Intel X3100 ok for gaming?

I'm wanting to be able to play games like Call of Duty and Counter Strike Source. Can this intigrated graphics card chip thing handle these types of games?

 

I think for those games, it will run them fine.

 

ABSOLUTELY NO WAY(caps locks was used purposely!)
I am using this card and it can barely run 1.6 without fps dropping everytime you turn on the flashlight. In Source it is almost unplayable!



Get a dedicated graphics card for gaming, not the intel x3100

 

I just saw that it is possible to upgrade to the 128 NVIDIA QUADRO NVS 135M graphics card... This any better? Could it handle the games?

 

The NVS 135M is a better graphics card, not high end, but a decent mid-ranger performer. Either the x3100 or the 135m should be able to handle those games on low settings.

 

get the nvidia, it is much better and it is dedicated memory as well.

 

you must be running the old drivers, try the new pre-beta drivers that enable hardware vertex shaders (only available for XP right now though)
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=128777

 

Even with the updated X3100 drivers, you'll find your ability to play CS:S extremely underwhelming. As far as integrated graphics go, it's not that great, and even the poor performance dedicated cards such as the X1400 or go 7300 would be a much better choice. The NVIDIA 135M isn't a gaming card in design, but it's based off of one, and would definately be a better choice.

Modern games require a fair amount of graphics power, even on lower settings, and the X3100 simply isn't any good. Intel also has a poor service track record compared to competitors ATi and NVIDIA.

 

You can run Counterstrike 1.6 on X3100 if you want. It's still a classic.

 

Thx for all your help. I've got one more card to ask about. The ATI Mobility Fire GL V5250 256MB . Any good?

 

If you are going to game do not get any integrated card.

 

That's a good card. It's not specifically meant for gaming, but it has the power and you can get gaming drivers for it. It's a better option than the others you've looked at. (It's based on the Mobility Radeon x1700, if that's any help.)

 

By the time I get done with all these questions I'm going to be a genius when it comes to graphics cards. lol. Ok I'm really liking this Latitude D830 with the 256MB NVIDIA® Quadro NVS 140M graphics card. If its any good this is the way I'm going to go. Could it run Counter Strike pretty well? Thx again for all your help.

 

Here's a tip:
Ignore ALL integrated graphic cards, ATI Mobility Fire GL and Nvidia Quardo Mobile graphic cards.

Get an X1600, X1700, GF Go 7600, GF Go 7700, GF Go 8600GS/GT. I'm assuming you only want the video card for gaming.

 

however intergrated are fine for games but don;t expect good graphics.....
if you are just playing games like few years old like 1 year.. it would be fine
but get away from intel 950 graphics.... i can play most of games fairly with my integrated.. X1600 etc is future proof and can play most of games in mmid or high. so if you really want to play recent games you should get those

 

Yes I'm wanting it for gaming. I guess I just thought that the 256 Nvidia Quadro wasnt integrated. I assumed that inegrated cards were like the Intel ones.

 

Damn it. Just ignore ALL integrated graphic cards. They're all crap. It's obvious AtParker is a casual or probably an occassional gamer, low graphic settings just won't do. And it's not just craptacular graphics, even with low graphics settings you might suffer horrible framerates.

And ATI Fire GL and Nvidia Quadro cards suck for games out of the box. AtParker seems to be illiterate when it comes to computer configurations so he'll probably end up breaking his laptop while trying to use different BIOS versions or drivers that are optimized for the cards which the Fire GL and Quadro were based on. Don't get Fire GL or Quadro cards unless you're doing CAD.

@ AtParker

Trust me. Those integrated graphic cards are pure crap for gaming. And don't be lazy and read this thread first. You should check the sticky threads first before posting. Here's the link: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568

If you want to run the latest games at medium to high settings, get the "Performance" video cards. Low-medium settings, get the "Mid-Range" video cards. Ignore the integrated or low-end video cards. It costs just a bit more to get a laptop with a mid-range or performance GPU.

Just a note: I'm using a Geforce Go 6600. Just check my sig for my laptop's specs. I'm running Need for Speed Carbon and Command & Conquer 3 with high settings at 1280x960 and Company of Heroes with high settings at 1024x768. All of them run smoothly with barely any slowdown. So I'm expecting the newer models such as the Geforce Go 7600, Mobility Radeon X1600 and the like to run them even better. And don't even think of getting those 17" behemoths with ****ed up GPUs like the 7950GTX unless you're planning on running games at 1920x1200 resolution, maximum settings and full HDR+AA; which I say is a total overkill.

Now stop posting unless a query hasn't been answered or the answer isn't obvious.

 

Thx for your help man. I was only wondering about those cards I listed b/c I really like the design and size of the Latitude series laptops and those are the cards they offered with them. I'll keep looking for some more options with non-integrated cards. Thanks

 

Out of the box, an NVS 140m or a FireGL v5250 will run games fine. Even with the included drivers, either will be fine for your needs. However, I agree that if you really want to game on high levels, you should consider looking at a gaming notebook with a true performance graphics card, such as the Asus G1s, the Compal IFL90 (Sager NP2090), or the Asus S96s.

 

They will run the games fine, yes. But, out of the box, they won't run the games as good as the cards they were based on. What I'm saying is why would I get a Fire GL V5200 that's based on the X1600 when an X1600 will run games better out of the box? And I'm still not taking into account that most CAD-optimized GPUs such as the Fire GL and Quadro are slightly more expensive than their "ordinary" counterparts.

 

The difference on the cards he listed has been tested at most 5-10% performance loss due to the OpenGL optimized drivers. That's not a significant enough difference to warrant getting a consumer machine which won't have nearly the quality of either the Thinkpad or the Latitude. Since the OP likes those laptops as a whole, the graphics cards certaintly shouldn't be a deal-breaker as they are on roughly the same level as their consumer counterparts.

 

That still doesn't justify why I should get those CAD-optimized GPUs for my gaming needs when I don't even use CAD software. Why be unpractical?

 

Well if this is the case, then I suppose the Latitude line of computers are out of the question. Any idea on a 1500 budget, light notebook that has these kinda GPU's?

 

It's not unpractical. If you want a high-quality notebook, and don't mind not having top-of-the-line graphics, then a Thinkpad or a Latitude is a very good choice. Just because they do work well for CAD, doesn't mean anyone who doesn't use CAD shouldn't get a business class laptop.

I would suggest posting a thread in the "What notebook should I buy?" forum, with a filled out FAQ for the best results.

 

There is alot of ambiguity here regarding what you need in terms of size and performance. Asus offers several budget models in all sizes that also are fairly reliable and have good graphics power. I concur with odin, fill out one of those sheets and you'll get a better response.

 

@ Odin

We should just shut up. We're probably just confusing the person here who's looking for a decent gaming laptop. I just PMed you in case you wanted to continue the discussion.

@ AtParker

Check these laptops out. They should fit within your $1500 budget even without the mail-in rebates or other discounts, etc.

ASUS F3 Series F3SV-A1
ASUS F3 Series F3JP-AP035C-A
ASUS A8 Series A8JS-4S024C

Yeah. I know they're all ASUS, but they clearly make one of the best anyway and they're no slouch on after-purchase customer support either. The ASUS G1S is a few hundred dollars off your budget, but these three laptops are fine substitutes.

 

SymphonyX you mentioned something about installing some drivers to help the 256MB NVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M work better with games. Any advice on that?

 

The only difference between the NVS 140m and it's gamer's counterpart (I think it's the 8400mGT) is the drivers. You can use modded drivers from LaptopVideo2Go to make it act like a gaming card.

 

great, thx alot odin243

 

With $1500 budget, you might consider the Sager NP2090. Check out the Sager and Clevo boards for more information. You can buy it from a reputable reseller like XoticPC or Power Notebooks, and $1500 can get you a pretty nice gaming laptop:

-15.4" WXGA (1280x800) screen
-8600M GT (very good gaming performance for the price, and beats the crap out of integrated graphics)
-2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo
-2 GB RAM
-160GB Hard drive
-Vista Home Premium

And it comes out to almost exactly $1500. You'll definitely be able to play Call of Duty and Counter-Strike: Source at high settings.

 

The 8400mGT is a pretty nice mid level GPU. But will the Quadro run as well as the 8400mGT when I install the drivers you talked about or will it be a step below still?

 

The Sager has an 8 600GT, much better than the Quadro any day. If you really want a gaming machine, the Sager np2090/Compal IFL90 is the way to go.

 

Ya i guess I'll just have to read up on that brand, looks good from what I see though. I just really liked the design of the Latitude and the fact that Dell is a pretty reputable company.

 

I wouldn't personally buy from Dell because of their "reputation," considering the fact that they were just sued by the New York Attorney General for customer service fraud. I've also had considerable bad experiences buying from dell.

 

dells blow up

 

lol well thx for the advice tianh... i'll watch for that

 

my friend had a problem with his integrated video card about after 2 months of having his laptop. and he sent it to them, they fixed it, and when they sent it back, they said that was the end of his warranty.

 

Guys, I would be interested in seeing a list of games that run acceptably on the X3100. I have a gaming desktop, but need a portable light laptop to complement it (thinking of xps 1330).

Does anybody know whether the X3100 will play Tombraider Legend (2006), Rome Total Realism (2004), Battlefield 2 (2005), Age of Empires 3 (2006), Half Life 2 (2005) and any game using the Half life 2 engine???

Furthermore, since this light portable obviously in the first place is meant to be a road warriar (lllllloooooaaaddds of battery life), does anybody have any idea on the power consumption difference between the 8400G and the X3100?? Will I loose more than 15-20 minutes of battery life if I go for the 8400 compared to the X3100??

Thanks

 

This thread should be locked to avoid confusion, if you are going to game, do not get an integrated card.

 

Ok I've been reading through some of these threads and there are a lot of mixed opinons so i'm just going to ask. I have decided to buy a dell latitude d630 notebook. They offer the standard integrated graphics OR the quadro nvs 135m. I am not buying my laptop for gaming and would be perfectly fine without it considering I have a console that works just fine. However, if I could play certain games I would do so. Lets use CS:source as the game this is based on.

First, could I play CS:S on the integrated graphics? I know it won't play at very good settings, but will i be able to get a decent frame rate at all? If not, will the 135m get me a good enough frame rate? The main question I'm trying to answer here is whether or not I should upgrade to the 135m (for $70 more). If it will allow me to play CS:S at decent speeds and not screw things up because of weird drivers, I will pay the $70.

Please don't start bashing integrated graphics or CAD GPUs (this means you SymphonyX). I know they are not meant for gaming. I am just trying to choose between the integrated and the 135m. Is it worth it?

 

Yes, for $70 it's worth it. The NVS 135m is significantly better than my 110m, and I can play CS:S fine, albeit on low-mid settings. You should have no problems running it at all mid-settings, with very solid framerates.

 

thanks, i'll probably order it today!