:

    Motherboard = Soyo SY-P4I 845PE ISA
    CPU = Intel Celeron 2.6 Ghz
    Intel 82801DB Ultra ATA controller
    512 MB ram / Win-98se
    Intel Application Accelerator version 2.3.0.2160
    Joe, Oct 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe

    WonderingWhy Guest

    Excellent question and observation...
    I have the same motherboard as you except I'm running
    a 3.04Ghz P4 on mine and XPHome...
    I'll be following this to see what the consenus is..

    On 16 Oct 2004 19:46:06 -0700, (Joe) wrote:

    >Ran Zif Davis WinBench 99 V2.0 before and after installing Intel
    >Application accelerator (IAA). Winbench results are generally WORSE
    >after installing IAA.
    >
    >Bisiness Disk WinMark 99 (thousand bytes/sec):
    >Before IAA: 8140
    >After IAA: 6140
    >(same results for Disk Playback/Bus:eek:verall)
    >
    >Other tests (Front page, Microstation, photoshop, premiere, etc) also
    >worse after IAA. Only 1 test (Sick Playback/HE:AVS/Express 3.4) was
    >slightly better after IAA. Frontpage 98 was a lot worse (36,500 vs
    >106,000). Visual C++5.0 was also a lot worse (7,660 vs 27,900)
    >
    >So what's the deal with IAA?
    >It doesn't seem to have added any programs in the RUN section of the
    >registry.
    >
    >Does it change system settings? Does it load any driver at startup?
    >
    >Does it really improve performance - or should I un-install it?
    >
    >Details:
    >
    >Motherboard = Soyo SY-P4I 845PE ISA
    >CPU = Intel Celeron 2.6 Ghz
    >Intel 82801DB Ultra ATA controller
    >512 MB ram / Win-98se
    >Intel Application Accelerator version 2.3.0.2160
    WonderingWhy, Oct 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joe

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    Joe <> wrote:
    > Ran Zif Davis WinBench 99 V2.0 before and after installing Intel
    > Application accelerator (IAA). Winbench results are generally WORSE
    > after installing IAA.


    I believe that the IAA is just Intel's brand name for a set of optimized
    drivers for its chipsets under Windows. Just because it says "accelerator"
    in the name, doesn't actually mean it's doing anything to increase
    performance. It's probably sort of like the same thing as a car manufacturer
    adding the letters "GT" to the end of a car's model name, it's just a
    marketing term -- it doesn't actually guarantee you greater performance.

    Yousuf Khan
    Yousuf Khan, Oct 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Joe

    Joe Guest

    Until Intel regulars adds more info about the Intel Application
    Accelerator (IAA), I'll post what I've found.

    IAA replaces VMM32.VXD
    - file date march 16/04
    - file size 928,319
    - no file info tabs

    with intelvsd.vxd and intelata.mpd
    - file dates 10/01/2002 and 09/11/2002
    - file version 2.3.0.2160

    With the original VMM32.VXD:
    - I can turn DMA on or off for each drive
    - my hard drive shows as "Gemeric IDE disk type47"
    in device manager

    With IAA (intelvsd.vxd/intelata.mpd):
    - no dma switch is available
    - hard drive is identified by name in device manager

    As far as benchmarks go (specifically the Media PC Benchmark from
    winbench 99) I'm looking at 7 test runs (4 without IAA, 3 with).
    There are 11 test catagories.

    Looking at all 7 runs, in 10 of the catagories the best score came
    with IAA installed. However, in 4 catagories the lowest score also
    was achieved with IAA installed.

    What seems to be happening here is that IAA gives good results IF the
    drive is de-fragged. And, there is some difference between
    de-fragging with Windows own defragger vs Norton System Works 2002.

    If the drive has even a little fragmentation (say, 1 or 2 weeks worth)
    then IAA performance isin't that good.

    Basically the system (without IAA) consistently achieves 90% of the
    best IAA scores regardless of de-frag status. IAA only does better
    with a pretty clean drive - otherwise it can only achieve 85% of the
    best scores without IAA.

    Details:

    Motherboard = Soyo SY-P4I 845PE ISA
    CPU = Intel Celeron 2.6 Ghz
    Intel 82801DB Ultra ATA controller
    512 MB ram / Win-98se
    Intel Application Accelerator version 2.3.0.2160
    Joe, Oct 18, 2004
    #4
  5. Joe

    Guest Guest

    In my case, it makes booting a whole lot faster. Without
    it installed, the HD chatters a lot. With it, no chatter
    at all. A huge difference. I uninstalled it once, but
    quickly put it back. I only noticed the difference at
    boot up, but that's because it was so obvious. YMMV.

    J- [16 Oct 2004 19:46:06 -0700]:
    >So what's the deal with IAA?


    --
    40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
    iPlay : the ultimate audio player for iPAQs
    mp3, ogg, mp4, m4a, aac, wav, play & record
    parametric eq, xfeed, reverb - all on a ppc
    Guest, Oct 18, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gabus
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    433
  2. TomG
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    354
  3. Hal
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    231
    Courseyauto
    Dec 25, 2003
  4. Solaratov
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    343
    Mercury
    Mar 27, 2005
  5. Joe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    318
    Guest
    Oct 18, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page