1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Intel Modern IGP (X3000, X3100, X3500)

Discussion in 'PC hardware help' started by engage16, Apr 3, 2008.

  1. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,501
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    If you're running at a resolution that high, you might want to make use of that second HD3870. I don't know what settings you used to get it playable at 1920 x 1200, but I bet you had to make some eye candy sacrifices. All I can say is, thank god Crysis doesn't have a jumpy framerate.

    I suppose if this convo is important enough to hijack the thread, we might want to move to PM.
     
  2. sammorris

    sammorris Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    33,336
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    118
    As I said, I run it high but drop the shadow and shader quality to medium or low, depending on the res.
     
  3. engage16

    engage16 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I figured out decent settings on Half Life 2: Episode 2...
    You need to run '-dxlevel 81' in the command line. and set everything else to low settings, I run at 1280x800 on my laptop with 20-30fps average. For some reason DX9 runs SLOWER than hell on Episode 2...

    My system specs, so for all you naysayers against the Intel cards, yes i may lose some eyecandy but i can still play all the games i want...

    Mainboard : HP 30D9
    Chipset : Intel GM965
    Processor : Intel Pentium T2310 @ 1466 MHz
    Physical Memory : 2048 MB (2 x 1024 DDR2-SDRAM )
    Video Card : Intel Corporation Mobile 965 Express Integrated Graphics Controller
    Hard Disk : TOSHIBA (80 GB)
    DVD-Rom Drive : Optiarc DVD RW AD-7530B
    Monitor Type : SAMSUNG - 15 inches
    Network Card : Broadcom Corp Dell Wireless 1390 WLAN Mini-PCI Card
    Network Card : Realtek Semiconductor RT8139 (A/B/C/810x/813x/C+) Fast Ethernet Adapter
    Operating System : Microsoft Windows XP Professional 5.01.2600 Service Pack 2
    DirectX : Version 9.0c (May 2008)
     
  4. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,501
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    It's great that it runs for you. I'm glad you can enjoy it. But I bet it runs better on that 9600Pro in your desktop build. That's the problem with the Intel GMA, it can't even keep up with older video cards. Sure, it plays the games fine with all the settings dropped. But where's the fun in having the newest games out with crippled graphics? Still good games, granted, but it takes gameplay AND graphics to immerse you into the game world.

    I was on Intel integrated graphics for a long time. Before I built my Sempron 3100+ rig with the X800GTO. I had Intel Extreme Graphics 2. The only extreme part was my disappointment after thinking newer computer = games.

    Upgrading to that X800GTO was a HUGE leap in power! And that's not even a very fast video card anymore. If Intel could match maybe the power of the X700, then it might be worth it to try some games on integrated. I think ATI and Nvidia had the right idea when they released their respective Xpress 200 and GeForce 6100/6150 IGPs. Those are a bit old too, but they still have more power than most Intel GMAs.
     
  5. engage16

    engage16 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I just ran these benchmark comparisons on PC Wizard 2008. As you can see, the Intel GM965, also known as the X3100, is more powerful than the ATI X200 and reasonably comparable to the ATI X700... Its one issue is the bottleneck of along the bus to the RAM because it shares it with the CPU. And yes I know it would run good on my desktop, but a) i run the risk of getting my steam account blocked if both my laptop and desktop are on at the same time and b) i haven't used that machine since i got my laptop, lol...

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,501
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Those charts mean nothing to me. Find some reviews and look at the X700's performance vs that of the X3100/X3500. You might get close in some cases, but the 8 pixel pipes, 128-bit bus, and 128/256MB of dedicated memory help the aged X700 pull ahead in most cases.

    I really don't mean to bash your laptop. It's awesome that you can get games running on it. At the very least, Intel is offering comfortable gameplay speeds.
     
  7. engage16

    engage16 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    like i said... its the dedicated ram that's the difference... the x3100 has 8 pixel pipelines, 128 bit bus, 677mhz core... but its downfall is the shared memory, i'm suprised they haven't come up with a seperate bus to the RAM instead of sharing... it seems quite possible, of course i'm not the one making mobos...
     
  8. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,501
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Yeah, 128MB of onboard Vram would not add much to the cost of the product. But it would add loads of performance and make an IGP suitable for light gaming.
     
  9. sammorris

    sammorris Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    33,336
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Engage: Directx8... DX9 to DX10 is hardly any different, but DX8 to DX9 is hugely different, and all low settings looks abysmal - yes, I did it, and even on a mall screen it's disgusting.
    "Yes, for all you naysayers I did manage to play Half Life 2 Episode Two - but it runs crap and looks like Wolfenstein 3D" - this isn't ammunition against our argument, it's more reasons to laugh at the pitiful performance of integrated graphics - stop pushing this argument, I've worked hard to stop people being disappointed by the lies of Intel extreme graphics, I don't need you ruining my hard work.
    Your tests are also completely artificial as they don't take into account dedicated memory.
     
  10. engage16

    engage16 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Sammorris: This thread was started for people who are stuck with these cards (hence my laptop) and want to share settings to make games playable... Which I've found for HL2:EP2, considering many people have had major issues with. Both with intergrated and descrete cards...

    And the test i ran is just for my card, and the graph next to it is the one supplied by PC Wizard, so if their 'artificial' then take it up with them, not me because it was not performed by me...

    As for HL2:EP2 looking like crap, I have screenshots if you want them it isn't as hideous as you keep implying. Its more than good enough for me at the time being.http://image.bayimg.com/jajgjaabg.jpg

    Gaming is about playing the games, Yes great graphics help immerese you into the game but they're not everything. Its about the expirence, pride, and fun in beating the game. So before you keep slamming me about my expirences, why don't you look at your own. Remember the old days, where a dedicated card had 16mb of ram and your processor ran at 300mhz. How much fun was it to be playing Quakeworld? It was the best thing on earth at the time!

    Now can we try to keep this thread back on topic? Can you please try to help instead of raining on my parade?
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2008
  11. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,501
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    sammorris, no way Half Life 2 EP2 was that bad looking. Even at lowest settings and 640 x 480 on my 24" monitor, it's passable enough to play. But it does look pretty rough vs full settings. The new GMAs are certainly more capable than Extreme Graphics. As engage16 has shown, the games can be played at a good resolution with some lowered settings.

    Some people are stuck with the integrated graphics, so it's good to know they can run the games. Sure, they'll never satisfy a big gamer, but they're often the cheapest option. Not everyone can afford a dual core Intel with an HD3870. Trust me, I've felt the same utter disappointment.
     
  12. sammorris

    sammorris Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    33,336
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    118
    The X series graphics are certainly far improved from the GMAs of old like the 950, but they're nowhere near good enough. Considering the prices of half-competent GPUs like the 8400GS nowadays, laptop graphics as poor as Intel's are inexcusable. As far as I'm concerned if the frame rate ever drops below 25 that's a period of unplayability. To have to run the game at absolute minimum settings and still to have to drop the resolution to achieve a decent frame rate is appalling when 1280x800 is not a high resolution to start with. Whilst it is pleasing that Intel have made some progress in the integrated area, they haven't got far enough yet.
    HL2:Ep2 is one of the most efficient games graphically, and is the least demanding of ANY mainstream game I have played that came out in the last 12-15 months. It's for this reason more than any other that I'm still raining on your rather shoddy parade. The Source engine games are brilliant for being able to run on crappy systems without horrific lag, yet the GMA950 is so low in performance it doesn't pass the installer minimums for Counter-Strike Source, which is old, very old. The screenshot you've provided looks mediocre but acceptable, but 20-30fps is not acceptable, so it's irrelevant really. In difficult combat scenarios a frame like that will seriously hinder your progress.

    I remember the good old days (not as far back as most, however) when I had an 8MB Rage Pro IGP with a P3 450. Back then that didn't disappoint me by not being able to play games in the slightest. It is the fact that the Intel graphics solutions offered now are barely any faster than that which is what's causing the problem.

    Estuansis, I think you're missing the point somewhat. Nobody needs to have a dual graphics setup and a high-end CPU to play games, but what they do need is some form of graphics card. I paid a pretty insignificant £45 for an X1600 Pro graphics card for my fileserver more than a year ago now, and that scored 1410 in 3dmark - a full five times what the IGP scored. Think how much that graphics card is worth now. Intel's solutions can play some games ish, but how about:
    Assassin's Creed - no
    Rainbow Six Vegas 2 - no
    Rainbow Six Vegas - no
    Crysis - LOL
    STALKER - no
    Unreal Tournament 3 - barely
    Call of Duty 4 - no
    Supreme Commander - no
    Supreme Commander:Forged Alliance - LOL
    Colin McRae DIRT - no
    World in Conflict - highly doubtful

    This is list is quite long, and ever increasing. You can just about get away with Intel's graphics chips now, but what about a few months down the line, when the games won't even install let alone run?


    We had this discussion a while back about someone trying to have us on that the 6150SE was a suitable gaming card - truth told the X3000 series probably isn't even THAT powerful. The same holds true now as it did then. Can it play games? Sure! Can it play SOME modern games? yes. Can it play today's top titles? Practically none of them, and that's an at all, let alone them looking even semi-respectable.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2008
  13. engage16

    engage16 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Don't get me wrong either, when the frame rate drops below 10 it does lag like hell and its highly fustrating... but for playing the games in their entirety with a laptop on the touchpad, it suffices... 1280x800 is the native resolution on my laptop so thats why i play at that, if i was gonna buy a laptop with a 19" screen you know that i'd pay the extra for a seperate card...
    i think the older source engine, the one ran in Half Life 2 and Half Life 2: Episode 1 was alot more efficient. considering on that i can run dxlevel 9 at medium settings at 40fps... with the new engine i'm running dxlevel 81 at low settings and getting 20fps...
    as for comparing the GMA965 to the GMA950, there is no comparison. its a LOT better card. now if only Intel would put out a decent set of driver, cause right now they're all promises and not putting out what they say they're going to...
    considering the price i paid for the laptop ($350 + $50 for 2gb RAM upgrade = $400 total) i'm sure as hell not gonna complain about it, except when i get the occasional BSOD cause XP does that once in a while...
     
  14. sammorris

    sammorris Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    33,336
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    118
    That's actually a common misconception - Windows XP isn't actually as bad for bluescreens as most people say, the problems are usually poor drivers or faulty hardware. Like I say, I'm pleased to see Intel have indeed made progress in the integrated department but it's still woefully insufficient for them to be proper gaming tools.
     
  15. engage16

    engage16 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Yeah it could be drivers or hardware... Probably because I upgraded from Vista to XP, so there may be a few little issues... But I know a few other people with XP machines that get them all the time...

    But to get back on topic, Intel's biggest issue with IGP is their drivers, few and far in between with little impact towards their 'claimed' full capabilites of the card...
     
  16. manjil

    manjil Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Hey guys after much googling i found this forum n by viewin ur comment i think it is better to post here as u guys have been usin 965 chipset related boards..

    Background:

    i am curently using intel 945gcnl board with E4500 c2d processor.. Now i plan to upgrade to c2quad (after sometime though) n better board so i've to change board n processor both which will increase the price burden. That's why i've decided that i'll change board first n processor afterthat.


    I am not a heavy gamer but like to play some once in a while. The last game i played was Need for speed most wanted n after that very few. So u know how much of a gamer i am.

    Let me come to the point now.

    The board i am planning to buy is intel Dg965wh..

    The chipset in these board is x3000 which is supposed to support many new features. But as i read reviews in net it doesn't seems as impressive as it sounds so u guys who are using this chipset or board could u please tell me about it's gaming capabilities?
    at least the older games n newer like need for speed pro street should run. Can it run these games fine ?
    My current board can't even run some 3 4 yr old games though it is said to have 128 mb of internal graphics memory.

    Thank u for reading.

    I am waiting for reply.
     
  17. sammorris

    sammorris Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    33,336
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    118
    The X3000 chipsets aren't going to be much better. Need for Speed Pro Street is a relatively demanding game. Additionally, since it's an EA title, it has a strict system requirements limit to install - whilst the intel chipsets can address the game's required 128MB of video memory and do support the required pixel shader 2.0 - the MINIMUM performance level required by the game is equal to a Radeon 9500 or better. The Intel chipsets aren't even as fast as the 9200 - it might install, but it'll run like ass, and NFS Pro Street isn't even the most demanding game out there.
    The point I've been trying to stress throughout here is that while if you were lumbered with a laptop that has integrated graphics you can at least play some games, you should never buy a PC with them expecting to be able to. Especially with a desktop PC, there's no excuse for using such a ridiculously poor graphics adapter.

    Using a powerful Core 2 Quad with the world's slowest graphics solution is nuts - why not buy a graphics card?
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2008
  18. engage16

    engage16 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    @manjil: Personally since you are running desktop, i'd upgrade the video card first, the board you currently own has a PCI Express 16x slot for expansion. So technically there's no need to upgrade the board anyways. You have a great processor in there, and for gaming if that's your intentions, its gonna be good for a few more years. But like i said, keep the board you have and BUY A VIDEO CARD! And this is coming from someone with a GM965... http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/d945gcnl
     
  19. manjil

    manjil Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Thanks for ur information guys.

    Will it b ok if i get geforce 8400 gs ??
    Though i am not an intense gamer but who knows once u get into it... It is very dificult to come out.
    So from future prespective....

    How is this card ?
     
  20. sammorris

    sammorris Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    33,336
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    118
    The 8400GS can play some games, and it's way better than integrated solutions, but it is still a very poor graphics card if you ever intend to get into gaming properly. Usually you should be thinking along the lines of at least an 8600GT if not an 8800GS or better if you want to get into high-end games.
     

Share This Page