Intel Modern IGP (X3000, X3100, X3500)

I'd like to start this thread for anyone who has a modern Intel GMA... I.E. X3000, X3100, X3500, and the forecoming X4500... These new intergrated graphic chips have Hardware T&L and are slowly becoming capable of playing the newer more complex games of today... So in turn I want to see who else has this chipset and the experiences with it. Either with glitches, successes with settings and tweaks, driver issues, and anything else you can think of...


Personally I own the X3100 on my laptop on Windows XP Pro... See my sig for more details... I'm running the latest drivers (14.33.1) and haven't had any issues yet... Just trying to find out which drivers are faster Vista or XP. Which look nicer? Anything along those lines...

 

The X3100 scores a dire 300 marks in 3dmark06. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't mean it's capable of gaming. You should use XP for better performance.

 

I never said anything about it being "great" gaming... But for an IGP its not bad... Quake 4 (using Intel's recommended settings) runs at about 15fps and Half Life 2 (at medium settings) runs at ~33fps depending on what's going on around you... I'm not sure if your remember the 'old' days of Quake but that ran around 30fps back then and was playable... 30fps is a very playable situation... However with the game Portal on XP it runs at about 12 fps and on Vista it ran at about 17 fps... Which seems backwards, but its true... Unfortunately the 12fps is a little too slow to play effectively...

 

They may start to have new features, but as far as I'm concerned, they are pretty much useless for games. Features mean nothing if there is not enough performance to use said features.

If you're stuck using the intel GMA on a laptop... then you might want to look into some older games like Starcraft, Red Alert 2, Stronghold, Half Life 1, and maybe some Half-Life 2 at medium-low settings.

If you have intel GMA on a desktop, then your options are greatly expanded. Even an el cheapo card like the 7600GT can play most newer games medium-high at middling resolutions like 1280 x 1024 or 1024 x 768.

If gaming is a concern then just avoid an integrated video processor. They are not meant for gaming at all.

 

for minimum detail, that's dire. As far as I'm concerned if the frame rate drops below 20 at any point, it's going to be unpleasant to play, and realistically it needs to be above 25 the majority of the time for me to consider it playable.
Bear in mind that Half Life 2 is one of the best performing games ever made for graphics vs frame rate. Modern games aren't quite so efficient. Even Portal plays better than most PC games that are released nowadays. Estuansis is right, integrated graphics chips never could play games properly, and they still can't.
Also bear in mind that the Geforce 6150 and 7100 will probably outclass the Intel X3100 significantly.

 

I ran 3DMark06 on it...
Overall- 415
SM2.0- 151
HDR/SM3.0- 169
CPU 1142(i think, can't remember exactly)...

Settings:
Resolution: 1280x800
Anti-Aliasing: None
Filter: Optimal
HLSL vs target: 3_0
HLSL ps target: 3_0

That was on my laptop... With a memory freq. of 533mhz, 800 is possible but not with my processor combonation... Which would increase the performance of the chip as well...

All I'm trying to say is that this is the best IGP for a laptop out there now for people who don't feel like spending alot of money on having a descrete card... If you also consider the battery life difference, 3 hours vs 1.5ish with a seperate card. Its worth the performance loss... I'm not claiming I can go play Crysis on 'High Settings' or anything but it is "Playable" to some extent...

 

actually, I know someone with a laptop with a Mobility Radeon X1400 in it. It can play most new games with the exception of the top-end ones like Rainbow Six Vegas, STALKER and COD4. Even when playing games the battery life is in the 2 hours region, and when not, it's over three hours. The thing is quiet and it wasn't even that expensive.
415 3dmarks is a shocking score let's be honest. Ancient PCI graphics cards pulled those sort of scores.

 

Hey, I've heard the Mobility X1400 performs a bit like an X1300Pro... is there any truth to that? If so, you're looking at Half Life 2, Farcry, and maybe something like Battlefield Vietnam or Doom 3 at high settings at 1024 x 768. The X1300Pro/X1400 actually turned out to be fairly decent as far as budget cards go. Somewhat equal to or slightly less than a GeForce 6600 vanilla or a Radeon 9800Pro/X700.

 

That sounds about right. It's not a very powerful card, but infinitely better than the dire Intel integrated solutions.

 

Yes. The Intel GMAs haven't gotten much better. Even the GeForce Go 7400 is considered to be pretty decent for a laptop. The high-end stuff can be found for a premium, but the low/mid range seems to be good enough for most.

 

Indeed, gaming laptops cost a fortune, but too right really, they are technological marvels. A 7900GTX the same size (and practically the same thickness) as a credit card...

 

I'm not saying that its gonna outperform an Mobility Raedon or GeForce card... But in the next couple years IGP cards are gonna be upto that standard... Just the performance increase in the past year or so has been immense, its something to watch for, maybe the next laptop you buy will have an IGP instead of descrete graphics...

On a seperate note: I noticed that everyone posting in here is bashing the Intel cards. Have any of you seen/used one? Its a step towards the future of laptops... Longer battery life, higher performance, less heat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA Scroll down to X4500...

 

If they're the future of graphics, then why have intel finally caved and started working on a discrete graphics processor?
The score of these new chips is still more than 5 years behind high end developments in graphics, as is their technology - a few games are starting to need Pixel shader 3.0 now, last time I checked the Intel ones didn't even support PS 2.0.

 

It does support PS 3.0 as well as VS 3.0 as shown in the screenshot I took from my laptop... I have not once said its ever gonna outperform a desktop card, but they're getting closer to being a considerable option for gaming...

 

From the Wikipedia Article:

DirectX 10 support means NOTHING. Even the 8800GTX has problems running DirectX 10. And with a 3DMark 06 score of 1000, you aren't going to be playing any new games. A GeForce 6800Ultra/7600GT gets like a 3500-4200(somewhere in that range). And both of those are not even CLOSE to playing high-end games comfortably. You're looking at medium settings in 3-4 year old games. This is NOT up to the industry standard.

Intel Integrated graphics are NOT MEANT for gaming of any type. They are meant for use in office PCs and notebooks. Discrete graphics are MEANT for games. They have the power and features to run games. It's as simple as that. Intel should stick to processors and motherboards. Leave the IGPs and discrete graphics to the experts.

 

Nonetheless, the card is still a useless performer. Sure it can play some games, but then a 486 can play Doom 2, so what have you gained?

 

I agree with sammorris. You might be able to run a few games here and there. But the performance is so low that while some games may run, you won't get playable speeds in anything new. I'd like to see that GMA X4500 play Crysis in all low at the lowest resolution adequately. Then Intel might have something to offer.

Until then, my GeForce 8800 is considered a necessary and important part of my system. Sure, it takes money to play high-end games. But seeing Crysis in all high(even if only at 1024 x 768 w/ 2xAA) is worth it.

The GMA X4500 is looking at maybe medium-high in Half Life 2 at low res and not much better. Anybody looking at an Intel GMA for games would do best to save their money and get a real video card. Even something outdated like a GeForce 6600GT is a big jump up from integrated graphics. You can find something like that or equal to it for ~$60.

That being said, if you're stuck with a laptop, you aren't going to get anything better. Gaming laptops are expensive, and the video cards that work with them are extremely rare and near impossible to find. A laptop with a Go 7600 can be had for ~$900 and an adequate desktop with a 7600GT can be built for ~$500(barring cost of screen and peripherals.)

 

Decent graphics cards for desktops aren't that expensive nowadays. With some tweaks I can get 30fps on mostly high settings in Crysis at 1680x1050, with one of my 3870s and they're not much over £100 each. I doubt you'd get Crysis playable at any setting on an X3100 it's so slow. Laptop graphics cards are more expensive, but they're worth it.

 

sammorris, have you tried a lower resolution with 2xAA? Or is it just too ugly on that 30" display? My friend uses an 8800GS and he plays at the same settings as me with about 32-35FPS average. I'm getting in the high 30's low 40's. All high 1024 x 768 w/2xAA can be compared to 1600 x 1200 on my Sceptre X7g Naga. I'd use the Dell flat panel but the widescreen res either forces me too low or too high. 1280 x 768 seems to kill it. CURSE YOU 320MB OF VRAM!!!!

 

I don't want to use AA in Crysis as it has a huge performance impact (2x AA is pretty much as bad as 4x) and doesn't look that much better, the AA effect is very weak compared to COD4. 1680x1050 looks dump anyway, I have to resize it to a 20" box in the middle of the monitor so it doesn't offend my eyes so to speak, 1280x1024 for example would only be worse. All high, however, isn't how I run Crysis. I run it at a higher resolution (it used to be 1920x1200 but will now probably be 2560x1600) but drop the shadow and shader detail down, leaving the other settings high. I don't like the shadows in crysis even on high, so I turn them off - it actually looks more realistic because in real life, shadows aren't saw blades, and the frame rate doubles.