8400MGS worth $100 over X3100?

Im trying to configure a Dell, and they offer an upgrade over the x3100 to an 8400M-GS for $100, but not sure if thats worth the price or not. The gaming Id be doing on the laptop would be warcraft 3, WoW, Civ 4, none of which are in the least bit demanding.

 

WoW will run much better on the 8400, however its perfectly playable on a X3100 if you just turn some details down and keep the resolution low. If you are looking forward to Starcraft 2 or anything, might be a good idea to get the 8400.

 

WoW will work on a X3100. 2006-07 games might run.

2008 is no-no except sports games.

 

Get 8400MGS, it is really worth every cent. Also, it is much better then x3100.

 

Definitely worth it.

 

WoW runs just fine on a x3100. I'm betting Starcraft 2 will run just fine also considering Blizzard's track record on hardware requirements for the game (it currently is directx 9,exclusive directx stuff is being debated.)

 

I am freaking tired of this crap.

If you are going to game get a dedicated card. Doesn't matter if it will work on integrated.

 

Why do ppl always say Starcraft 2 would not have steep system requirements because of Blizzards track history

what games have Blizzard released recently anyways?
MMORPGs in general never have steep system requirement, this includes WOW, Lineage 2, etc etc.

The other "recent" game they released was Warcraft 3, the game was released in 2002, the era of the Geforce 4 series, so its not surprising even today's integrated can play that game well.

 

Don't count on being able to run any game on the X3100. While it *may* be able to run WC3 and WoW, you'd be playing at a low resolution with low settings, and even then struggling to break 40fps. The purpose of integrated graphics is to provide some kind of basic graphics accelerator for everyday tasks while not hurting battery life.

 

Look at the hardware requirements rumored, 1.6 GHz processor with 512 RAM. I highly doubt they'll add anything more capable than a 6800gtx (128mb of ram) to that list. BTW, the intel X3100 is far more capable than the 6800GTX.

 

WoW and Civ 4 will really appreciate a dedicated card.

WC3 can run on basically anything.

 

Yes it is worth 100 bucks more. Simple and short.

 

1. 1.6ghz cpu is HIGHLY innacurate, it'd be 1.6ghz pentium 4
2. If this is the cpu, the minimum card is gonna be a FX5500
3. There is NO way a X3100 has more horsepower than a 6800ultra, the fact that it is DX10 changes nothing.
4. The X3100 uses syste memory, meaning it will mostly run with DDR2 533/667 mhz on a 64bit bus, my FX 5200 has that while the 6800ULTRA has like GDDR3 1400 on a 256bit bus.
5. The X3100 has 10 unified shaders, the 6800 has 16 pixel shaders and 8 vertex shaders. That's already 14 more...
6. The 8400M GS is way stronger, the 8400M GS is about a desktop 6600
7. SC2 graphics looks SC1 graphics on a real resolution imo so yeah it will run on old hardware

Oh and for the grand finale, combined with a T7300 the X3100 scores a shinny 768pts on 3dmark 05, wich is the score of my old computer ( P4 2.4Ghz, 1GB DDR400 and a FX5200)

 

i take issue with some of the things you say:

like assigning a gpu to a cpu choice (fx 5500 simply because of a 1.6ghz p4 requirement). just because one game has a requirement like that doesn't mean any other game will. i don't know where you got that info.

the x3100 is an integrated graphics card that is very slow for games in the grand scheme of things. very old desktop graphics cards can easily outpace this brand new integrated one. that includes the geforce 6800, which is WAY stronger than the x3100.

i also specifically agree that the starcraft II graphics we have seen so far dont look like they are going to require a very strong system. they probably won't.

 

I'm only refering to an average of 1.6ghz minimum, wich is about a FX5500/Radeon 9600. There is no way a 1.6ghz p4 cpu minimum would be mixed with a 6800GTX.

 

God, yes, it's worth the hundred bucks! The x3100 has a 3d (06) mark in the HUNDREDS! I wouldn't game on that for anything. Desktop integrated graphics can probably handle those games, but not a notebook int. gpu.

 

I don't get what you're trying to say; that in the real world such an outdated, slow gpu wouldn't have such a good card? Aren't the cpu & gpu requirements two different things, so that it doesn't really matter what cpu would actually be "matched up" with whichever gpu? Or am I missing your point?

I completely agree with your point on the T7300-x3100 combo. I have that combo in my Latitude D630 and I love it -- for it's use as a BUSINESS notebook. MS Office & Civ IV are two different things. I think that Civ IV would run laggy as hell on it; I wouldn't even THINK about loading a game onto that machine (which sucks, since if I want to game during downtime, I have to bring two notebooks, but the D630 really is that great for biz).

 

I don't know where you're getting your info from, but that is absolutely false. Any 6800 would make an X3100 cry like a *****.

 

Even though they are different, they still match most of the times. A game that requieres a 2.0 Pentium 4 usually goes with a FX5800/Radeon 9550.
The 2-3 2.8GhZ P4 (released)games requiere a 6600GT 256MB. So yeah they match most of the time

A game won't requiere a 1.6GhZ Pentium 4 and a 6800GTX. That would mean it had a really crappy physics engine while a uber textures/effects engine.

 

LOL.

Don't listen to this guy, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

lol the 6800GTX is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy stonger than the GMAx3100

 

X3100 is no where near as powerful as a 6800 any 6800.
any of the 6800 series performs better than the 8400M GS.
a 6800ultra performs basically on par with a 7600GT

 

Answer seems simple. The 8400 is worth the money if you want to play any games.

But if 3D marks are what you want which seems to be concerning some people get a PC. And get 12K 3D06 marks like my PC does & then realize gaming on a laptop just doesn't compare.