Counterstrike: source intel vs ati integrated graphics

I know that counterstrike source can run on either intel's or ati's x200 ingrated graphics cards in low detail, but is there much difference between the two in terms of framerates and graphical abilities specifically for this game?

I'm considering buying an ultraportable 12" laptop, and this or warcraft3 are really the only games I ever play on PC.

cheers

 

The intel video card is crap even against the 200m, AFAIK. If you considering any amount of gaming, you might want to pick up the M1210 with a 7400Go though.

 

Probly the best 100$ you ll have invested in your laptop if you plan on any amount of gaming.

Otto.

 

theres quite a bit of difference between the x200 and GMA of intel though not a significant difference it is somewhat noticeble

 

thanks for your comments about the dell m1210, but I will be mostly using the laptop for travel and working purposes, not gaming, and AFAIK the dell is a bit of a beast with the 8cell battery, weighing in at 2.2kg, extra thickness, and shorter battery life compared to other ultraportables on offer. Secondly, I'm buying in the UK, and the DELL is considerably more expensive with the dedicated graphics card, though granted, it is powerful.

Thanks for the responses, but does anyone have any specific figures?

 

Consider the difference between the GMA950 and the X200M as "unplayable framerates" and "playable framerates" in newer (not the latest) games. The Intel cards are simply not designed for gaming and should be avoided at all costs for 3D tasks.

If you don't have the extra $$ now, then wait until you do and get the Go7400 in that XPS M1210. Well worth the cost.

 

7400 should be able to run CS:S at medium settings well...

 

I know 7400 can play CS:S well, and that integrated cards were not designed for gaming. But I've also heard that CS:S is quite integrated graphics friendly.

If the M1210 was lighter and less thick, then I'd definitely consider it, but unfortunately it is a brick, and over here it's an expensive brick!

 

You do know the GMA cannot actually play CS:S at all?

Unless, possbily, you butcher it into Dx7 mode on all ultra low details, but I don't know if it will work even then.

The X200 can crank out medium settings at about 30fps for CS:S, they are the results I got using a shared X200 with slow 266mhz memory.]

The x200 is bad but it is much better then the GMA

 

what is better ati x200 or ati x1100 or nVidia 6100? Some notbooks in the UK are supporting the ati x1100 (mainly Acer and Asus)

EDIT: I need best performance for counter Strike Source as well

 

They are all more or less the same - the X1100 might pull ahead of the x200 slightly. But to be honest, I'd just go with whichever is cheapest - none of them are good for games, but you'll get by on lowish settings on Counter Strike Source.

 

Actually, you should be fine at low/med settings with the intel. It worked for me, then I switched to a Gefore go 7200 and I got all high settings at 1024x768 with 4xaf and I always get 40+ fps. So in conclusion the intel gma will work, but the ati 200m will to. It depends how much more money the ati card is. If it is like 100 dollars more not worth it. But if is is like 10-50 dollars more, I say it is totally worth it.

 

All of your posts so far on this forum have been wildly exaggerated.

Intel GMA running CS:S at "low/med"? It can barely get a steady fps on low settings in directx 7 mode, let alone "low/med" settings...

Geforce 7200 running Source at high settings with 4x AF at 40fps? An ever bigger

I see in another thread you're claiming the 7200 is running Prey at high with "All eye candy on" and Battlefield 2 at medium to high.

This must be a very magical laptop you own.

 

i want a magical laptop too!!!!!!!!! one that can make me fly, please get one for me where you got yours lappy286portable, please?
If its not too much, i want an upgrade from regular magicmto ice magic, then my laptop would be ubermagical. And it would freeze the world and conquor all other laptops
how much would the upgrade cost?

 

Erm let's try to keep this on-topic. Whether he is exaggerating or not, he can still post although some proof wouldn't be that much to ask for. Thanks guys.

 

I've actually played CS: Source on a "Extreme" Graphics 2 and it "works". It was at the very lowest resolution and lowest settings though and we were only playing over LAN. It was "playable" although not smooth. The game wasn't very good visually at all. It should be noted that this is a desktop 865G so it'll be faster than notebook versions and we only use that computer as a host for games now.

The funny thing is that Intel claims that the Mobile GMA 950 crashes in Half Life 2 while they claim that the older Mobile GMA 900 runs fine. Strange. Still when Intel tells you there own product won't run Half Life 2 and I'm guessing by extension CS: Source, it's better not to risk it. Intel has just release new 14.25 drivers, but there's no guarantee that'll help. (Off topic but those 14.25 finally adds support for Pixel Shader 3.0 on the GMA X3000 so maybe we'll finally see some performance increase there. No VS or T&L though.)

 

Why don't you just play the original cs?

 

CSS plays Great on my setup..i get any where from 30-60fps in 1024x768 everything on high Depending on the Area.

 

Yes but you have a X1400 which is a good card and much better then the 7200

 

I never said the gma 900 can play cs:s, I said quite the opposite. It can't even at the lowest settings. And why would I want to pull all these numbers out of my ass? Just to be uber cool? No, Im just informing people what it could to. And when i said prey at med/high that was at 640x480. And, bf2 does run with some settings at high most at medium and 1 or 2 at low. I can run CS:S at 1024x768 at 40+ fps. I won't just pull numbers out of my ass, for what would I do that? The 7200 is a cabable card and it matches the x1300. I would prove it to you, but I don't have a camera, I could upload some picutres from my Razr, if that is really necessary. But I don't want to get in a war with you havok, from ally our posts, I have come to the conclusion that you are intelligent and know your stuff. I wouldn't want to start throwing online fists.

 

If you game with integrated, stick with 2D games ;/

 

my friend has the gma card and in lowest resolution and every thing dx 7 mode and on low it still only gets 15 fps max! go with x200m at least then at thoughs settings you get get 30-40

 

I will speak no more.

And yes sorry my original post was a bit patronizing sorry...

 

I have a GMA 950 on my lappy (totally regret) but with counterstirke source I can muster 2fps MAX usually about 1fps though.

 

I think I was talking about HL2. But if not, my mistake, because in every other post I say the gma900 can play hl2 but not cs:s

 

Are you talking about single play half life 2 or Half-Life 2 deathmatch.

To my experience hl2 dm runs alot worse than the game. On mine and a mates desktop systems.

 

Single Play