Intel GMA x3100 / Nvidia GeForce Go 7400

I am getting a Laptop in a few days , And im really stuck between the Hp pavilion Dv6000 w/Nvidia Geforce Go 7400 (2 Ghz Processor/2GB Ram)
And The HP pavilion Dv6500 w/ Intel GMA x3100 (Santa Rosa, 800 mhz FSB , 2GB ram , 2 Ghz Processor )

I just want to Play OLD games and Emu games , Old games like " Fable , Sims 2 , GRANDIA II , And some others " , Will a be able toplay those games on either of those Graphic cards? , Which Is better anyway? (The Graphic cards and The notebooks)

Please help , Thanks .

 

I would say the HP Dv6000 if you can't upgrade the 6500 with a Go 7400, the 7400 outperforms the x3100 but you should still be able to play these games with the x3100.

 

What about half-life 2 or something? , Is it playable on the X3100?

And one more thing , Will those Old games "Grandia II , Silent hill 2/3 " be playable on Windows Vista with no Issues? , Or Will there be any problems playing them on the X3100 ? (Not graphic wise , But compatibility wise , Cause you know , their old so I thought maybe they wont work on new Graphic Cards , I really dont know alot about this , So forgive me for the Stupid Questions xP )

 

If you want to play games - any games at all - I would not get the x3100. It is a great graphics solution for applications other than games, since it does all the 3d for Aero, decodes DVD video, and uses a lot less power. However, based on the 3d benchmarks and the advice of a few posters here who've returned their new laptops to get new ones with integrated video, just about anything else would be better.

 

So you think the X3100 Is not Good At ALL ? , I really want the DV6500 Because of the 800MHz FSB and the Longer battery Life (And it has a built-in Fingerprint Reader <3 xD ) , Really though , Does it suck that Much ? , And Would It play those Old games anyway?

 

It would play *older* games (3+ old) fine, but Intel has consistently failed to actually even think about gaming performance. Their chips just aren't for that.

 

The 6000 is a fantastic laptop, but wait until the end of June/beginning of July when HP will offer an option of the 8400M/8600M on the 6500. This has been announced but the cards are not available yet. With both of these cars considerably outperforming the 7400, and the other improved features, this should be well worth the wait if you can manage it.

 

I don't think the Silent Hill games would be playable on the x3100. You're in the same boat as everybody else - waiting for the Santa Rosa laptops with better video cards.

I would refer you to these threads:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=127262
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=127167

HP is supposed to have nvidia "soon." But generally speaking, there isn't THAT much difference between the Santa Rosa machines and the previous generation.

 

Paul/Inlaw : The problem is , Im going on a Summer vacation soon , And I Must get it before then , My deadline is the 12th ><

 

I would say go with the dedicated card for gaming.

 

But I heard the Drivers Will be coming Within 2 monthsor less .. , Wont they make any difference ? and As I said , Im just gonna play Old games , 2005 and before.

 

Drivers rarely, if ever, increase performance by more than a percent or two.

 

I'd go with the 7400, as it can handle hardware T&L now. We have no way of knowing how well the X3100 will do the same (until Intel decides to enable it).

 

Night: but these Drivers would enable hardware T&L ... So I think its not just 1% Or so boost.

 

If rumors are to be believed, the x3100 is 300% faster than the GMA950 it replaces. That would put the x3100's 3D mark1 at around 4000. Or about the same as a Geforce GO 6150, the slowest integrated offering from nVidia. For playing old games - it should work.

The Go 7400 is 12,700, so roughly 300% faster than the x3100 (as far as we know). So you know it will play older games, and even some of the newer ones. For my money, I would want to be sure. But it's your money, so get what makes you happy!






Greg.

 

Inlaw: Thanks , I think I might get the Dv6000 afterall .. , But the 800 Mhz FSB ;_;.....

 

Doesnt make a difference as it cant be used - santa rosa doesnt support it yet.

 

Radditz: It Cant use it?? *Confused* ><

 

To me, it sounds like the X3100 would be fine. Unless you're obsessive about playing at 100+fps at highest resolution, from what I understand it will work fine. From what I understand, the X3100 plays CS:S without a hitch, and in other respects is comparable to the go7300. So yes, it's underneath the 7400, but I'm not sure it's worth it for your situation. My current laptop has a 7400, and I can play oblivion on medium settings at WXGA(native for me) resolution. From what I can tell, your needs are not nearly that high, so I think you would benifit more from the X3100, longer battery life, santa rosa, lower heat, and from the reviews, an all around better system.

I find either people here are dedicated gamers who can't stand a drop in framerate or they just underestimate low end/ integrated cards. I can't imagine you'll be dissapointed by the X3100 considering the benefits you get back from it.

 

Note that in my link above, the poster states very clearly that CS:S is totally unplayable with an x3100. Obviously this is with the drivers as they stand today, who knows how much it will improve over time.

 

Go with the dedicated card for gaming as noted. If you wait a bit you can get the dv6500t with an Nvidia 8400M card, which is better than the Go7400. There is no word on when it will be available though.

The Intel X3100 should be much better than the GMA950. It has performance on par with the GMA950 (bad) for now though, because the current drivers force it to do everything in software. Once drivers are available that allow it to use its hardware T&L feature (something which all previous integrated Intel GPUs have lacked), performance should be impressive. See this article:
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3555&article=Intel+G965

 

Chaz: After Reading that article , I think the X3100 is good enough for me .... They WILL Release the Drivers , right? xD , I read some posts where people were saying that Intel mey not release them after all , I hope they do , cause I really think the 6500 is better.... , Um , the X3100 CAN run ePsxe perfectly, Right? , I heard the older GMA cards could.

 

I'm considering two laptops...
One is Pavilion DV6670ca which has AMD TURION TL64 2.2 Ghz with nVIDIA Ge 7150M graphics card and upto 559MB video memory
The second one is DX6665ca INTEL core 2 Duo 2.0 Ghz with Intel X3100 Graphics and upto 338MB video memory..
Please suggest me which one's better...

 

Well they are about the same but because of the C2D i would choose the second because it will run cooler and give you more battery life(no performance increase over amd if it is t7250, t7300 is better!)

 

Definitely go7400... there is a 7400 screenshot thread that shows a lot of new games running very well at 800x600...so old games will run maxed out...avoid x3100 like plague

 

TOO FUNNY!!!! The go7400 is LESS than twice as fast as the x3100. If you think the x3100 is a plauge then the go7400 must be a disease to you. TOO FUNNY! and when Intel releases better drivers the gap will only lessen.

 

Comparing the unproven untapped potential of an integrated card against the known and currently superior performance of the 7400 isn't the most balanced of comparisons.

I'd still recommend the 7400 since it has better performance now and can probably pull off better performance than the X3100 even with better drivers for the latter.

 

The point is he recommends to "aviod the x3100 like a plauge" and recommends the go7400 when in reality the 7400 isnt a huge upgrade from the x3100. Its just laughably too fuuny.

Its just another example of someone commenting and posting thier own made up reality on products they have never even used in thier lives

 

Gabroozz is talking about a 7150M based laptop not a 7400 Go based one.

 

I have used both the Intel GMA x3100 and Geforce 7400 Go in laptops.

The intel GMA x3100, while it is does seem to get quite respectable speed and compatiblity for a intergrated card from it previous GMA950 incarnation it still has problems and some games refuse to start or crash.

Don`t expect drivers in the future to be miracle workers as i read some *rumors* that the chips cost $3 and the intel team working on the GPU`s are underresourced and overworked. The chip is a still a step in right direction and older titles seem to work quite well and fast with it now.

From testing games with the latest drivers (WinXP) it is about half the performance of the Nvidia Geforce 7400 Go depending on the game. Also the Nvidia drivers are much more mature and more compatible.

If you want to game a little i would go with the Nvidia Geforce 7400.

 

@IntelUser: why the post title is x3100/7400 ???

I don't say x3100 is a bad card,i said that if you want to play some games and you are a casual gamer 7400 is a better cheap choice...

@Onion...when your amazing super-drivers will exit my cellphone will have a dedicated card better than yours...so please wait...and hope
It's not an opinion it's a fact that 7400 is better than x3100 take a look at the screenshots thread in the forum before talking! or check notebookcheck video card list...

 

The post is old

LOL at onion let him believe what he wants next time he is going to say is that the intels next IGP is going to be as powerfull as 8600GT

 

Does a Nvidia GeForce GO 7400 Graphics card qualify for playing TES 4 Oblivion on my new laptop?

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=92443&page=14

keep scrolling... tons of screenshots

 

This is complete nonsense, the 7400 is HUGE upgrade from the x3100. The 7400 gets over 2k in 3dmark05 while the x3100 barely pushes over 700 (HW mode)... (note the x3000 can get close to 1000 in HW mode).

I realize 3dmark is not always a good indicator of real world performance, however in this case it exaggerates the x3100's performance.

Quote from another post: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=131664&page=4

"The windows experience benchmark is not indicative of the x3100's gaming power. There are hundreds of posts about the x3100, and many people are getting different performance results. Performance can differ greatly depending on the version of driver, and operating system. Also, the x3000 is a bit faster than the x3100.

In Hardware shader mode, the x3100 gets about 700 points in 3dmark05, while it gets about 900 in Software Emulation mode (windows XP, 14.32.3 driver). This is pathetic; not a gaming card. You will find many raving lunatics on these forums claiming they have gotten the latest games to run with 'playable' frame rates on the x3100. The x3100 can 'run' many of the latest games with playable frame rates if you are starring at a wall in 640x480 resolution. As soon as the action picks up, many games become unplayable. There were a lot of posts on this forum about how well COD4 runs on the x3100. What was not mentioned is that as soon as you encounter smoke, the frame rate stutters to an almost unplayable level. The hardware shaders on the x3100 are not powerful enough to handle most games that utilize them. The compatibility is there, just not the performance.

*edit* x3100 cult fanatics are probably going to attack this post and maybe even post screenshots of games in an attempt to contradict what i've said. You cannot argue with a lunatic. This card is dependent upon your CPU, and like the past integrated cards from intel that were CPU dependent, it suffers from unstable frame rates. High frame rates are achievable, but they are very unstable. As soon as special effects need to be processed or new character models are introduced on the screen, the frame rate takes a huge hit. I am not saying you cannot play some of the latest games, such as team fortress 2, but for the most part STAY AWAY FROM THIS CARD IF YOU ARE A GAMER!"

 

I have a 7400 (see my sig) and i m pretty sure that my gpu beat the crap out of a x3100...

 

I know this is an old post but just to chime in, I am a lappy dealer so have access to all sorts of laptops. I've used extensively 3 lappies with a 7400, 8400 and x3100 and will say that the x3100 is only a hair slower in games (games that play OK on these cards that is) than the 7400 although image quality doesnt look as good even at same settings.

 

You are entitled to your own opinion. If you're not going to contribute anything useful then don't. I am just stating my observations in those laptops that I have used extensively. I won't waste my time answering if I didn't think my observations were valid. End of conversation - have fun bickering if you must.

 

Its not my opinion. The 7400 will sweep the floor with the x3100 in most benchmarks. 3dmark05 gives more than twice the score for the 7400 than the x3100. I know 3dmark05 isnt always a good indicator of performance in games, but in this case it is right on point.

Someone who owns both should run some benchmarks for various games. Try company of heroes...

*note: x3100 users are fanatics and will twist performance reports in their favor.

 

Because it's not at the same setting... even if you pit an ATI HD 2400 to a Nvidia 8400M, you won't get the exact same setting because there are something that each don't support (Sorry, I've really forgotten which.. but I am sure that someone will be able to point it out which is supported or not, and btw, it's not just current generation, for past generations, they have the same problem as well) So I wouldn't even reckon that the x3100 is running the same setting at all.

 

hello there...i bought a new laptop and i have the Nvidia GeForce Go 7400...i also have the sims 2 and i setup it but i cant use it because windows vista send one error with one huge ''x''...does anyone know what is the problem or if anyone know how to fix it???


any patch for graphic card or vista about the game???


thank for your time


effie