HD3000 - Can it actually game?

I'm sorry if this has been asked 100 times, but I can't seem to find any definitive answers and I figure you guys should know.

I just want to know how capable the Intel HD3000 is for gaming.

Right now I have a (POS, unreliable, heavy, terrible, never-buy-one-again) Alienware with a ATI X1300m chipset. It's not very good but it'll play League of Legends or LOTRO on low if I close everything else. When I'm travelling, I don't expect it to match my gaming desktop, I just want minimal functionality.

So does the HD3000 compare to that old crappy thing? Better? Can I play light games on low quality? I'm talking MMO's and maybe some strategy games like DoW2 or LoL. No FPS or anything.

Oh, and I read that the HD3000 speed somewhat depends on the CPU. Is there a noticeable difference in performance between an i3 and an i7 (Sandy Bridge)?

Thanks!

EDIT - Oh and I'm asking mainly because I really want something light and portable. I'm eyeballing the Lenovo X220. It's hard to find an ultra-portable with discrete graphics and I'm willing to give up some gaming quality for portability.

 

Wow...how old must that AW be? At least 5 years?

And to answer your question...in my experience, the HD3000 struggles with 1080p streaming online video. So I would say that no, it can't game.

Mr. Mysterious

 

it's not going to give you a significantly better experience than what you have now. get a machine with AMD or Nvidia integrated graphics. Are there any llano laptops yet? That might be a good option.

Basically there are 3 tiers of graphics now. Dedicated graphics for high power, integrated (motherboard) graphics, and integrated (in the CPU) graphics. Integrated is moving into the CPU, dedicated is staying external. Dedicated graphics are still the most powerful, integrated graphics are still better when they have an AMD or Nvidia stamp on them.

 

considering your edit. The HD3000 will do if you want an ultraportable laptop and will sacrifice gaming. HD3000 played WoW decently for me. Look up some youtube videos of the HD3000, it's not great but you'll be able to game on it some.

 

A much better investment: The lenovo with AMD's E-350 APU with the 6630M chip....I forget what it's called. Or even HP's DM1z.

Mr. Mysterious

 

Actually it's a AMD Radeon HD 6310 and yes from my own personal experience it is capable of light gaming. A better option than NVIDIA ION2/9400. I don't know how it compares to the Intel HD 3000, but my ThinkPad manages to run Left 4 Dead 2 and Day of Defeat: Source relatively well at nearly all high settings.

 

Oops, I've been typoing that all over the place. My bad! I've been seeing too many numbers recently, it's hard to keep track of it all, lol

Mr. Mysterious

 

I'm also considering the X220, and been looking at reviews and benchmarks. From what I've seen the HD 3000 can hold its own, for an integrated graphics solution.

Have a look here:

Sure, those numbers aren't stellar, but it can consistently get 10-20fps on different games at high-ish settings. From that, I can only deduce that some games would at least be able to run on low to medium settings. Just always keep AA and Filtering off...

From what I've seen online, and this is just a splatter of reviews and comments, the HD 3000 seems to fare better than the nVidia 310M. For what you said you'd use it for, that seems good enough for an ultraportable unit.

As for getting better performance out of a i5/i7, have a look at this:

 

HD3000 performs somewhere b/w G310M and GT320M levels. Gaming on low settings is a possibility. More potent would be to add a x1.Opt GTX460 DIY ViDock to your X220 via the expresscard slot. Can be done for < $200 if scout for bargain/free PSUs and rebated GTX460 cards.

 

Wow, some great replies here, thanks all. To address some points:

- Regarding the DIY ViDock, I saw that thread earlier and was very impressed. If I didn't have a dedicated gaming rig already, I'd certainly consider it. However carrying around that bulky thing sorta goes against the whole ultra-portable thing. I'd just as soon grab a 15" or 17" gaming laptop at that point.

- The Thinkpad X120 option, I hadn't considered it. I'll look into it before making any judgements, but I'm not crazy about the ATI graphics chipset in general. Still, it's bound to be better than any integrated graphics so it's a tossup there. Thanks for the tip.

- Thanks for the links to the data and the suggestion to check YouTube. I found a video of someone playing L4D2, ME2 and Oblivion on the X220 and it looked fine (better than I expected tbh). Hearing that it should work fine at low settings and seeing some examples gives me faith that it might be what I'm looking for.

I think I'm going to run 3DMark06 on my current craptop and see how the supposed benchmarks of the X220 compare. That should give a pretty good idea of its relative capabilities. At the end of the day, the X220 is going to have MUCH better components than my current system so it should game better even if the graphics card is just meh.

Thanks for all the feedback so far guys. If there's anyone reading this who has first-hand experience gaming on an X220 or HD3000, I'd love to hear about it!

 

^dbrowdy, in regards to the DIY ViDock, that would be more of a home setup. You would use your laptop while you're out as a laptop, then come home and plug it up to the Vidock and wallah, instant gaming performance.

HD3000 will give you "playable" performance, it is stronger than a 310m, so it should manage lower/low settings on games. It might not handle tougher games like crysis or witcher 2, etc. but it will hold its own.

 

regardless of the benchmarks & all of that ... don't forget the driver support for different games & the artifacts, drop in performance & some games not even running due to that regardless of the shear number of MHZs & benchmark scores I guess opting for the ATI/AMD solution is safer

 

That's actually a good point. I've run into a lot of driver issues with ATI in our long sordid history together, and I don't want to run into the same thing here.

By the way, I checked here: Best graphics cards | Futuremark to see how some of the mobile GPU's compare on average. The Radeon 6470M that comes with the Sony S (another one I was considering) is the same speed (139 on the list vs 138) as the HD3000 on an i5. Is the 6470M that bad or is the HD3000 that good?

Also according to that site, it's faster than the 310M or 320M.

 

A gamer who places his hope in the HD3000 will cry himself to sleep nightly

 

there are a lot of slightly older games that are so enjoyable....

on all of my computers i keep serious sam, No one lives forever, and a few other classics installed. its sad that a lot of games nowadays are about eye candy over gameplay.

a hardcore gamer isnt even going to contemplate an integrated card

 

Yeah, this may be off base but if you want to game looking at your constraints I would look at the 15" widescreens. These can be fairly light, are a pretty easy size to carry, and travel well insofar as fitting on top of airline seat trays and so on and depending on the model can have decent battery life. You can then get an external gpu that is far more game worthy and you will have a laptop that will have a little bit of legs instead of one that is barely able to play a modern game now and soon wont be able to play one at all. Again I understand that this is not quite what your asking for but throwing it out there for something to think about.

 

Even arrandale graphics have hardware HD decoding... so I don't know where you're getting that information...

As with games, my "lowly" core i5-540 (arrandale) can play old games, even BF2/2142 just fine. New more demanding games will be a problem.
It has been shown time and again on review sites that Sandy Bridge graphics are as much as twice as powerful as Arrandale. Even Anand said Intel and AMD (with Llano) are poised to take over the low-end dedicated graphics card segments now.

 

Yeah, I'm getting some mixed comments here. Let me clarify my position at least: I have a gaming desktop already. I don't need my laptop to be a smoking gaming rig. I got along fine with my crappy, old laptop until it started dying for real.

My priorities in a new laptop are: weight, reliability, and then everything else. Gaming would be nice. Vertical screen resolution would be nice. But those aren't my priority.

I just want to be able to keep distracted when I'm traveling and bored. Light games like Torchlight or League of Legends, medium games like Rift or SWTOR, that's about it. I can handle playing on low graphics if it's got 30 fps. Anything beyond that is bonus.

It seems like the HD3000 covers that need based on what I've read. I may have to just get one with a good return policy and see how it goes...

 

From what you're saying, I would suggest a SB notebook with integrated graphics, and an IPS screen if you don't mind the extra expense. Since you will be travelling, the Thinkpad X220 may be up your alley.

 

Intel has similar names for all of it's integrated graphics. One system could have HD3000, GMA HD4500, and they could have completely different capabilities.

It's hard to decifer which processor is being talked about because they are paired with the various iGPUs. It was my fault, I got the iGPUs mixed up.

No, there's no doubt that the newer SB processors' iGPU won't have problems with HD video. I thought he was referring to an older architecture.

Mr. Mysterious

 

Ok first the HD3000 can handle some games but you wont enjoy it. I bougt one of these laptops with an i5 CPU and i returned it to the shop after two days.
I recommend buying a laptop with a HD5650M. Like a Toshiba l650-1mt.
And you´ll see that strategy (whatever you play) gaming is much better to enjoy on High details. The L650-1mt is light has a good performance and is quiet if your gaming such games. And if you´ll try out a FPS game you wont be afraid that the Laptop is too weak.

 

Again, I would highly recommend getting an Nvidia Geforce 500 or AMD HD 6000 series chip. There are many low power solutions designed for portable computers. They will be both faster AND more compatible than the hd 3000, and that is really what it comes down to.

 

If you're ok running older games and sacrificing some detail, then the HD3000 is actually a decent performer. I've played a lot of games using an Intel GMA 4500 and ran surprisingly well, and the HD 3000 is significantly better than that. Most games from gog.com run very well.

But just remember that you won't have much chance with newer titles let alone any future titles.

 

Actually integrated graphics-wise, HD 3000 is the most potent out there. The HD6310 in the E-350 is a downscaled HD5450 with hobbled memory bandwidth, but the HD 3000 can compete with the discrete HD5450.

Also, there are new drivers which fixes a lot of problems and increases performance in games: http://downloadmirror.intel.com/20037/eng/Graphics driver release notes.pdf

It looks like the biggest gain will be in the lower settings/resolutions. A user also tested the gains are indeed real: HD3000 Driver Performance Comparison: Intel Communities

Even newer yet to be released driver with a mobile chip this time: http://h-6.abload.de/img/2372s7p1.png

 

I understand the HD3000 is integrated into the Sandy Bridge laptop chips. Is this true for desktops as well? Are there any advantages to this when a discrete GPU is installed without Optimus? Would it even be used in this scenario?

 

Any news on Intels OpenGL performance improvements?
Last time tried my brothers Intel GMA 4500mhd could not play CS 1.6, but source engine was fine. xD

 

IIRC, the one in the desktops are called HD2000 but it'sthe same idea. You wouldn't use it at all in a desktop with a separate video card.

 

Seeing how a large portion of the market must use discrete video cards, why doesn't Intel tier out their SB chips with and without integrated graphics? That must reduce the cost significantly?

 

It doesn't save that much. If you think of the marketing, R&D costs, and packaging, the die size savings are much smaller portion. The full 12 EU die takes 38mm2 out of the 216mm2 die for the quad core chip. The "processor graphics" marketshare is said to be in the region of 40%. The better graphics capabilities of this generation, plus things like QuickSync and switchable graphics, there's almost none that would need a completely seperate die without the graphics on the notebook side, and very little on the desktop.

With the desktop chips, only the "K" series chips have the HD 3000(12 EU) version in them. The non-K series have the 6 EU, HD 2000. Later on, we'll see that change with HD 2000 K-series chips and HD 3000 non-K series chips.

Unfortunately, there's a limit to how far you can go with drivers when the hardware is anemic. On Sandy Bridge it looks like there's parts of the hardware not enabled by the drivers, but that's not true for the GMA 4500.