ATI RADEON 3100 card question

I recently purchased a Toshiba satellite L305D with an ATI RADEON 3100 graphics with 256MB-894MB shared video memory. I was wondering if someone could explain to me about the 256-894MB shared memory. What does this mean? How do I expand the memory? I know these may sound like basic questions, but I have always been used to stand alone video cards with their own memory. Is this a good card? Will it hold up to some gaming and if so how hard core can I go with the gaming, for example, Ghost Recon, Battfield editions, Call of Duty? Thanks in advance for your help. Take care

v/r

Gadawg31

 

The GPU is integrated into the notebook's chipset and uses 256-894MB of system memory for graphics. Configuring more than 256MB is a waste. The Radeon 3100 is a downgraded version of the Radeon 3200 HP notebooks often use. The 3200 is equivalent to NVIDIA's low-end dedicated GPUs. I'm not sure about the 3100.

 

It's an intergrated video card, so it doesn't have any dedicated memory, it just "borrows" from your RAM. So with intergrated video cards you end up having a little less RAM than you would if you had a dedicated card.

 

it should be fine for older battlefield and call of duty games (battlefield 2, maybe the new free battlefield game coming out for the pc)

 

my laptop for school has the same card but instead of shared it says 256 MB Dedicated Video Ram and up to 1150 MB System Ram shared if needed.


The card should handle old PC games fine just dont expect it will cut through games like F.E.A.R. like a knife through butter, obviously Crysis is way beyond its reach.

 

will this card be able to play command and conquer 3: tiberium wars?
my ram is 3gb
processor is 2.1 dual core

 

That's a couple years old now, isn't it? I'm sure it'll do alright with it.

 

Wrong. That game will run at 3-5 FPS tops on lowest settings on that laptop.

 

Well my bad, the game was only released last year... minimum specs though call for "GeForce 4 Ti, ATI Radeon 8500 video card, Intel GMA 900", that doesn't sound like Crysis to me

3100 Radeon is I'm sure better than an Intel GMA 900... I didn't say that he should expect to crank up any settings, but on lowish settings I'm willing to bet he could get playable framerates. You only need 15-20 FPS for a strategy game like that anyways.... IMO

 

Those may be the official specs but considering how poorly it was played on a Radeon 9700 Mobility and a desktop Geforce 5200 (it was unplayable on the 5200, the Radeon played it lowest settings with occasional lag), I'm doubting it would even begin to run okay on a GMA 900. Same goes for a Radeon 3100.

 

Meh, fair enough, you obviously have a lot more experience with the game than me. And it's true, minimum specs aren't always reliable.

 

According to the requirements, you're right it should run. I've just seen it too many times where minimum requirements are listed for what is required for the game to start, not for the game to be playable. I think CNC3 is one of those.

 

I have a hard time believing that the 3100 could only get 2 fps with C&C3 on low. If that's the case then C&C3 must have a ridiculously bad engine. have you had any experience with this IGP before? I have a 3200 and play Source games maxed or nearly maxed, Sins of a Solar Empire mostly high settings, The Witcher with high textures and everything else low, Quake 4 on ultra settings, Age of Empires 3 nearly maxed, Battlefield 2 maxed, Rome:Total War mostly high. Those are at 1280*800 or 1024*768 resolution and I normally get framerates between 20-40 in open environments and 40-70 in closed ones. And I doubt that the 3100 is that much weaker.

I usually download a demo of any game I'm considering to see how it runs first so I would recommend that the op try that.

 

Considering the Radeon 3450 plays most modern games at 1280x1024 at about 5 FPS, I have some serious doubts about your statement regarding The Witcher on a 3200. I don't have experience with the 3200 but I know my 8400M GS was more powerful, and I know how well it handled games. Okay on lowest settings, at 1280x800. Even slight increases in video options dropped FPS greatly.

Seeing as the 3100 is about 40% worse than the 3200, I can't see it being comfortable for playing games. Though now that you mention it, I think you are right - it should be able to do perhaps 20FPS on low settings for CNC3. Maybe a bit higher.

In regard to the other games you mentioned, consider that these are mostly older games. It's not a surprise that you can play them at decent framerates. Also, the source engine scales extremely well. I've played CSS on a GMA865.

 

Is the 3100 really that much weaker? I thought it was only slightly downclocked. If that's the case then my entire post is pretty worthless to the op.

As for The Witcher, I'm in Act II right now and it runs pretty well. It very rarely drops below 20 fps. Playing at 1024x600 gets me a pretty consistent 25-30 fps in Vizima, which is the most taxing area I've been in so far. I don't mind the lower resolution at all so it works great for me. Playing at 1280x800 runs ok, I get around 20 fps, but it can slow down to 15 fps in areas with lots of grass or effects.

 

3100 has slower memory and a 350mhz clock opposed to 500mhz.

 

I have the exact Laptop and the same card. I can play Fallout 3 with it so its good. I can play it on the highest quality setting but is pretty laggy. Although my GHz is 2.10 and the minimum requirement to play Fallout 3 is 2.4GHz so I'm not sure if thats why its laggy. I can play Fallout 3 better at the lowest settings then I can play The Witcher at the lowest setting, I figured it would have been the opposite. Fallout 3 on the lowest quality is almost perfect, slight lag but barely noticeable.

My PC: 2.10GHz Processor
3 Gigs of ram
Does yours have the same amount of Ram?

 

you mean core clock right?