Intel graphics

I just saw a notebook that had a Intel 4500MHD video chip and something that was interesting is that this is what it says.


Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 4500M with up to
1759MB of Intel® Dynamic Video Memory Technology 5.0 (64MB
of dedicated system memory, up to 1695MB of shared system
memory) supporting Microsoft® DirectX® 10



Basicly it says that there is 64mb of dedicated ram so does that mean all Intel video chips have some dedicated ram and then if a certain programs need more than 64mb then it will share ram?

If all Intel has some dedicated ram I wonder how much dedicated ram does my Sony that has the Intel HD graphics card. I know that it can also share upto 1.7 GB or ram from the system but I kinda wonder how much dedicated ram I have. Since the Intel HD is the best Intel type graphics I wonder if it has like 128mb of dedicated ram at least.

 

The "dedicated" RAM comes from the system RAM pool. Some bios allows you to set it to 64/128/256MB, others have it hard set to 128MB. DVMT will then take more system RAM as it needs it.

 

Oh so the Intel graphics card doesn't have it's own memory at all. I thought when it said 64mb of dedicated ram it meant that the video card had it's own memory and then if a program needs more then it will take some from the system.

 

There is no video card. There's the integrated graphics processor, which is on your CPU die. It will take your regular RAM if it needs it. It has no video RAM, just RAM that it reserves for itself.

 

Well my new Sony notebooks has a Intel HD which is the latest one from Intel so it's better than the Intel 4500MHD. I have an Intel i3 processor btw so it comes with the Intel HD which is good. All the Intel i series comes with the same Intel HD graphics.


I can play Doom 3 using high settings and it doesn't lag at all. So this Intel HD must be pretty good. I haven't tested to ultra settings yet though. But if the ATI Radeon 4250 is better then forsure it can run Doom 3 in Ultra settings with no lag. But maybe the Intel HD can play in Ultra but I just keep it in high so it will run smooth as possible and look good also.

 

Quad core i7's do not.....

I do love how strong the Intel HD graphics are considering the battery life they can offer. Older games play great on it.

Just to let you know, you're not the only one who was wondering about this.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/487648-intel-hd-graphics-can-use-1-7gb-memory.html

 

Well I don't have these games yet but I bet it will even run games like Crysis, StarCraft 2 and The Sims 3 perfectly. If they can't go on high settings then at least low or med should probley run it. Of cource if it plays Doom 3 on high settings then it will play Quake 4 on high settings too. But yes my Intel HD has 1.7 GB video ram also since it says that on the system information program that windows has.

 

Except consuming that much memory for games is pretty useless and probably more of a detriment considering it hurts more to take away that amount for the system.

 

It will probably run Starcraft2 on low and Sims3 on mid-low settings, but I doubt it could run Crysis at all. Also, like sgogeta said, a weak GPU like that using more than around 512MB would be a waste.

 

Yes the Intel HD would take 1.7 GB from my system ram but remember I have 4 GB so even if it takes 1.7 GB I still have more than enough for the system and games. The worst case I can upgrade to 6 GB of system ram or even 8 GB if I need to. But I think it's a good idea to be able to have most video ram as possible for games and other stuff. Yes games might not even use that much of video ram but it's better to have more ram then having not enough to run a game or a program. Basicly I have 2.3 GB of system ram for Windows and programs to run since 1.7 GB is used for video ram. But I remember seeing somewhere that Intel grapics just use the amount of ram that is needed for a game or program and then what ever is left from the 1.7 GB of video ram goes back to system ram but I don't know. So if this is true then lets say a game only needs 512mb of ram then whatever that's left from 1.7 GB goes back to the system.

 

Well the most you'll probably need is 1GB. Thing is, it's not exactly video ram that matters but rather the performance that the GPU offers. Even if the Intel HD uses the full 1.7GB VRam it won't give performance on par of a say... 512mb 8800M GTX due to the sheer difference in clock speeds and shaders.

Oh, some games may eat up so much RAM actually My Starcraft starts at 600mb but claws its way up to 1.7GB somehow after running it for long periods of time (Usually over 2 hours).

 

I guess if StarCraft 2 uses upto 1.7GB of system ram then since the video ram uses 1.7 Gb also there won't be much for the system. System will only have 600 MB of free ram space. If really StarCraft 2 will end up using 1.7 GB of your system ram.

 

It happens to some people Most don't get it I think...

I can't exactly think of any game that'll make you use the full 1.7GB VRam though ._. It's important if you plan on gaming at high resolutions but if it's already quite a weak GPU then high resolution gaming isn't really something you need to consider.

 

Well maybe I was wrong about Intel graphics adjust depend on how much the program needs. Maybe the video ram always uses 1.7 GB from the system no matter what. If so then I always only have 2.3 GB of system ram.

 

Pretty sure it uses up 64MB for itself and can take up to 1.7GB if it needs to and not use the full 1.7GB all the time

 

But it's a good thing that I can upgrade upto 8 GB if I needed to. Right now I just have 4GB but really only 2.3 GB for the system since video ram uses 1.7GB.

 

dont forget vista and win7 suck back a gb of ram aswell, ram is def for texture cache for the most part, if the intel HD was such a great card you'd see more people using this. Just saying, but as it stands a dedicated GPU is still better.

It does beg the question about when the new amd chip is released which is both the cpu and gpu on one chip how will it perform? I can eventually seeing it as the next step in the evolution of chips, no need for any middle men just straight gpu/cpu power in one.

 

Oh so you don't think that my Intel HD always uses 1.7 GB? If so then that's good since then I would have more ram for my system. Ya only have 2.3 GB is kinda low but I guess it is enough to run games even if I only had 2.3 GB.

 

Ya I guess Windows 7 itself uses at least 1 GB so I really actualy have only 3 GB or less.

 

3gb plus texture cache sits on there, I know when I play Crysis on the g73, i get up to about 3/4 gb of totaly memory usage and i have 8gb ddr3, then if the card presumably uses reg mem as vid mem then that will cut into your ram aswell, if im to understand thats how the gpu is working.

Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD (GMA X4500MHD) - Notebookcheck.net Tech

heres a good benchmark chart for the chip, bfbc on low gets 8 fps, sc2 gets 11 fps on low, codmw2 (which isnt very demanding) gets 16 fps on low. All title listed here are unplayable on this card, you should be trying for at least 30fps at the lowest for smooth gameplay. Although modern warfare 1 gets 26 fps . So I think another problem is optimization, other GPUs namely AMD and Nvidia have constant updated drivers that optimize the way a game runs on a video card.

You might want to check another section in this sub forum for gaming for the DIY Vidock, you can add an external gpu to your lappy to boost performance, they have everything you need to know about that.

 

Most games are "meant" to be played at 60 frames per second. I think most people agree that 30FPS and 60FPS look pretty similar. 20 FPS looks absolutely nothing like 30FPS though and there's a huge difference.

 

Of course this is all matter of opinion, but id say smooth gameplay is at 30 fps min, anything below 30 is sluggish and choppy. Id say 60 fps guarantees your getting smooth gameplay with no chance of sluggish slowdown. I don't think the eye can see more then 30 fps anyways. Movies are formated for 24fps and it looks smooth.

 

Well my GPU is better than the 4500MHD. I have the Intel HD which is the best from Intel now.


Here is a link on that same site but shows details about my GPU.

Intel Graphics Media Accelerator HD - Notebookcheck.net Tech

 

Well with 2 extra shaders and only a small clock speed reduction, sure it is better than 4500M HD but not by much really. If the 4500M HD can't run it, you can't really expect for this one to be able to do it smoothly I'd say

Sides, the description that they give also tells that this isn't really a good card

 

Well one thing that is funny is that it says Quake 4 and Doom 3 can't play well. Now that is soo not true because I can play Doom 3 in high settings without a single lag. I can move very smoothly in the game. I wonder if my GPU has been updated and performs like the Radeon HD 4250 or even better. Maybe todays Intel HD drivers are better than when the Intel HD first came out.

 

I also have a laptop with intel gma hd graphics and it has a 128mb of deticated ram with 1754 mb of dvmt.Your lappy should be the same.
Also lets talk real world performance,im very suprised at the gaming ability of this chipset,lots of people think it cant game,but yes it can,now your not going to run back ops at full screen and textures maxed out but some other games run relatively smooth(dont know that many video cards that will).
For example im palying bioshock on med setting's and game runs great,also playing killing floor,hl2dm,stalker series,few more.
Like any other gamer or gear head you'll just have to tweak it out for what works best for you.................

 

Ive installed at least 3 driver updates from intel,so looks like their getting serious with good driver support.
I went to a web site called (can you run it),some of the games i have and am playing showed my laptop couldnt run it,and it was always my video card at fault,but when the video card box was expanded it showed the intel gma hd as not compatible,but under that it passed all requirements.I think problem is that intel gma hd isnt recognized by the program,so you really cant go by these types of programs.

 

Well at the website I linked on this forums about my video chip this is what it says.


Furthermore, the OpenGL performance is still not very good. E.g. the old Doom 3 and Quake 4 games wont run fluently.



Now that is SOO not true since basicly it's saying that even on low settings it lags. I can play these games in High settings and move like life meaning very very smooth NO lag.

 

Well perhaps they did improve their driver support and stuff Try downloading the game demos and test it out first

 

So can having new better drivers make a huge difference in games? Or is it possible that since my notebook is still very new that they did some updates on the hardware on the GPU since when it first came out? Or do you think that the Intel HD is exactly the same as when it first came out but just the drivers have been really updated and good now? Since if just driver updates makes this huge difference then probley later on they will even update it more and make games run even more better. Maybe when Intel HD first came out and the first driver was made it was bad and lots of bugs so that's why Quake 4 or Doom 3 ran laggy even on low at that time.

 

Drivers can make a noticable difference in GPU performance but usually not too much. It won't make a game that used to run at 9fps go run at 30fps but an improvement is still an improvement even if it's only a little. I still highly recommend you getting the demos or trials of games before buying them though.

 

Maybe not individual drivers... but going from original drivers to drivers a year later could increase your games pretty drastically. Every update you see "1% fps improvement in this game" which could be as much as a full FPS extra.

 

According to notebook check you can run Quake no problem.... full fps. But you can't run Doom 3. Have you actually played Doom 3 yet?

Also, apparently crysis runs at 8fps on lowest settings. No loss, it's a pretty boring game.

 

I have both Doom 3 and Quake 4 full games and they both run on high settings without any lags and they run very smoothly like life.

 

I haven't tried playing Crysis yet but I think I will try the demo first. Anyways can't you tell from my other posts that I have been playing Doom 3 the most? Since if I haven't why would I say they can play in high settings?

 

dustin_broke, what's the exact model of your notebook?

 

Doom3 is a 6 year old game. I'd be surprised if it didn't run. If notebookcheck says it won't run then they're wrong, though I wouldn't press your luck on Crysis.

 

My notebook is a Sony VPC-EB3QFX. Anyways Crysis plays very smoothly on low settings if I use med it sorta gets little choppy but still playable. I like low the best so I can move smoothly.

 

You're forgetting about the fact that the GMA HD is on the CPU package, which boosts the communication with system RAM, and the fact that it has Turbo Boost. It's actually about twice as powerful.

 

I'd really like to see an actual framerate for crysis =p

 

For Doom 3 I had my res on 800x600 and on high settings and on Crysis I had it on 1024x768 and everything on low and it runs very smootly. I think on Doom 3 I can even have it on 1024x768 if Crysis runs on 1024x768 smoothly on low.

 

By smooth in Crysis do you mean really smooth or just barely smooth? Have you reached the intense-ish gunfight moments?

Somewhere along the midparts and at the end the graphics requirement will shoot up since it won't be plain grass and trees but rather moving "stuff"

 

On Crysis it plays everything smoothly when killing and moving at everything on low and res on 1024x768 so it's moves like life. I think the Intel HD is a very good IGP. They must of updated the drivers alot or maybe my new Sony has an upgraded Intel HD I don't know though. On Doom 3 I can play very smootly on high settings probley because it's an older game.

 

Btw what do you mean some point everything will be moving stuff? I did see some tress moving is that what you meant?

 

More like flowing water, stormy conditions and huge vehicles

 

Yes everything runs smoothly on low.

 

Well eatherway when Crysis 2 comes out I bet it can play on everything on low settings at least. I did play around with the settings on Crysis and I did try some of the graphic features to med and most on low and it still played fine. But if I have them all on med then it is sorta laggy but not bad since I thought it would of been worse on med.

 

Not really worth it, playing on Med at least you get a good experience, on Low, you get a butchered one.

You could just get it on console, itll look and play better.

 

I'd still like to see a screenshot with FPS, or anything really that shows you running Crysis with playable framerates on an Intel graphics chipset. What you think of as smooth is likely something in the low 20s, which most people would consider unacceptable. All professional reviews on the Intel HD graphics consider Crysis unplayable on it (if they even tried), and benchmarks of it don't even break 2000 point mark in 3DMark06.

I'm not trying to be a hater, I just really can't believe what you're claiming.

 

+1 I'd like to a video or FPS as well. Use FRAPS for FPS.