GMA 4500MHD - What games can it REALLY run?

I've been searching for information about this IGP and all I can really find are people saying "Oh, that won't be able to run anything. Intel's graphics sucks! Yarble yarble yarble.."

But really, I don't need a notebook for full-on gaming. I have a nice tower PC for that. I'm really looking for a notebook thats very portable, has a very good battery life and is affordable. Most of these don't have a dedicated GPU or even a Nvidia/ATI integrated, but have a 4500MHD. I'm talking thin and light, with a 13.3" screen or lower. Hence my search for the performance of the 4500MHD. I realize I could have sifted through a couple of the hundred page plus megathreads and might being able to find the information I'm looking for... So I apologize in advance for starting a new thread in that respect.

Part of what I'm looking for is to be SC2/D3 ready. I know Blizzard has lower requirements for their games and based on some benchmarks on notebookcheck, this IGP scores similarly to a GeForce 8400M G (a bit lower, actually). I would think a GeForce 8000 series would run both at the very least.

So I'm looking for people with personal experience with the 4500MHD. I've seen youtube videos of people running some modern-ish games reasonably on a X3100. Considering that the 4500 is a step above that, I can imagine performance could only get better. One in particular I'm interested in is Fallout 3, but all I can find are the people who have no experience and base their claims on previous experience or 'what the internet said'. And understand, I don't expect to be running things on high settings. My expectations are running games on all low settings with a reasonable (15+) framerates.

For example, I've been considering either a Asus N10 or a Samsung X360, considering my budget is $1000. The N10 has a GeForce 9300M GS, but a weak Intel Atom coupled with it... while the X360 has a ULV 1.2Ghz Core 2 Duo, but a weak 4500MHD. If the two performed similarly, I'd prefer the X360 for the more powerful cpu. But I'm too concerned that I won't be able to run SC2 or D3 when they come out in the future.

Therefore here I am asking for people who have used a 4500MHD for their experiences. Are they really as bad as everyone makes them out to be? I'm at a loss here.

Edited the title for clarification.

 

Not to be a prude, but I don't think you searched hard enough. The X4500MHD will not be able to run SC2 or D3 at reasonable performance levels (by that I mean >25fps, no shadows, no AA).

It can run 3D games that don't make use of strenuous effects such as World of Warcraft, but more modern games like C&C3 do not run well.

 

i agree you didnt search hard enuff. you need to take the time to search and read. only sayn

 

here is another thread talking about the 4500

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=346686

Does the search function work if you have less than 10 posts? I thought it did not.

 

I've done my fair share of searching, and I've seen people say the exact opposite, that it would indeed be able to run it well. Maybe I did miss the golden ticket I've been looking for though.

Thanks for the info.

 

I tried X4500, 4500MHD, and 4500. I don't recall this thread showing up. Thanks.

 

http://www.starcraftwire.net/articles/comments/starcraft-2-system-requirements/

http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/faq/#2_2
(No system requirements are out yet, apparently)

Note that although they generalize by specifying DX9 cards, that encompasses a huge range video cards, from pitifully weak IGPs to the highest-end gaming cards; in order to play these games, you would probably want to start at ATI's 3650 or Nvidia's 9600.

 

Don't you think that's being a little extreme? I mean, I'd think any 9000 series would be sufficient, considering an Asus N10 can play Red Alert 3 with a 9300M GS.

 

I think you are overstating things. All you need is a graphics card with Pixel shader 2.0 to run SC2 according to that site.
Also, I don't think Blizzard would let the min requirements start at Nvidia 9000s. 90% of all laptops sold come with integrated chips.

 

I don't think that those GPUs are a little extreme; they would be able to run those two games at maximum settings/resolution. The 9400M is comparable to the ATI 3450 that I have in my Studio 15, and it is on the low end of mid-range graphics cards.

 

Oh, okay then. I thought you were talking about minimums. Obviously a game is playable at the lowest settings, which is more what I'm talking about. Obviously a 4500MHD won't be able to max SC2 out, nor am I expecting it to. I'm looking at low low settings with a playable framerate. I have my gaming PC for the pretty colors and effects. I just want functionality out of a notebook, even if it means super low settings.

 

Everyone does like trashing the Intel GMA's, but they aren't too bad - at the very least, they're leaps and bounds better than my old laptop's ATI Radeon Xpress 200M. You'll be able to play a few modern FPS's on lowest settings, and most older FPS games at low-medium settings: Halo, for example, should run quite well at medium settings actually.

I doubt you'll be able to max it, obviously, but SC2 should run - Blizzard would be very careful not to alienate the masses of SC fans out there with computers lacking discrete graphics.

 

Excellent. I've been researching notebooks for about a month now, and I ran into so many with the GMA 4500 that I didn't want to completely rule it out. However the SU9300 1.2Ghz C2D in the Samsung I was looking at probably won't make to cut for processor intense games like Left 4 Dead if it's coupled with a 4500MHD.

I have this chart I made in excel with laptops I've been eyeing with all kinds of notebooks and ratings based on my criteria. I think I can bump up the value of the 4500MHD in it, possibly changing alot!

Thanks!

 

Oh, I neglected to mention this:
For a general idea of the Intel GMA 4500's performance in modern games, give plasma's excellent GPU chart a look. As you can see, the bulk of them (coughCrysiscough) are playable, but won't be filled with eyecandy.

 

Well it should be able to play older games fine without full eye candy. Some good older games that should run well: Doom 3, Far Cry, HL2, Counter Strike Source, basically anything 2004 and before should run with medium or possibly better settings. CoD2 in DX7 mode should run well too.

 

Don't compare systems with low power GS45 chipsets and the mainstream G45 chipsets or low cost GL40 chipsets. Likely if you have a ULV CPU its going to run on a GS45 chipset which with half the memory bandwidth and 60% of the clock speed performance will be less than half. The 3DMark06 benchmarks reaching 900 is using the mainstream G45 chipset and a decent Core 2 CPU.

 

Ugh, why do people always say this? The last game they released was created in DirectX 7, OBVIOUSLY that's going to run extremely well on DX9+ based hardware. Blizzard doesn't have a track record of making games with low requirements, they just haven't released anything actually recent. When SC2 comes out, it's not going to magically run well on every system, this game is going to use some of the most sophisticated rendering techniques, ones that are seen in games like Crysis, and while the option to turn them off will still be there, this game is still going to be handling massive amounts of units and AI on screen, and it WILL cripple any weak PC even on the lowest settings. This isn't WoW, this isn't based off of DX7, and an integrated intel GPU will either not run it at all, or extremely terribly.

 

^ What people say doesn't have any foundation until Blizzard actually releases it. The best way to compare would be to take a look at Blizzard's most recent release, WoW and see how it ran compared to the laptops of 2004. That said, Blizzard has confirmed that SC2 will require Pixel shader 2.0 minimum, which isn't too bad, that is actually DX 9.0 stuff.

 

I heard that UT2004 works well on a 4500. Anyone play it and if so what settings do you use?

 

I hope you realize that the specification of one requirement doesn't tell you much about the overall GPU requirement; in fact, almost all modern GPUs have Pixel Shader 2.0 but that does not mean that they are all suitable to run the game. Secondly, system requirements are often understated by the developers simply to include more potential buyers, without regard for their gaming experience. Lastly, I don't think that speculation about the system requirements by comparing older games together with older hardware really makes much sense.

As someone mentioned above, SC2 will likely be on the medium end in terms of system requirements, although I have a hunch that it will be very CPU intensive. Hence my recommendation for an ATI 3650 or Nvidia 9600 (I would recommend the 8600, but most of the 8th generation is faulty).

 

This is kind of off topic but how will my ati mobility hd 3450 work with these games. Other specs in Sig. At what settings do you think it will run at.

 

Your Studio 15 has the same specs as mine!

The 3450 is a decent card once you find out that it simply can't handle any shadows or anti-aliasing. For those reasons, it would probably run SC2 and D3 at medium settings, full resolution, and with shadows/AA disabled.

 

Yay thanks. But I use anti aliasing in some games and they run smoothly. Such as the game Battleforge that just came out..

 

How can the 4500MHD handle Sims 3?

Anyone has any input about this?

And how much of an improvement is the 3450?

Thanks in advance

 

From
http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/newsItem.jsp?item=236875146

For computers using built-in graphics chipsets, the game requires at least:

* Intel Integrated Chipset, GMA X3000 or above.
* 2.6 GHz Pentium D CPU, or 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo, or equivalent
* 0.5 GB additional RAM


Performance can only be speculated upon as the game isn't released, providing the rest of your laptop is up to scratch, you should be able to play sans some of the bells and whistles.

 

Sims 3 should be playable and 3450 from 4500mhd is a big improvement I think. Since the ati mobility hd 3450 is dedicated, it is much stronger than 4500mhd. But don't think that you will be able to max/high on any game that you throw at it because even though the 3450 is dedicated, its still in mid range class.

 

I was not aware that they were different. This makes a huge difference.

Thanks!

Hey, I didn't make this up. This comes from Blizzard's mouth, not mine. They claim that they put more emphasis on art style rather than rendering techniques which require very good specs, as demonstrated with WoW. None of us will know for sure until it comes out.

Geeze, you're a "glass half empty" guy aren't you?

 

You have no idea how correct you are. I'm probably one of the most philosophical members on this forum.

 

well i'm not sure that the x4500 can run SC2 or D3 or not but I'm sure it can run C&C3 at playable framerate cos even the x3100 of mine can play this game. Obviously, all that x3100 can play the x4500 can play too, for example COD1 - 4, Devil may cry 4 and manything else (even the new game such as Dark Sector...). U can do research for games that is playable on x3100 (which I believe to appear in many blogs and youtube channels)

 

I bought my dell 1545 and at the time I didn't know any better or had puffing away too much, so I got the 2Ghz Core 2 Duo with 4500MHD.

For what it's worth it gets 3.8 for gaming graphics on the Windows Experience Index in Vista.
The score for the processor is 4.9, regular graphics are 4.1, ram 4.7, and Hard disk 5.2

Not sure if 3.8 is low, but that 4500MHD made the base score and it also is the contributor to the second lowest score referring to the regular graphics (desktop performance for windows aero) score of 4.1

I wonder what the very low end discrete graphics cards like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4330 256mb scores in the Windows Experience Index?
I ask this because on the dell inspirion 1545 that was the only alternative to the 4500MHD for a graphics option.

From what I see it's a waste to have a processor that scores 4.9 coupled with a GPU that scores 3.8?
Makes me think that I may as well have bought a T1600 Celeron Dual-Core 1.66Mhz to save $$ without a noticable performance drop...?

 

The series has almost nothing to do with it. I go for a nVidia 6600 GT before a 9200. The lower end of a series are always crap.

BUT Blizzards games are 1) always aimed mid-market, they are never performance hogs. 2) Always well optimized, even when the graphics are good they also are efficiently coded. 3) Always scalable...

Id say you could run both games with that GPU at low settings at about 25 FPS. Just my guess obviously.

 

Games that play fine on my laptop (Acer Extensa 5230E, T4300 processor, GL40 chipset, 4500MHD graphics) include:

GTA San Andreas
Driver: Parallel Lines
Need For Speed Carbon
Need For Speed Underground 2
Cars: Mater National
Burnout Paradise

I can play Left 4 Dead 2 at low to medium detail and it FLIES but turn it up and it locks up.

This is likely due to the 4500MHD having 128MB dedicated on-board video memory. It shares the rest of the 796MB it claims to use. So having 2GB of RAM in my laptop may be the cause of L4D2 locking up in detail. If I upgrade to 3GB (I have a chip, I ought to just do it and get it over with) I may no longer have that problem.

I have purchased some other games to use on my wife's desktop. GTA IV of course since she has a screaming i7-920 with a 4890 card. But also GRID, Dirt 2, and Need For Speed: Shift.

I will be trying GRID and NFS:Shift on the laptop. They require 256MB video cards. Maybe the 4500MHD can fool them into thinking it'll work. I have the processing power with the T4300 covering about halfway between min and recommended spec. They might work?!!

 

I've seen Modern Warfare 2 played on a similar system as mine(in sig). Albeit using low settings.

 

message deleted