Intel X3100 users rejoice! It's finally here! New Pre-Beta Drivers

XP using bastards! Vista, vista!

 

that driver is many months old dude

 

Last version up on intel official page for x3100 ( http://support.intel.com/support/graphics/intelg965/ ) for XP is

PV14.34 (6.14.10.49 43)
poster above you linked
14.34 .4 49 64
looks new to me.

 

I however don't trust a newbie with 4 posts that links to a driver that is not on Intel's official page.

 

@athegates: My bad! It was 14.34.5!
@ever.monk: If you're using vista then go to C:\Users\(Name)\Documents\My Games\Titan Quest\Settings and then open up the option.txt files, I'd suggest you to use setting like that:
textureQuality = low
shadowQuality = low
shadows = false -> disable shadow give you lot of performance
reflectionQuality = low
detailLevel = low
resolution = 1280 800
antiAliasing = false
fullscreen = true
syncToRefresh = false
tripleBuffer = false
masterVolume = 1
musicVolume = 0.99
effectsVolume = 0.99
dialogVolume = 0.99
ambientFrequency = medium
rockOn = true
device = opengl -> change from direct3d to opengl here
language = English
forceSingleProcessorMode = false
skipCompatibilityChecks = false
useArchives = true
@bosser: The 14.34.49xx (newest driver for xp) has this "hanging" problem with War3, I've rolled back to 14.33 and the problem disappeared!! I remember some guys here suggest change the video mode to opengl in this thread but I haven't tried!
Anyone tried The Witcher on the x3100?

 

WOW, now i found that the RAM is stubid toghether!

first i testet them togheter and got 2.0 in aero and 2.6 in gaming graphics with vista.

second i testet with only the 2gb stick and got 2.0 in aero and 2.9 in gaming.

third i testet with only the 1gb stick and got 2.5 in aero and 3.1 in gaming.

so now someone know what i should do?

 

downloadmirror. intel.com was not good enough for you? and your claim wasn't distrust before it was that the driver was 'many months old' stop trolling

 

check your ram stick specs, possibly replace the lot with matched ram so they run , you can get ocz 2x (matched) 2gb ddr2 sodimm pc6400 for about £60 atm, if matched it should run in dual channel mode which is faster.

Or if you need desktop ram the price is not too dissimilar.

 

Should Virtua Tennis work with this GFX Card?
Got a Toshiba Satellite Pro L40-17G.

 

both of the sticks is 667Mhz, but why i got lower score with the 2gb stick?

do you think i can get 3.5 on both in vista score if i buy 4 gb of the RAM you said?
(3.5 becouse all other got it)

 

tbh....no I think it must be something else,I think we'd need more detail on your setup? I've had a gfx & gaming gfx rating of 3.5 from this machine with 3 different ram setups, vista32 and vista64.
maybe you're missing the intel chipset drivers or something?

 

i have:
intel pentium dualcore T2370 1.73Ghz
X3100
3gb different RAM sticks

 

Hmm with the same CPU but with 2gb(one stick) RAM I used to get rating 3.1. Btw don't get this rating so seriously..it's often real-life inaccurate..

 

It exists, except its meant for 4 series chipset at the moment. You can only look at it by going to the Intel G43/G45 motherboard page and going to the driver page.

Same is true with 15.9.7.

Slightly off topic: http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-029090.htm

It says that G43 and G45 chipsets will have 1GB DVMT in Windows XP and 2GB in Vista. I've seen one document with 829MB, and another saying it'll be over 2GB.

It does mention 358MB for GM965/G965/G35 in Vista, so I guess its not surprising it shows 358MB rather than 384MB...

 

I've looked at the 64 bit (edit: & 32 bit) builds for the g43/45, all the download options breaks down to 3 different files
winvista64_1597.exe (g43/45 express)
winvista64_1597.zip (g43/45 express supposed to be same as above just in zip form)
GFX_Vista64_15.9.7.64.1511_PV_Intel.exe (g43/45 desktop)

Now the slightly weird thing is extracting all of the above with 7zip to new folders and comparing them with Beyond Compare 3 (beta)

I found that the contents of :
winvista64_1597.zip
GFX_Vista64_15.9.7.64.1511_PV_Intel.exe
Are 100% binary IDENTICAL, that is all the EXEs, DLLs and inf/ini files. The only difference is the zip contains vbios_g45.zip also.

The contents of winvista64_1597 .exe are NOT the same however, the readme is missing the references to

Code:

Intel(R) Q43 Express Chipset
Intel(R) Q45 Express Chipset

And more importantly all of the EXE's contained within winvista64_1597 .exe are a month older, and Difx64.exe a significantly changed example is 7,000 bites larger.
No idea why this difference between the winvista64_1597 zip and exe versions has happened, but I'd use the new files myself and avoid winvista64_1597 .exe.

Edit: I've checked now and exactly the same thing has happened with the 32 bit builds, winvista_1597.exe contains older/different exe files.
(there's a small addition of an installation_readme.txt in the 32 bit zip version that no other distribution file has)

Edit2: same thing happened with 15.9 for the x3100, the winvista64_159 .exe distribution contains older exe files, anything up to 4 months older.

It will be interesting to see if these g43/45 drivers are identical to whatever is released next for the x3100, they could just be still QA testing these 15.9.7 files on the x3100 before release. (the current inf in 15.9.7 has had x3100 info stripped out)

 

Interesting finds, Yakumo. Since the .zip files are marked for developers, it could be that the .exe is the last stable build, possibly tested for a few weeks before being released, and the .zip is what could amount to a "beta" for developers?

 

I'd thought about the zip being the developer build, just find it a little odd then that for the desktop version (GFX_Vista64_15.9.7.64.1511_PV_Intel.exe) they have then only included the developer builds as that files contents are identical to the zip.

 

Man, I've noticed that lots of my games are getting the black screen w/ igfx has recovered from an error leading to 0000007E BSOD, which is complete bull****. Next update better fix this crap and performance bugs for Vista.

 

15. Juli 2008 (down)

New Driver For XP : 14.34.4


http://downloadmirror.intel.com/16462/a08/winxp_14344.zip


Release Notes:14.34.4?!?!?!?!?!?!?


http://downloadmirror.intel.com/16462/ENG/relnotes_winxp_gfx.htm

 

XP First again

 

Dell Inspiron 1525 here with Vista. I googled "black viper vista" and used that website to disable services I didn't need (make sure you export your services settings with right click. export default and tweaked). I also called Dell and they told me what to disable. Then I turned off all the startup programs in msconfig. Enable the PC to run at "full performance" 100% CPU. (google it). I can play counterstrike source, diablo 2 and trackmania with decent framerate. You need latest graphics drivers, though. This X3100 is better than you think. Have fun

 

I play HL2 everything max excapt for AA and AF with over 30 FPS and Dawn of War Medium/high settings with over 30 FPS

 

What resolution, 640x480?

 

Virtua Tennis 3 doesn't work for me on this graphics card. I've got 1GB RAM and Dual core processor. It is very very slow. I heard by adding 1GB of RAM more I can expand the graphics memory to 300 odd MB. Would this help?

 

VT3 has bugs on the x3100, it doesn't run at all iirc.

 

I played HL2 with settings as someone mentioned before in 1280x800. The fps very rarely dropped under 25 (mostly had 30-50fps) for me. Still, I played it on XP, not on Vista.

 

Here are the picture of my CSS video stress test result, I've got 24.15 avg:

And some pictures when playing in cs_italy map:


All in high setting, res 1280x800 and no AA and AF, I don't know why each time I take a picture with FRAPS the game went out to desktop. The maximum frame get to 40 FPS and minimum to 15 FPS when there's a lot of guys on the screen.
And I've got the same specs with Satyrion except 1gb of ram and 80gb HDD, so I would expect better performance with a better CPU.

 

And here is some screen shots from COD4, all LOWEST (I mean the SOUND SETTING also)




I can not play single player because of the directX error and I have to use bot because of the internet firewall in my college. When the sound setting set to lowest also, you will gain a lot of performance.
Now the problem with 128mb of ram is really annoying me, some guys at COD4 forum told me that I should get up to 1,5 gb ram to increase the ram share to 256mb so the shader won't be recognized as 0.0 and I will be able to play single player

 

1024x768 sames goes for CSS

 

yes, I think you need 2 gigs of ram in order for the 3100 to use 358MB of memory. As for Valve Source games, for some odd reason, they run better with all high settings except no AA. And changing resolutions doesn't seem to help. I average around 25-35 FPS in CSS which is great but in DODS I only get around 15-25 FPS which is not playable. It's funny how I get more FPS in CSS than I do in regular CS lol. Supreme Commander plays nice at 1280X800 low settings.

Dell Inspiron 1525 with 2GB ram, Intel T2370 cpu and x3100 gpu. Vista 32 bit Home Premium.

 

Well, the CS:S and CoD4 shots were definitely unplayable, especially CS:S, as 20-25FPS online won't cut it. I would suggest turning your settings down to keep a good framerate.

And Satyrion, I would believe you achieved some good rates at 1024x768, as Dukka's were close to playable at 1280x800.

 

@ronvatar: How many FPS you got in Supreme Commander?
By the way, sorry for my limited knowledge but is DODS Day of defeat source?
I don't know why my friend's laptop also has a x3100 with 1gb of ram but in XP he gets 256mb of vram instead of 128mb like mine, I think it depends on the manufacturer's default setting also.
@Kgann: By the time I upload the picture I have already uninstalled COD4, no single player and no internet multiplayer for me! CSS can get really really choppy sometimes especially in de_dust but COD4 I think it's pretty playable, the framerates is always around 20FPS and it's easy to aim even when I was fighting very hard with lot of guys (through Lan with my friends), when I have some free times I will post an in-game video on Youtube, now I must head back to the final exam

 

Yes, DOD:S is Day of Defeat: Source.

 

Getting 2gb of ram won't help you in XP, the manufacturer hard coded the memory usage for XP on your machine. If you want to get more memory available for the x3100, then you need to use vista, and then get the 2gb.

 

If you go to the intel download center and select GM965 (X3100) you will only be presented the

15.9.0.1472 (v15.9) as of 04/25/2008

In the meaningtime v15.8.3 showed up:
15.8.3.1504 (v15.8.3) as of 06/27/2008 ( Download)

However I don't see any improvements in the Changelog for v15.8.3 regarding games. You'll miss DirectX 10 though.

The more recent v15.9 drivers are only released for GM45,GM47, G43, G45:
15.9.8.1518 (v15.9.8) as of 07/11/2008 ( Download, Changelog)
From reading other threads those won't run on GM965 by editing inf files, but I didn't try myself.

Just in case someone might be interested.

 

Thanks 7oby, that was helpful, I've been lost in this thread regarding the latest drivers for awhile...

This is seriously starting to irk me, though, that Intel hasn't released any serious new drivers for the X3100 in months... They promised a major upgrade every two months didn't they? And IIRC we still dont have OpenGL 2.0 support, which they promised they would have ready by the end of MAY?

If anybody around here has any new Intel insider information, I'd love to hear it, even speculation.

 

The "best" drivers for the X3100 are the v15.8.3. Or if you require DirectX 10 then v15.9.

You may also install the XP drivers in Vista, but that will remove some of the advanced features of Vista such as Aero, Transient Mobility Manager (TMM) and smarter memory management:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480220.aspx

I don't think you will get OpenGL 2.0 for X3100. They only promised OpenGL 1.5 here:
http://download.intel.com/products/graphics/intel_graphics_guide.pdf

and in the GM965 chipset datasheet page 14:
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/316273.pdf

and also here:
http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intelg965/sb/CS-023713.htm

Only from X3500 on (including X4500) they promised OpenGL 2.0. But I don't remember any timeline.

I think Wikipedia is up-to-date regarding this stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X3100#Table_of_GMA_graphics_cores_and_chipsets

If you need OpenGL 2.0 you'll probably have to use Software OpenGL by compiling
http://mesa3d.sourceforge.net/

 

The 14.32.4 and the 15.8.3 are the bug fix drivers for the older 945G chipsets since 14.33 and 15.9 won't have support for them.

 

What makes the 15.8.3 drivers the "best" right now? I got 33 fps in HL2 with them (vsynced), normally I got 44 fps with 15.9.

 

Your observation is correct: HL2 indeed runs faster with stock 15.9 drivers than with 15.8.2/15.8.3. I've some benchmarks underline this:
http://www.computerbase.de/forum/showthread.php?t=309411


The reason is because 15.8.3 uses HW T&L and 15.9 uses SW T&L, which is triggered by a registry key in 15.9 .inf file:
HKR,, ~hl2.exe, %REG_DWORD%, 1

I've given links to corresponding Intel documents here on the advantages/disadvantages of SW/HW T&L, some backgrounds and how to switch between them:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=3634860#post3634860

Once you switch to SW T&L the HL2 performance should be the same in both 15.8.3 and 15.9 drivers.

Any serious X3100 gamer should know about those switches and try themselves especially given that intel has very low resources on testing games. There are much more games out there than intel is testing (and remember the driver default is always slow HW T&L if intel didn't test the game):
http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intelgm965/sb/CS-026200.htm

--

What makes 15.8.3 for most people better is that:

. The changelog of issues fixed is longer in 15.8.3 than in 15.9:
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/15883/ENG/relnotes_winvista_gfx.htm
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/16313/ENG/relnotes_winvista_gfx.htm
According to some people 15.9 is a rushed release to get the DX10 features finally out of the door. The branch to 15.9 was done prior to the release of 15.8.2, which means you can add the fixes of 15.8.2 to the list above and 15.8.3 certains more bugfixes than 15.9, which on the other hand contains more features (DX10). Your choice.

. I see some visual artefacts in certain .wmv clips in 15.9 that I haven't seen before. But I haven't tested sufficient in which driver revision those got introduced. Certin WMV9 videos are played with dots sparkling all over the video:

Video played with 15.9:


Video played with 15.8.3:


It's a download WMV/ZIP from here:
http://www.funny-videoclips.de/lustige-videos/video-402.html

The direct download link of the video is this:
http://4-you.info/fun/zip/video/red_meat.zip

It doesn't apply to all .wmv videos though. The Microsoft WMV9 demo vids are not affected and I tested one vid from the WMVHD showcase as well, which was also fine.

 

Very interesting- what I've done was added the .inf T&L portion from 15.9 into my 15.8.3 .inf and I'll see if that makes the performance equal. I've also added registry keys for every game I own, maybe this will make a difference for Half-Life 1, which has terrible performance currently.

edit: Negative, FPS is still very low for some reason. I've added _hl2.exe to every registry enter of _3dmark05 I could find and set it to 1.

I've been able to toggle T&L in 15.9 and get an FPS difference, but in 15.8.3 it's just low no matter what. The entry flyby in CS: Source with HW T&L is 25 fps in 15.9, HW T&L off it's 30. With 15.8.3 it's 15 fps, off or on.

 

are the results for HL1 the same?

 

Sup guys I see you're discussing about X3100 driver in here.. I'm in between buying a toshiba lap S5871 with an intel GMA x3100 or a Compaq with an nvidia M7000, I just need to knwo what's better.. I think It's going to be much better intel since they're actually improving drivers throught a timeline. let me know what you think guys.. and how's your gaming experience right now.

 

I didn't actually try HL1 since i couldn't get anything else to run satisfactorily.

re: daaudio

gaming on the x3100 is okay but not great. You can play stuff like HL2 but you can't max the details or play 60fps constant. you can also play older games like urban terror or HL, but the FPS isn't 60 fps constant either. What's frustrating is that instead of playing new games well, or old games well, it simply plays all games averagely/below averagely. I would be 100% happy if it could only play Natural Selection as well as my old 16 mb radeon mobility (166 core, 144 mhz memory!) BUT IT CAN'T. I think that literally any graphics card (or even integrated solution since the i905) could play HL perfectly, yet the x3100 can't.

 

EAson do you still it's way better than the ATI x1200 ?

 

IMO any modern card from AMD-ATI / Nvidia be it IGP (integrated) or not is far superior to any Intel card. Those brands have much superior/compatible drivers and generally you can overclock those GPUs which improves some good 10-30% more fps

 

i know what you mean bud, i feel the same way.
one interesting thing i noted when playing Counter-Strike though, is that if you set hud_draw 0, it runs at constant high frames. Could it just be just that the drivers aren't optimized well to draw the overlays, cuz thats what seems to cause heavy lag

 

Hey Pcsx2 Fast In 14.32.4 (Emulator Play Station 2)
Final Fantasy XII 30 40 fps

14.34.4 Very Low Why?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?Only 5 12 17fps


Emulator PS3_______Final Fantasy XIII 1 2 FPS Coming soon!!!!!!!!

 

Emulators normally require fast cpu/gpu for nice gaming experience..

http://forums.ngemu.com/pcsx2-official-forum/84457-will-emulator-run-fast-my-computer.html

 

I depends on how the overlay is implemented. But if it's a big texture with the HUD information and transparancy pixels to see the actual game environment. Then the answer is most likey: yes.

Check this document:
http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/articles/eng/1487.htm
Section "Performance Tips when working with GMA X3000"

It starts with: GMA X3000 tends to be fill rate limited when compared to other much more expensive solutions.

Clearly game developers don't optimize for the specific hardware constraints of the intel platform. Performance optimization is the process of choosing a fast implementation given there are different ways of achieving the same visual result. I think "one complex shader vs. multiple simple shaders" in the above document illustrate this aspect.

In addition check this:
http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/articles/eng/3872.htm