IGP's: GF 8200M vs. Intel X3100?

Hello. Going to buy an entry-level notebook to play older games (Directx 7/8).

I know that X3100 can handle older games well, thanks to support for such technologies as Hardware T&L.

Is 8200M just as backwards-compatible, so that I can play Morrowind/Half-Life 1/Hearts of Iron 2/HoMM 3/ GTA 3 and stuff like that?
I understand that the 8200M is more powerful, but if it's not as compatible with older games, I'll have to buy the X3100.

 

You will have better gaming capability and compatibility with the 8200M than you would with the X3100; many games have trouble with Intel integrated graphic chips, including many legacy games.

 

GF8200 will be better for old games, especially the ones that require OpenGL

 

Great. Then I get both better performance and better compatibility.

If anyone would disagree though, or know some flaw with the GF8200M (except being weak for new games), please say so, so that I may have time to cancel the order.

 

HubTheGrub, what are the full specs of the laptop with the 8200m?

 

welcome to NBR

The X3100 does not handle old games well, because it does not feature zone rendering. It does not handle new games either because it is very weak.

I don't recommend the X3100 and I don't think it will play any games better than the 8200M.

 

2048 mb ram
AMD Sempron SI-42 CPU @2,10 GHz with 512 kB L2 cache
15,6" High-Definition HP Brightview (WXGA) screen

I guess those are the important specs to look at in this case. I guess CPU is bad, but as long as I can play games like above mentioned, I'm happy.

I have a chance to buy a 1,5 year old Core2Duo Dell with X3100 for the same price, which I guess would have better performance due to the processor. But I don't want the bad compatibility you talk about.

 

Maybe if its the 4500MHD it'd be a bit closer, but X3100 is nowhere near 8200M. Out of 3D, performance on the C2D would be better but in games, it would be worse.

 

I see, so the immensely better processing power of the C2D wouldn't benefit the IGP that much that X3100 would gain an edge on 8200M (even if the latter has a crap single-core CPU)?

I thought IGP performance depended greatly on CPU, but maybe it's more of a RAM thing?

 

Yea because you see, the performance of the X3100 is WITH the better CPU. Imagine with a worse one...

Update: Well, CPU is a big thing with Intel IGPs in synthetic benchmarks, but if you play real games it becomes like most GPUs and it'll be GPU bound. I'm pretty sure the both laptops are far closer than most say it is, but purely 3D-wise the 8200 setup is better.

 

I have an x3100.
I also have a very nice C2D T7300 with 4mb L2 cache.
Overclocked to 2.6ghz, with dual channel 4gb ram @860mhz.

I can tell you that my gaming performence is very bad.

the GPU is the problem.

But if i were you I would buy the notebook with the x3100 anyway, because for general use it will be better. The more powerfull CPU will give the notebook a longer usefull life.

Look around more before you make your purchase, what's your budget?

 

IntelUser: Okay, that settles it for me. X3100 seems like total crap.
Thx. ;-)

Btw, I take it that a Celeron 900 with GMA 4500HD wouldn't really compete either with an SI-42 + 8200M?

moral hazard: Well, except for the games I've mentioned, I'm just going to be browsing the web and word processing. I feel that the added performance in games is more interesting. I'm patient when it comes to waiting, but not lag.

Also, lifetime doesn't matter that much. I'll probably buy a new laptop in two years.

 

No. GMA 4500HD is indeed better but now you got a worse CPU too. I'm not even sure they'll use the full 4500HD, maybe they use the value GL40 chipset with lower clock.

That said, everything else C2D ftw!

According to Tomshardware, the 4500 is at least on par with the 8200. You'll have to get the latest driver w/e.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-785g-chipset,2381-11.html

Hmm. So this reminds me of a friend I recommended to get a 8200M. She says that the laptop is unplayable in WoW. I assume one reason is because hard drives are excruciatingly slow on laptops, but either way, its not that good either.

 

Okay, so it seems SI-42 + 8200M is the best compromise.
How do I know though, that they don't use some value chipset on the 8200M?

I agree about C2D though. Got one in my desktop system.

Edit after your edit: My friend who is offering me the Core2Duo with X3100 can run World of Warcraft very well, as long as there are not more than 10 people on the screen... which there often are, so I guess one would call that unplayable.

 

"Unplayable" in the case I mentioned to you is staring at another char standing getting 2-3 fps.

 

In that case the X3100 performs well above 8200M, in WoW at least. I don't know what to think.
I've watched my friend play WoW with his X3100. He's running around killing enemies without any lag, except when he goes to town. That's on low settings though.

 

Probably because of the Core2Duo though, since WoW is a processor-intensive game.

 

Slightly off-topic, since I don't mention that card in the topic.
Would a dedicated Mobility Radeon 4570 with DDR2 (not DDR3) be far better than 8200M integrated?

 

Yes. Probably at least 2x faster. There's currently no integrated GPUs capable of even remotely going near it.

 

basically both GPU's and processors are crap so get a different laptop..

 

As already mentioned, the 8200 is one generation ahead of the X3100 and has better compatibility with most games in general to boot. It's the better pick if you aren't going the dedicated route for GPUs.

 

the nivda 8200m should work fine ive run microsoft combat flight simulator 3 on one and it ran good.

 

Anderlik, please refrain from bumping old topics - this one's almost six months old!

 

i didnt even know this thread existed. it has answered all of my questions