Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100 VS. NVIDIA GeForce Go 7150M (UMA)

I am having issues searching here so I apologize if this quesiton has already been answered.. What is the stronger video chipset here? I am looking for Aero and probably some gaming but nothing too crazy.. I am not a "gamer" but enjoy the occasional release..
Thanks,
Jeffrey

 

check out this link. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html I could not find the geforce 7150 in the list, but the x3100 only scored a few hundred points better than the geforce 6150.

 

Notebook Check is a very poor source don't take it with a grain of salt.
The X3100 is much better then the 7150M.

 

I beg to differ, the results for my old 6800 perfectly line up with what they have listed.

 

lmfao @ the x3100. Stay away from it, especially if you plan to use vista

 

There aren't the numbers out there on the 7150 yet to make a judgement on which is better. My guess would be the 7150 in terms of games.

 

I've been wondering the same and I never really got a definitive answer, just because nobody's given benchmarks or FPS estimates for the 7150M yet.

If there's anybody out there that has the 7150M, please let us know.

Pascone, either would be fine for Aero, and the difference gaming-wise is probably negligible, i.e. a few extra frames per second or so, on certain games.
I'm assuming you're looking at a laptop from say, Best Buy or Circuit City or another retailer, that's the standard fare at those places. But whichever IGP you choose, make sure it's got 2GB of RAM (or upgrade it ASAP), and a Core 2 Duo or recent AMD processor (TL line). Anything else is going to be a ripoff when you can get something better at the same price or less.

In particular I've found a Gateway at Best Buy with an ATI Radeon x1270 chipset that I'm waiting for to go on sale, and an HP at Circuit City with the 7150M.

Good luck!

 

someone pointed this out to me earlier using it as a benchark between INtel and ATI

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3072&p=14

as for the 7150m i have a friend who plays company of heros on it, but it was slow at around i was guessing 15-20fps.

any card is better than the intel cards in my opinion

 

just a little tip. My friend has the 7150m and I have the x3100. Maybe it's because of poor drivers or not, but Flip-3D is way slower on the 7150m than the x3100

 

Does your friend play games, and if so could he give us an estimate at framerates for, say, CS:S or Company of Heroes, HL2?

 

Personally I'd like to find out, but no, I do not have those games, nor does my friend play games on his computer. Sorry!

 

That review isn't using X3100, its using 3100. G33 doesn't have hardware support, plus its a desktop chipset. X3100 is a laptop GPU.

X3000 vs. 7150 on desktop:

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/mainboard/biostar-tf7150u-m7-gf7150.html

Well, at least on the desktop and using XP, 7150 can outperform X3000 on low, and X3000 can outperform 7150 on higher quality settings. The difference seems to be quite large.

Doom 3 (Low@640x480)
7150: 33
X3000: 23
Doom 3 (Normal@800x600)
7150: 14
X3000: 21
Doom 3 (Highest@1600x1200)
7150: 7
X3000: DNR
FarCry (Low@640x480)
7150: 139
X3000: 122
FarCry (Normal@800x600)
7150: 48
X3000: 78
FarCry (Highest@1600x1200)
7150: 11
X3000: DNR

 

I just got me a new laptop with the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100.

I am a gamer, and I'm not quite familiar with this graphics card. I played WoW on my HP laptop, which had NVIDIA.

I tried installing a simple game that required 10GB hard drive, 1GB RAM, and either NVIDIA 9600, ATI 9600, or higher.

Am I screwed?

I've got a Vaio, here are specs.

Processor: Intel Duo Core2 CPU T7250 @ 2.00 GHz

RAM: 2GB

System Type: 32-bit Operating System

Hard drive: 250 GB



Please help

 

try updating drivers and doing a windows update

 

Did all of that. I tried installing the game on another laptop, and that one actually gave a video card warning, so I guess mine is ok for now. However, the game didn't follow through on that laptop either, so I think it's just the game itself.

Another question though: Does anyone know if the Sony Vaio VGN-FZ240E is graphic card upgradeable? I know some (if not, most) laptops aren't exactly upgradeable in that aspect.

 

Not a chance in your case, if you chose an integrated graphics option that is NEVER upgradeable.

 

Ah well. Guess I'll find out somehow. Plan on trying to install my main game tonight.

Thanks for all the help guys.

If I end up turning this one back in for a different one, do you have any suggestions? Like I said, I play WoW mostly (aside from my 360 )

 

Id take the x3100 anyday for 3D gaming. The only thing the 7150m has going for it is extra features in the driver. People have no idea how big of a leap the Intel x3100 is over its previous generation GMA950.

Also notebookcheck.net is an AWFUL website. Its riddled with FALSE numbers and inaccurate information. Its one of if not the WORST website to get info from on laptop GPUs. Makes me sick how bad it is.

 

lol. lol. lol.

 

I'd have to agree with that, why the lol? It's not like the x3100 is that good, just that the GMA950 was that bad. At least the x3100 is in the same ballpark as IGP's from ATI/AMD and Nvidia.

To be clear the x3100 is not by any means a "gaming" GPU, but it is an adequate IGP.

 

The x3100 has 8 pixel pipelines that are able to do both pixel shading and hardware T&L. This alone is a HUGE leap. People have no idea.

I tried C&C Generals and it was unplayable on the GMA950. On the x3100 very playable. At least DOUBLE the speed and this is due to the hardware T&L.

 

I could play C&C general on an intel 915gm with about 25 fps

 

Ya with most details ALL the way down and that SUCKS. Gameplay was smooth on the x3100 with all details enabled and set HIGH.

In you dreams can you do that with a GMA900/950!

noxxle99, please stop already. Every time you post you're getting owned. Please stop.

 

Intel GMA 900/950s sucked for games. I can't find the Geforce 7150M anywhere so it must be pretty rubbish. As onion said the X3100 is a big leap up and I think it would be better than a 7150M.

 

LOL Ati x1250/70 is still better in games than both of them but like lightyears away from an ordinary midrange card (that being 8400GT/7600go/x1600) Even if improvement is huge it is far from satysfying. because all the tasks which x3100 can make gma950 could also with exception running Sm3 and dx9.0c but that is ~useless on a such weak card

 

Wolfraid please dont post when you have no knowledge of what you are talking about....

The ATI x1250/70 is NOT faster. Yes I owned laptops with both. Second, the gma950 does not have hardware T&L and because of this many games will not even BOOT while they start perfectly fine on the x3100. Like I said, please dont post misinformation as you CLEARLY dont own any of these products.

 

Yea, I've figured that out the hard way. Just played WoW a bit and it's choppier than my HP with the NVIDIA was. Sad times.

 

I think this is a worthless addition but I believe the Intel x3100 is also DX10. I'll try to find the link, but it was advertised that way in some add I saw for a notebook (but then again I've also seen ads that say the go 6150 was DX10). I've played games on the GM900 and it played fine, if its in your price range (and by that I mean cheap), nv 61xx and 71xx are sad excuses for graphics power.

 

According to Intel the x3100 is capable of DX10 but drivers are not yet finished to support it. Only thing is DX10 will be useless on a x3100 as its far too weak to run DX10 code at any usable speed.

 

You are talking BS now
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3117&p=7

Processor means ALOT in IGP solutions and T5470 vs t7300 can make a world of a difference in games because half of the work does the CPU try with the same CPU and you will find out who has no knowledge.

Conclusion: X3100 even that it has SM 3.0 support and Dx 9.0c and 8 pixel pipelines(close to go 6800) is still a ****ty card which is not in ANY way more suitable for games than the go7150 or x1250/70

"There are also games like Bioshock and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter that require SM3.0 and are incapable of running properly on either of these two IGPs."

So much for your x3100 intelfanboy!

 

Simply too funny!

1. As you can see the x1250/70 and go7150 are NOT overall any faster as I stated.
2. Its 100% CLEAR you dont own ANY of these products.
3. I get HIGHER fps on ALL of those games on my x3100 based laptop.
4. Its obvious the reviewer does not know 100% of what he is doing.

WE have the hardware here. Anandtech only BORROWS laptops to do a quick review.

5. You cant win here. You can look online all you want for benchmarks and wonder as its clear you dont even own any of these products yet you comment on them with misinformation.
6. Thanks. Your reputation is now know in this forum.

 

You aren't talking BS but I see you are new to this. In XP its a lot faster. Go click on the comments section:
"Results so far with X3100 XP drivers have it besting AMD's X1250 in most games. It even manages to run Bioshock (which requires SM3.0) - sure, it's only moderately playable at 800x600 minimum detail settings, but it runs. Now if Intel can just get the Vista drivers up to that level.... We're also waiting for some IGP updates, as X1250 isn't really all that new anymore."

X3000/X3100 doesn't have 8 pixel pipelines, it has 8 unified shader units. Completely different. It's pixel pipeline equivalent is 1.6. X1270/X1250 only supports SM 2.0, so it can't run those games either. X3000/X3100 however, will run those games on XP, and performance will be on par.

 

Sorry if I started a whole thread of flaming, I just wanted to see if the laptop I bought was worth it, and if I could add a better graphics card to it.

My FPS on WoW regularly is about 20-30, when on my HP I had about 30-50 regularly. Playable, but not as smooth as before.

I'll admit, I don't know much about laptops or graphics or anything of the sort, thus why when I did a search, this forum came up and I came here and just decided to post.

I apologize for any inconvenience I've caused anyone. =\

 

Well, the flaming all started because integrated graphics based systems have very different experiences depending on the system spec. I don't think it was worth getting a new laptop for you, unless your laptop is really 3-4 years old or older, integrated will be a downgrade. They barely outperformed the X300, which is a value GPU that came out 3 years ago. Surely, the new IGPs are faster, but not too much.

 

I thought Ram and CPU were the only specs that mattered concerning the x3100's performance.

 

Actually there is a thread about x3100 performance and no i still hold on(not believe) that the Intel solutions are not the best IGP for games!
Maybe you had a good experience with your x3100 and bad with the ati and nvidia but as you self pointing out you are clearly basing it on your own experience and not facts which is of no absolute value for me, anyways i dont if you want still hold on and discuss about it but my point was that you and many others are WAAAAAAAAAYY overrating this cards performance.

 

Wolfraider i think he has a "hd x3100 ultra gtx onion version"

@Onion why dont'you post some shots with fraps with some games so we can realize the unleashed power behind x3100 ?
Also You are giving wrong information to people who wants a new laptop that - reading your words -believe that x3100 is a good card and compare it to a 8600 for example in old posts...

An IGP gamer-fanboy.....a non sense...

 

Lol "onion" edition Unless somehow Intel has made a contract with Nvidia than i see not any chance in future that their integrated solutions or the fusion projects are going to be revolutionary or in other terms better than AMD and Nvidia. You know VIA makes chips too but their chips cant even launch Aero. If you compare where GMA x3100 stands it is far far far away that it could in therms show to be in GFX competiton you need to go more back in time than 9800 pro/ FX5900 to meet x3100 performance and raw power.

 

I just did post about X3100 on XP from Anandtech. Go read comments section on that review that you linked. It may not be ahead, but its not behind the ATI/Nvidia IGPs.

Also, what does the following review say??

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/mainboard/biostar-tf7150u-m7-gf7150.html

 

I would rather live with go6100 than x3100...why? Intel graphics arent even close to nVidia in terms of customizability..

nVidia has a unified architecture thingy...u can use one set of drivers on old graphic cards too..


so x3100 must be better performer but there are other issues also

 

I don't understand why you're buying a Sony for gaming. Sony's the worst brand for gaming to be honest. Not a single decent card.
Return that thing, if you want to wait, wait till they stick the 8800M GTX in a 15.4" notebook like Alienware is planning to do, if you're short on cash, a low configuration Dell Inspiron 1530 with 8600M GT will do, or an Acer Aspire 5920. That Acer is dirt cheap now,
http://www.ncixus.com/products/25397/LX.AGW0X.148/Acer/
Doesn't get much better than that. HD DVD included. The G1S I'm using comes in at about $300 more than that.

 

I just recently found out that I am getting a new Dell D630 Laptop for work. (Upgraded to have 3GB RAM) Now keep in mind,.. when gaming, I use a Desktop.

The only reason I play World of Warcraft on my laptop is for when I am traveling for work - which I do a quite a bit, actually.

I've read all the commentary in this forum - typical forum where people flame all over the place - but I still have a couple of questions/points:

1) I currently have a Dell D610 - what kind of performance improvement should I see in this new laptop?

2) Doesn't your internet connection speed dictate a lot of Frames Per Second (FPS) rates?

I run anywhere from 45-70 FPS on my desktop when I am at home. (I have an upgraded 10MB/Sec internet connection). The thing that dictates my FPS more than anything is server lag when a TON of people are playing World of Warcraft. - like... some mornings when I am running around online by myself... my FPS are consistently 60-70 FPS, with 30-40 Millisecond lag. On a Friday night at peak usage,.. in an instance, on the same internet connection and computer,.... this drops to 15-20 FPS, with 200-300MS lag.

Comments?

 

As a current X3100 owner I say grab the NVidia card. Intel is doing a horrible job with drivers for the X3100 right now. Onion, you obviously havn't used many different video card options before if you think the X3100 is as good as you say it is.

The X3100 doesn't even have properly implemented hardware T & L with the current drivers (so you're wrong in your posts Onion). And the performance is so bad in games that forcing software T & L (running pretty much straight from the CPU alone) provides better fps readings in most games.

The X3100 does have quite a bit of potential though, but that is if AND when Intel decides to provide decent drivers enabling hardware T & L and better optimization.

 

Okay.

It does have hardware T&L enabled, and its faster, but only on XP. On Vista, its much worse. So it depends on which OS you are running at.

And BTW:
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3117

Jarred Walton(the reviewer from Anandtech) says on the comments section on Page 2:
"
For what it's worth, X3100 on XP may diminish AMD's "bright spot" even further. But of course, any discrete mobile GPU is still an order of magnitude faster. Results so far with X3100 XP drivers have it besting AMD's X1250 in most games. It even manages to run Bioshock (which requires SM3.0) - sure, it's only moderately playable at 800x600 minimum detail settings, but it runs. Now if Intel can just get the Vista drivers up to that level.... We're also waiting for some IGP updates, as X1250 isn't really all that new anymore."

so its at least up to AMD's IGP. And unlike the AMD one, it runs games like Bioshock(albeit not very fast) because it has full support for SM3.0.

 

I thought they were still having Hardware T&L problems to where they weren't enabled...or maybe they're enabled but just don't help out any. I'm running on Vista right now (and it seems the Vista support is much worse than the XP support at this time). But it still doesn't make sense to where software T&L gives me better performance than hardware T&L. Is this the case in XP as well? Either way I still say get the Nvidia card.

 

Hardware T&L gives better frames per second in situations where its very demanding to shaders. For example, a test in 3dmark01(a really old benchmark but just to illustrate...), software mode is faster than hardware mode, except some shader intense tests like Nature. The scores for nature is only 20% better or so(24.9 vs 20 fps) for hardware compared to software, but when you watch the benchmark you'll notice a bigger difference. That difference is that while software T&L will achieve higher max fps(50-60 fps in certain cases), the minimum fps is also much lower, dropping to 6-7 fps. Hardware T&L will give you stable frame rates, while the max fps isn't high(30-35 fps), the minimum fps don't really go down below 20 often.

You can also notice that in Age of Empires 3. Run the game in both modes, make sure you get to a point where you have ships, and also an enemy ship to fight against. Without the ships, hardware T&L is only 10-15% faster for me than software. But software mode is where it gets laggy when the ships are attacking each other. Software mode can go from average 15-20 fps at 1024x768 everything High, to 3-4 frames and dropping when ships are firing. In Hardware, it'll get over 10 fps, 9-12 fps I'd say. I think from my previous tests I saw software mode drop to 2-3 fps, so you can see where hardware benefits.

Either the OS or the driver is having problems so its slower in games with hardware on Vista, its not true in all cases but in many cases it seems to be true.

 

You guys all crack me up.

If you are running at 2-4 FPS,... I'd say you got 3 possible problems:

1) Your circa 1997 IBM 386 computer needs an upgrade.

2) Your analog modem needs to be retired.

3) You are playing a game where the service provider has hardware issues.

You guys keep slicing hairs on Video Card 1 vs. Video Card 2,... but is that really the issue(s)?????

 

Hello, I am new here so I really do not know much.

I came across this discussion while researching on my Laptops specs...

I own an HP Pavilion 2610us Entertainment Notebook, which contains an NVidia Geforce Go 7150M Graphics card, 1 GB Ram (Upgrading to 2GB later this month), AMD Turion64x2 processor, 140GB HDD.

My girlfriend has this one as well and I am curious to know if Viva Pinata will be to run at all on this... she doesn't care if it looks all high def, she just wants it to look decent and actually be playable.

I saw Doom3 ran at low settings so I am hoping there is a chance.

Thanks in advance.

 

Hey guys, I am wondering if the NVIDIA GeForce Go 7150M (UMA) would work for neverwinter nights 2 and its expansion, battle for middle earth 2, age of empires III...? Thanks.

oh this is the laptop I am thinking about getting.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...=product&tab=2&id=1186007267495#productdetail

 

The Nvidia 7150 integrated blows away the Intel X3100.