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

hmm...the NVIDIA GeForce Go 7150M (UMA) may blow away the intel x3100 but will it be able to run those games i mentioned? thanks.

 

The go 7150 does not blow away anything. lol.

 

The 3100 has new drivers !!!! Adds Vertex Shader 3 !!!!
DX9 Baby !!!

 

So...is the NVIDIA GeForce Go 7150M (UMA) good enough for games like neverwinter nights 2 and its expansion, battle for middle earth 2, age of empires III...? Thanks experts

 

I have a XPS M1330 and I ordered it with the intel x3100(i sorta regret) and over the months, I've noticed that the intel isnt bad at all.Vista works flawlessly( i only have 1gb of ram) and i've played a few games:

Half Life 2: Max settings, no AA, 1280X800: 25-30fps

NBA Live 2003: High settings, 1024x768: 40FPS

Unreal Tournament 2004: Max everything, 1280x800: 60+FPS

Unreal Tournament 2007: Low, 1024x768: 5-10 FPS

Call of Duty 4: Low-Medium, 1024x768: 25-35FPS( impressive)

All in all, I've been pretty satisified with the Intel x3100.

 

UT2004 with everything max 60fps is a lie.

Use this to benchmark: http://ut2k3botbench.sourceforge.net/

Please tell me what settings you used for the benchmark and your results

 

He is probably running it in SM 1.1 or SM 2 that could explain its performance.

But hell that looks just nasty! AGAIN x3100 should under no circuimstances be accepted as a casual gamers card. IT is smashed to the ground by any modern Entry cards so please stop overrating it!

 

wolfraider, ive tried it on all kinds of settings. He isnt getting 60fps. Its the only one of his FPS reports that looks suspect. Vista users playing COD4 and half life 2 get about what he reported.

 

Ok fine, I'm not the best at jugding the Framerate once its over 35, but I'd say it's at least 45 FPS, while occassionally dipping down the 30-35.

 

not even close with all settings on max. Use that Umark utility that I posted.

 

I did. On 1280x1024, max settings, avg. framerate is 38, max 59.

 

what were the exact settings in umark? which map? mode etc..

 

which settings/maps/modes are they're to choose from? I uninstsalled Umark today

O and btw, when I play the UT2004 demo, it really seems like its running at least at 50FPS on average.

 

What do you mean what settings? I dont remember, you used it earlier today. You dont remember how you benchmarked it?

 

I put i at max(visual) and at 1280x1024, but I dont remember what the map was called cause they have confusing names.

 

there are way more options than that. I don't believe you actually did this.

 

I swear I did, but there's some options that I'm not sure what they're effect is, like the timemode, or number of bots.

 

This is so weird. There are people with radically difference experiences, wtf!!

 

I know eh? But I'm telling the complete truth on my experience.

O and hey, fellow BC'er!

 

Dont get me started. The ut2004 report was the only one that looked suspect. There is no way he is getting that high of a frame rate on MAX settings.

 

In reality than, the x3100 has no problem running ut2004 at mostly high settings?

 

.... torn.... you can run it at max settings, but you will NOT get that high of a frame rate.

 

noxxle Unreal is a VERY VERY hardware friendly game. You may do not know but older cards such as x600 can easily beat mine x1600 when games are runned at max. that is because x600 has simply no rawpower or modern technologies so it automatically down clocks to SM 2 or 1 and that is the reason it gets few more framerates, but with some tweaking and programs i can do that to my card aswell and than i get over 2x times more framerates REASON see for yourself:

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA5

I believe that x3100 does the same it shuts off for stuff such as HDR lightning and other advancments and eyecandy hence it boosts it framerates.

 

i refuse to believe any of this.

 

hey guys, can the NVIDIA GeForce Go 7150M (UMA) run games like neverwinter nights 2 and its expansion, aoeIII, battle for middle earth 2? If not are there any gaming laptops out there that are around $1,000? Thanks guys.

 

Gotcha. You think when and if opengl is enabled on the cards and they can use T n L the gma might perform much better? If intel ever gets their heads outa you know where.

On a side note... Anyone have screenshots of ut2k4 on the x3100?

 

It has hardware T&L. Hardware isn't always faster. Do you think just because the IGP is a dedicated graphics processing unit that it'll be faster than modern high performance CPUs like Core 2?? No. Hardware T&L doesn't run always on the X3100 because sometimes running it on software is faster. The assumption that hardware T&L is not enabled because its running slow is based off false delusions.

Case in point: Hardware T&L is enabled by default on games like Farcry. Hardware T&L is about 2x faster than Software mode on Farcry on the X3100. Actually in Farcry, it isn't using traditional hardware T&L, it uses the modern Vertex Shaders, which X3100 excels at(compared to it on software).

EDIT:

Dude that is so wrong. Unreal Tournament 2004 doesn't have HDR lighting and SM3.0 and all that crap. So it has none of that to turn off.

Plus, X1600 is faster than X600: http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_3617696__4

But its not much faster. Because in terms of pure pixel processing power, X1600 isn't that much ahead of X600. And it gets much faster than X600 when you turn up details like AA+AF.

 

inteluser can you run some ut2004 benchmarks?

 

The Umark tests I did got 38 to 57 average fps depending on the map. That was with 1024x768, High Image Quality, and 16 bots. Though for some reason it says its a UT2003 and on the actual game settings the maximum for some options are "Normal" not "High". I am running on the UT2004 Demo. Maybe that's the fault.

 

Yes I don't have experience but they should be fine. Nvidia produces downright the best drivers in the graphics industry anyway. And the games you mentioned are pretty old now.

 

Open ut2004 and set everything to MAX, then when you run Umark select "use custom settings" (not sure if it says 'custom' but there is some option that tells it to use the settings you have set in the game).

 

Noxxle, I am downloading another version of the demo and gonna retest it. Even in the game most of the options can only go up to max.

 

just intalled ut2004 and ran a benchmark. Here are my results:

First, I opened ut2004 and set all of the graphical options as high as they would go (1024x768 resolution 32bit color).

Second, exited ut2004 and opened umark

third, set umark options: Full screen mode, 1024x768, 16 bots, AS-Convoy map, "current settings" for detail level, did NOT check the 'time demo' box.

On SW mode, I received 17fps avg, and 52 fps max
On HW mode, 11 fps avg, and 25 max.

Using Vista with 15.7 driver and UT2004 patched to 3369.

Note:
Does the demo let you turn the graphics all the way up?
My settings:
Texture detail: highest
Character detail: highest
World detail: High
Physics detail: High
Dynamic Mesh LOD: Highest
Decal stay: High
Character shadows: full
Decals: checked
Dynamic lighting: checked
Detail textures: checked
Coronas: checked
Trilinear filtering: checked
Projectors: checked
Foliage: checked
Weather effects: checked
Fog distance: full

*If the option is set to 'high' that means a 'highest' option wasnt available.

 

nox, Umark was a bit confusing so I just used Fraps,
I ran the UT04 demo and set the settings to the highest on 1280x800, but note that they didnt let me choose "highest" for character detail for some reason, but my framerate was:

(online play)
Min- 18
Avg.32
Max- 59

(single play)

Min- 25
Avg.33
Max-60

 

Was the game playable and look half decent Noxxle? Any screen shots to verify FPS and what the game look slike on the x3100?

 

Could some others run Umark with the settings as I have specified for a comparison.

 

Note: The highest setting available for most of the options on the video options for Unreal Tournament 2004 Demo is "Normal".

 

ok that makes a huge difference. Turning everything down to normal gives me an avg of 35 fps.

 

but you stated your resolution was at 1024x 768

 

Here, I'll give you the exact details(Yes the Umark sets high to its highest properly)

World detail-High
Character Detail-Full

Everything else that can be checked is checked and everything else with options has "Normal" as its highest.

With that setting and 1024x768

AS-Convoy:
Min 6.79
Avg 38.23
Max 84.62

BR-Colossus
Min 3.98
Avg 57.85
Max 214.68

CTF-BridgeOfFate
Min 7.83
Avg 49.00
Max 153.42

DM-Rankin
Min 10.83
Avg 45.23
Max 181.87

ONS-Torlan
Min 10.39
Avg 41.42
Max 125.66

 

That's funny. For me the only option that lets me set anything higher than Normal is character and world detail.

We are using UMark not FRAPS. If you really want to get your point across benchmark using UMark. It's not hard to figure out.

 

I used UMark but it somehow got a error and didnt work properly, but while it worked, my frames were around the same as using FRAPS.
Besides, does it matter what a few extra frames a second do?
Maybe I just have better specs or something, CPU wise

 

I see your point, but average frames in FRAPS is done manually while UMark gives a base point of comparison. It's why people want reviewers to do benchmarks rather than random guy in forum to do it. The tests in UMark is fixed, no matter what system you are running on, as long as you have UT2004 versions it'll run the same action sequences. FRAPS doesn't do that.

Few extra fps at 7 fps is significant difference, and its less at 30 fps. And again, we want better proof than "I get xx frames with yy benchmark app" when the base comparion with everyone else is xy benchmark.

Law of comparisons: Keep everything else except the variables fixed!

BTW, I have a Core 2 Duo E6600 with X3000+2GB DDR2-800 desktop system so everyone with X3100 should be running it slower than me.

 

I can try CSS and UT2K4 for you guys, I just got my 4GB ram.

 

Omg im not talking about which is best iam not an idiot i know that x1600 is faster but using less complex texture will boost performance same way that u set settings to low.

 

You did not.

Nowhere do I see where you said that X1600 is faster on default. The bold letters basically says on default that Unreal lowers the graphics quality with X600. But this has no real basis and X1600 is faster than X600 by default.

Also you are specifically talking about Unreal and said that it puts it down to SM 2 or 1. But U2/UT2004 doesn't run anything higher than SM 2.0. Both X600 and X1600 supports SM 2.0.

The most of the reasons Intel is put down as a crappy graphics chip maker is because they ONLY MAKE IGPs. See this and tell me what is faster??: http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/mainboard/biostar-tf7150u-m7-gf7150.html

It basically says that in Doom 3 and Farcry that while X3000 based IGPs might lose against 7150 based IGPs in low settings, it is substantially faster in Normal settings.

The biggest reason that X3100 is perceived as crap is because its integrated graphics. No integrated graphics made was ever perceived more than playing 1-2 year old games fine.

Imagine if X3000 came as a discrete chip and instead of having 8 unified shaders it came with 64. Then people would think differently.

 

AT that time i was reffering to games such as Far cry you saw the link didn't you , also i only said that unreal is hardware friendly not that it will automatically clock down.

 

[Sarcasm]

Yeah, only an 800% increase. That's nothing, right?

[/Sarcasm]

 

That would be greatly appreciated!

 

It looked like you were specifically responding about Noxxle's post right above you about UT2004 performance. You quoted him too. And Noxxle was talking about a guy above him.