Intel HD dedicated ram

I did talk to the Geek Squad about this but I wanted to make sure. Basicly I found out that my Intel HD graphics card has 128mb of dedicated video ram and the rest will share from my 4 GB system ram. Now is it really true that todays onboard video cards have some dedicated ram for the video card? I just see on my system specs it says that 128mb is dedicated video memory and then total avaliable video ram is 1751mb. So basicly 1623mb is shared from my system when a game or program needs more than 128mb of ram?

Since if this is right any programs that use more than 128mb will be slower than the dedicated video ram that is 128mb. I know that video ram is usualy faster than shared memory so basicly if a game only needs 128mb or less then it should run as good as a dedicated video card but anything over 128mb will use the system memory which is slower I think. But I don't know if this is true for todays computers. But I do know that Intel said that the Intel HD graphics card is a entry-level video card. They said it will run games on low settings forsure.

 

All of this is pretty much wish-wash. Your card wont even be able to play CS:S properly... so you can forget about games. You can forget about even Runescape for crying out loud...

Yes they do indeed come with dedicated ram. If it needs more then more is shared with the computer but it doesn't make much of a difference trust me. Intel HD graphics is just for playing blu-ray rips, watching flash video without underruns and basic computer use...

Honestly, try even a semi-detailed java game and watch yourself lag out. I sold my Intel HD laptop and bought one with a GT 540M. I must say it feels like I have a dragon under my keyboard. Yet to find really anything that it wont play, and I don't feel like I should have got a 565 or anything.

Behold the amazing gaming chip that is the 4500MHD: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-4500MHD-GMA-X4500MHD.9883.0.html /not

Call of Duty Black Ops, 9 fps on minimum...
Left for Dead 2, 34 fps on minimum.. just barely playable on minimum. Runescape has higher requirements than Left for Dead 2... I don't know why I am using it to compare though.

Low settings forsure? No. I think not.

 

Well I did play Crysis 2 demo and it has around 10-12 FPS and them in some areas went upto 23 FPS so I guess it plays but is the lowest settings and lowest res. On Crysis the original my FPS is usualy around 22 and has gone upto around 30. This means that Crysis 2 uses more graphics than Crysis even if both are on low settings. I thought that Crysis 2 would run more smoother than Crysis but I guess Crysis still runs the best on low settings. If Crysis 2 has the same low settings as Crysis then it would play around 22 FPS which to me then it's playable.

 

Overall fps is 8 on notebook check. If you want to play games at barely playable on minimum details then be my guest. But it cant perform, that card is not made with gaming in mind at all, not even in the slightest.

 

I was able to move enough to frag guys on Crysis 2 demo but it was kinda hard at times. But since I like the game I still play it. But on Crysis to me it runs pretty smooth so I can really frag guys better.


Also I don't really trust 100% on notebook check since they say that Quake 4 and Doom 3 runs laggy but when I play those games it runs around 40 FPS on Ultra settings and max res for my notebook. Some areas it was around 60 FPS.

 

Which Intel IGP you are using?

Anyways, the intel igp reserves a portion of your ram which they meant as dedicated video ram, it is never shared to others.
My Intel HD is not bad as well, it ran SC2 really well.

Also, the intel hd 3000 isn't that bad afterall.
Review Intel HD Graphics 3000 graphics solution - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

 

Yes I played StarCraft 2 and the FPS was around 40 most of the time on low settings and but sometimes it got down to 20 when it's really graphical. Like in large battles. Sometimes for less than a sec it goes to 15. Btw I' am talking about the Intel HD that was made in 2010. Intel said that my Intel HD is a entry-level dedicated video card. It has gone high as 60 on StarCraft 2.

 

Intel is always going to be 'entry' level. As in 'entry' to using a computer .

 

It really depends what you are looking for in a laptop but GMA's or Intel HD's will never be able to game higher than low at a poor resolution they are made for simplicity of watching movies and doing general computing.

However, I too started with a GMA950 one of the earlier class 4 chips and although it was a pain in rear it kept me going on World of Warcraft during my addicted days at medium with 35fps so I didnt really care.

If you are looking for the old school games then sure go for it Baldurs Gates, Icewind Dales, Warhammer Dark omen probably even Oblivion on low everything and they remain the best the old ones.

My two cents to you though is why suffer and not be able to game for a price not worthy of a built in chip? Clearly you want to play games then get a laptop with a dedicated GPU! You dont need a high end GPU to game for instance the Dell XPS 17 is a great deal with a latest I7 6gb 1333ghz ram and a GT 445m mid range for a small £600 on ebay. beware though the screen is pants.