The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Intel GMA 3000 & X3000 specs finalized...

    Discussion in 'Gaming (Software and Graphics Cards)' started by Greg, Aug 5, 2006.

  1. Greg

    Greg Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,857
    Messages:
    16,212
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Greg, Aug 5, 2006
    #1
  2. Andrew Baxter

    Andrew Baxter -

    Reputations:
    4,365
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    216
    Andrew Baxter, Aug 5, 2006
    #2
  3. LFC

    LFC Ex-NBR

    Reputations:
    758
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    For the unintiated, they don't know integrated is rubbish for gaming - until it's too late :p

    Reading the comments on the link (1st link) you'd think some of them seriously want to buy systems with these to game... :eek: Arguing about AMD vs Intel integrated :rolleyes:
     
    LFC, Aug 5, 2006
    #3
  4. jeffmd

    jeffmd Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    65
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    31
    why can they make such an awsome cpu but have so many problems with a passable video chipset?
     
    jeffmd, Aug 5, 2006
    #4
  5. sheff159

    sheff159 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    77
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I say leave the CPU's to the CPU companies, and the GPU's to the GPU companies. Intel should just hire out nvidia or ati to develop an integrated solution for them so it can be done right without all these problems.
     
    sheff159, Aug 5, 2006
    #5
  6. postmortem

    postmortem Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    -1
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Intel is deity that doesn't want to share profit with anybody, as simple as that.

    But they won't be able to hold on forever. ATi and nVIDIA are advancing faster than they do, so gap between them and intel is getting bigger and bigger, even in feature set. I mean, until 2005 intel didn't have hardware TL unit on its integrated offerings.

    When I look at notebooks and desktops in CompUSA/BestBuy, I often notice that intel GMA solutions have bad 2D quality. I've never owned one, so I don't know if it is common thing.
     
    postmortem, Aug 6, 2006
    #6
  7. Meaker@Sager

    Meaker@Sager Company Representative

    Reputations:
    9,441
    Messages:
    58,200
    Likes Received:
    17,916
    Trophy Points:
    931
    How does that work now that AMD owns ATI? :p
     
    Meaker@Sager, Aug 6, 2006
    #7
  8. Dustin Sklavos

    Dustin Sklavos Notebook Deity NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    1,892
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Yes, the GMAs have dreadful 2D picture quality, but they're really meant to be that bargain basement solution, and they're certainly not meant to be anything but the most casual of gaming solutions (which you could argue they even fail miserably at.)

    There IS one crucial difference between the new GMA 3000 parts and the old GMA parts: these new ones have hardware T&L, which has frankly been the main thing holding back Intel parts. The GMA 950 and prior all had to basically emulate it in software, which is a major performance hit. That's why the 4-pipeline GMA950 gets spanked mercilessly by other IGPs.

    Wait and see on these, Intel seems to be feeling a little more competitive these days.
     
    Dustin Sklavos, Aug 6, 2006
    #8