Intel + ATI integrated graphics - the lowdown

I have noticed lots of questions on will the GMA series play this or that, since Intel is the LARGEST graphics chipset maker in the world (even though they offer no separate chips) this comes as no surprise.

Firstly, rather than repeating what has already been done here is a review on the GMA 900 (to which the 950 is very similar):

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2143

And here is one of ATI's xpress 200 offering:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2269&p=18

This is a desktop comparison but the chips in either should perform the same.

It could well be that this advice is in the stickies but since people seem to MISS those here it is:

Choosing whether you want integrated graphics is rather simple. Will you want the odd game of UT 2004/the sims or other earlier games but are not too fussy about the settings, then get one of the integrated solutions, they save on battery life and cost.
Do you like playing newer titles or are you looking to play more modern games? Then look at my graphics list and get a machine with a dedicated chip, it will cost more and the battery life could be lower in the same model but the performance gap will be huge.

 

UT2004 looks utterly horrible on integrated chips.

I'd say games made in 2002 or earlier should be played on integrated gfx

 

It does play recent games, -Sigh- Or am i the only one who can do this Lol.

Well for starters some newer games support this chip. EA's Battle for middle earth II which was released a few weeks back. this supports the GMA 950. Games do play... Just on a very low setting. If Graphics are important don't get integrated. Simple.
My games are played on my desktop, i do play games on my 9400, but only when i'm bored in the front room, so graphics ain't important to me at that time.

I will say though, if you plan on playing Modern First Person Shooter's DOOM III, F.E.A.R, Half-Life 2, then you won't be wanting integrated. It will play strategy games though.

 

It will play stratgy at the most. Integrated have horrible performance but at least offer decent battery life. Older games play just fine, although I wouldn't recomand anything newer than 2001.

 

Half life 2 is the only modern first person shooter that will run ok on it, 30fps. People slate integrated too much. cause they are too in love with graphics.

I think if BFME II (2006 game) supports it. i think you can recommend that lol.

 

Have you tried the 200M? Come on! I would have to say 2003. I have played Unreal II (circa 2003) at max settings and 1024x768. I can also play SWAT 4 (circa 2005) on my 200M at high frame rates with low settings and 1024x768. I think the AMD processor helps out with gaming more than a Intel would. That's just my opinion. Wonder how the GMA would handle SWAT 4? Has anyone tried it on GMA?

 

I believe the X200M will play Half Life 2 on very low settings playably, so, you can play some of the more modern games.

EDIT: Oops, didn't see where that was mentioned in the article, proves it pays to read before writing.

 

If i remember rightly, one guy amongst one of the forums said he plays it with his intel GMA 900 ? the older chip. So i don't think it should have any problems.

 

Yep the benchmarks I posted actually SHOW the performance and image quality to expect so people can make up their own minds.

 

Well i have the GMA 950 not the 900, but Unreal ain't as bad as them screenshots make out. no way near?! Hmmm strange...

 

Here is your "very low" settings. Seems to be more medium-high settings without anitaliasing to me. All settings are default.
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/3517/hl28mv.jpg

 

Well its clocked a little faster, 333mhz vs 400mhz, still does all shaders in software but it can do SM3 rather than 2.