Intel Graphics Media Acc. X3100 vs. GeForce GO 8400

Hello everyone, I was customizing the hp dv2500, and I read a few reviews on it. On one of the reviews, it stated that the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator supports DirectX10, just like the GeForce GO 8400M. I was curious, is there that big of a difference between the two cards? How much shared/dedicated memory does each offer? What's their shader support?

Thanks for your help!

 

Yes, there is a big difference between the graphics cards. The X3100 is an integrated card, and its much less powerful than the 8400M GS. If your not gaming, then the X3100 will be more than enough, but if you are, then the 8400M will give you alot more power.

 

OK. Also, when it says a card supports DirectX10, should I assume that it offers Shader 4.0? And if a card supports DirectX9, should I assume that it offers Shader 3.0?

 

All DX10 cards support shader 4, but not all DX9 cards support shader 3. The X3100 and 8400 support both.

 

And theres no Dell DV2500 heh, I believe thats a HP.

 

Yeah that's what I meant.

 

Moved to the Graphics section.

 

Realize that the X3100 supports the shaders, but sometimes it's done in software rather than hardware. I hear Intel's working on that, but until then, expect higher CPU usage and even lower performance on more advanced shaders under the Intel hardware.

 

The dv2500t's 8400 GS is powerful. Speaking from personal experience, it can run Company of Heroes on almost the highest settings. I'll be posting a detailed review of the dv2500t either later today or tomorrow, so look forward to that if you want to know the details of the dv2500t.

 

Awesome! Looking forward to it as mine's coming soon

 

Be sure to drop a post here and let us know when you do!

 

The GMA X3100 DOES NOT support DirectX 10. I don't know where that rumor got started or how it gained so much support, but it isn't true! Just read the intel spec sheet on it: http://www.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/316273.htm

It supports "Acceleration for all Microsoft DirectX 9 and SGI OpenGL 1.5 required features as well as other additional features." Thats taken directly from the spec sheet. For the last time, Unified Shader Architecture DOES NOT equate to DirectX 10 support. If someone has more compelling evidence otherwise, please feel free to correct me.

 

The X3100 supports programmable shaders, which means they might be able to support DX10 if and only if they decide to write the firmware for it. Naturally, that isn't going to happen as Intel would rather make a new part later on and sell it instead. At least that is my understanding.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_graphics_media_accelerator

If you trust wikipedia, which tends to be reliable most of the time, it says it supports DX10.

 

That wikipedia article cites some advertising document from the Intel website which does indeed claim the X3100 is DirectX 10 compliant. But it proceeds to list the X3100 as the IGP on the 965GM chipset - the documentation for which (I linked to it above) states the onboard graphics to only be DirectX 9 compliant. So I don't quite know whether to stand corrected or not.

Of course, in the interest of perspective, the GeForce 8800 has difficulty getting acceptable framerates out of DirectX 10 games/benchmarks, so the already laughable performance of the Intel X3100 isn't likely to let you play Crysis - or anything else - in DirectX 10 mode, anyways.

 

So are the 8800's worth the money?

 

The following quote is from :

http://download.intel.com/products/graphics/intel_graphics_guide.pdf

and states

"DirectX* 10 and Shader Model 4.0 software driver support expected in Q1 2008."

in reference to the X3100 and X3500 cards.

Anyone knowlegable on this care to comment on the possibilty of that being true?

 

It does not support it now, but unlike the G965, it does have the support for full DX10 and SM4.0 in hardware. I guess GM965 is between G965 and G35 that it supports DX10 and SM4.0, but not OpenGL 2.0(that's on the G35). Drivers aren't ready yet, so you can say it does not support DX10 for now. Can't say how, but from 3dmark scores and such, GM965 isn't exact copy of the G965, and its modified in some way.

 

i was wondering if 128MB is good enough, since most of the games these days require atleast 256MB.
This brings to my follow-up question. Is GeForce 8400M GS hypermemory? If yes, how much memory can it siphon from the RAM?

 

Not Hypermemory.. It uses TurboCache.. Same thing, really, but Nvidia's implementation is a lot better than ATi's. Besides, the 8400M GS has a 64 bit bus. And a pretty weak core too.. More than 128 MB of memory to that card would only be a marketing gimmick. Of course, if requires it can take up to 384MB from system RAM..
Check out Nvidia's spec sheets for more info on this.

 

Concerning Turbocache I though ATI's method was better because it uses more of a hardware approach compared to Nvidia's software approach

 

So far the posts here have said that the 8400M GS is pretty good. I know it's not a really good benchmark, but what are people getting in the "Windows Experience Score" for graphics on the 8400 and the x3100?

My 8400M GS is getting a 3.4, which seems a little low to me. I'm curious what the x3100 gets.

 

my friends sony with the GMA 3100 gets a 3.1 on graphics,

 

It's the other way around. Ati's is more of a software aproach and Nvidia's is the hardware aproach.

 

IF your loking at the HP DV 2500t andwant to play games on it I would say to look at the Hp DV 6500t instead. Just because its basically the same price ( a little cheaper actually with the same specs except that its graphic card has 128MB dedicated memory while the 2500t only has 64MB dedicated. dont know why it just is that way.

 

Hi,
I know that this doesn't answer your question and I appologise for that. You said that you were customizing your hp dv2500, I'm interested in buying an HP laptop in the near futur and I haven't been able to find where you can personaly customize your laptop, it seems to me that there is only one version and you can't change anything on it so I was wondering if you had gone further in the "buying process" or if you had gone to a special website which does HP customizing.
Thanks for any replies.

 

Have you looked at hp.com? That's where they sell customized laptops.

 

I get a 3.5 with the 15.6 drivers.

 

Hi,

I am using Intel Graphics Media Acc. X3100 ::
I tried to play a game called Country of Heros and during installation , it checked for the system specifications it displayed ::
it required Shader model 1.1 but for this processor it detected
Shader Model 0.0
Can anybody please tell me whether does this card support any Shader or is there any activation required?

 

I believe the X3100 Fully Supports Shader Model 3.0, And Supports Shader Model 4.0.

 

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!

 

QFT. While this card may be at the very most half-decent for older games, do not buy this card if you expect newer games to run at an enjoyable framerate!

 

This is quoting from way back there, but I found a page that may be of some interest, stating that the x3100 is DX10 compatable.

http://download.intel.com/products/graphics/intel_graphics_guide.pdf

This is from intel, so it's obviously got to be accurate... doesn't it?

 

Getting to the current info of does GMA X3100 support DirectX10...YES! I have a Toshiba Satellite A205-S5804 bought new on January 14, 2008. The specs are: Intel Dual Core-965 Chipset, 1.6ghz, 120gb, 2gb ram, multiplayer dual layer HD dvd burner, HD Audio (dolby sound room). It came with Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100 AND DirectX10 already loaded in the bios. Everything runs flawlessly, as long as I keep within system requirements. HD Movies look GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't understand the point of adding DirectX 10 to the x3100. How will it be able to use it? It's not like it'll be running any games like that..

 

The OS(Vista) supports DX10, but the drivers don't yet, so its moot.

 

He is right at the moment... at least on Dell laptops. The newest 1720 driver is from 6/28/2007, and last I heard it didn't support dx10 in that release. But, Even though you don't have a dx10 videocard, vista does have dx10 installed. My radeon x700 PC showed dx10 installed with vista beta 2 way back when, doesn't mean because it's installed that it will work that way.

Dx has backwards compatability all over it. If you install a game that requires dx5, and you have dx10 installed, you don't have to install dx5, as all of the libraries and dlls are already there. That's why dx is always getting larger in file size, for backwards compatability.