Intel graphics

I don't know how professionaly smooth you are talking about but to me Crysis plays well enough everything on low without lags. I know when I see lags since if I have any it is harder to play the game well. But I guess if I have to play it on low it won't look that great as other systems that can play on high. I think in order to play anything higher than low without lags I need a better GPU. If I had more money like around $800 I would of gotten a better notebook that had a better GPU but oh well. I' am still happy that I can play great games like Crysis very smoothly even if it's the lowest settings. I can say that I was very lucky to get a notebook like what I have even since if my grandparents didn't give me $200 extra I would of only had $400 and I know that $400 notebooks won't even play smoothly on low on Crysis. Basicly I got $200 from my mom and $200 from my moms best friend Tom and I got $200 from my grandparents so I had a total of $600. I had actualy paid around $609.89 with tax since I got it localy at OfficeMax. Tax is 7% where I live unless you are in around Gretna area where the tax is only 5%.

 

He just wants to know if the number of frames per second (FPS) is consistently at 30 or above. Anything less is not considered smooth by gamers' standards. Download FRAPS and run it while the game is playing. (It can be minimized to the system try, so it shouldn't affect performance.)

 

Ok in some areas it's low as 17 and mostly around 22 or so. But It didn't really go upto 30 or higher unless I was looking at the sky or looking straight to the ground on Crysis.

Doom 3 plays low as 30 but mostly around 40 or so and when you are close to a wall then goes upto 60 or higher.

 

Thanks, that sounds reasonable to me. I'm glad you can play it, and are happy with the level of 'smoothenss' you get, but like City Pig said, 30FPS is the 'standard' for most gamers, though because of the motion blur effect, Crysis can appear to be smooth at slightly lower framerates, like 25 or so.

 

Well what really makes me wonder is why on notebook check website it says that Doom 3 won't play well when I can play it on high settings and have low as 30FPS and normaly around 40FPS. Basicly that site was saying that even on low settings it won't play well. I can only think that the newer Intel HD has been upgraded and now can play Doom 3 very very well.

 

Notebookcheck is not the most reliable site. Doom 3 is 6 years old, and even the low-end intel integrated graphics of today are nearly as fast as the top of the line GPUs (Nvidia 6800 series) from back in 2004.

 

So what type of card would my current Intel HD perform like? Will it be like a GeForce 7300 GT or better? Or ATI Radeon X1300 or better for example? I just want to compair and see how my IGP is rated close to if it was an actual video card.

 

Is the closest video card to the Intel HD is the GeForce 6800 GT? Or no one knows what it's close to?

 

We can't really say since performance tends to vary with different programs ._.

 

Ah, after seeing your FPS this makes much more sense. The idea that crysis would play 60FPS or even 30FPS was a bit shocking.

 

I have a friend with a Dell Studio 1737 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo and Intel 4500m and he plays CoD 4 and MW2 at around 20FPS. I believe he beat both games. At that FPS I would have gone crazy(er).

 

I agree lol 20FPS is unplayable... I honestly go nuts if it's like 25 fps... that's just too choppy.

 

I'm still finding this hard to believe.

My old desktop ATI Radeon HD 3850 has 18-33FPS on medium settings (resolution 1280x1024) in Crysis and slows down to a crawl in battle scenes. I'm pretty sure the integrated Intel GMA HD does not even come close to 20% of the performance of my old desktop HD 3850. I understand that you're playing at a lower resolution and at lower graphics, but getting those FPS for the Intel GMA HD is mind blowing.

I also have the Intel GMA HD in my 4820TG laptop and I don't think it performs that well in anything, but old Steam games. It plays Counter-Strike: Source fine, but it struggles in Dragon Age: Origins, etc. The Intel GMA HD and HD 5650 are worlds apart in my 4820TG laptop.

 

You have to understand that DOOM 3 isn't a good benchmark for current games. ESPECIALLY at 800x600 resolution. My iphone has a higher resolution than that. Back when it was made, the fastest gpu available was the ATI 9800pro. The fastest cpu available was a single core AMD chip. If you walked into any computer store and chose the cheapest, lowest end computer in the store, it should be able to play DOOM 3 with at least half the options on high.

For current gaming, the HD is a big step in terms of Intel's history. Their older igps were trash. Barely able to run 720p video. The newer versions were tweeked just enough to play 1080. The new socket and igp on the chip, they added a few new tweeks that in turn added a little performance with 3d gaming.. and I mean a LITTLE.

If you look at AMDs offering, the 4200. It on average scores double what the intel igp will.

 

This obviously shows the potential of mixed cpu/gpu chips, possibly the future if done correctly, what would be nice is if amd made a hybrid chip, and made it Xfire capable. Just throwing things out there.

 

1st - Onboard crossfire? That would only drag down current performance.
AMD 4200 + AMD 5970 = the performance of 2x 4200s. The faster card clocks down to match the performance of the slower one.

2nd - Cost. There's no way im paying $800+ for a combo. Especially one that isn't upgradeable without buying a new cpu/igp.

3rd - Architecture. Even though the new i5 chips have onboard memory controller on chip, it doesn't mean that 2 channels of DDR3 is good enough for gaming. GDDR and DDR are VERY different and perform very differently. So essentially the igp is stealing memory from your main system that isn't even really all that great for 3d use.

 

I noticed this but why most places that sell rams are twice the price compaired to the Newegg.com website for two 4 GB DDR3 notebook rams? Like even OEM websites sell just one stick of 4 GB for $90. I fine it hard to beleive that for $90 I get two 4 GB sticks and total of 8 GB.

 

When you can buy bulk, you can sell individual packs for less. Etailers like newegg buy huge amounts and can shuffle around where they make their profits from so they can offer certain items for less than other retailers. Basic business.

 

Well all I can say is $90 for just one 4 GB and $90 for two 4 GB is huge difference to me. I first thought that woo $90 for just one ram was expensive but when you guys showed me that I can get two of them for same price I was like woo and that is more affordable. $90 for total of 8 GB is alot more affordable. I' am in a limited budget so when I get 8 GB ram I it will be alot easier for me to just pay $90 than $180.

 

I don't suggest moving up to 8GB of RAM. IS that what you're considering?

 

AMD does have a technology that will work with an IGP or other GPU and they don't need to be the same performance. It's called Hybrid Crossfire and has been around for a couple years. I would expect AMD to take advantage of this with their next IGP release for notebooks to put a little edge on Intel.

 

They don't need to match, but it will throttle down the faster card to match the performance of the igp. Meaning if you stick in a high end card, its a waste. If you stick in a lower end card, it will be a nice improvement.

AMD 4250 + 4670 = The Performance of crossfired 4250's.
I have a friend who runs a 3450 + 4250 because it runs faster than just the stock 3450. If he had any higher of a card, it would probably out perform the output of two 4250s and wouldn't be worth his time.

Yup, it came out with the 780g chipset. It would be VERY nice to see entry level discrete cards get a nice boost from hybrid crossfire but I doubt it would happen. AMD would rather have you purchase a higher end graphics solution in a laptop. It would be competition inside the same company. Right now AMD is doing right right by offering midrange-ish performance on their lowest end igps. 4250 is no slouch and slaps around Intel's "NEW HD" igp like it was its redheaded stepchild. If AMD keeps it up, they will be fine.

 

I thought it works like this:

AMD 4200 + AMD 4670, the 4670 does most of the work and the 4200 does the lower amount of work.

Just like in the XPS 1340, the 9200 + 9400. With only a 9400 it would score 2000 3dmark06 points while the 9200 + 9400 scored around 2500 points.

So the higher clocked chip doesn't have to come down to the lower clock chips performance.

 

Well I thought that the Intel HD is pretty much the same as the low end Radeon HD 4250 since Intel had made alot of updates to there chip and drivers.

Anyways when you add more system ram will they also add more video ram for your IGP? I have a old Sony notebook and when I added more ram it added more ram on the video memory. But I don't know if my new Sony will do the same meaning it will add more video ram if I add more system ram. Maybe I have to make it 8 GB to have the video share more ram. But it could be possible that just having 6 GB will add more video ram. I don't know.

 

I was supprised that my Intel HD has Pixel Shader version 4.0 and Vertex Shader version 4.0. Even todays games don't use that from what I saw.

But anyways I read somewhere that the Intel HD and the Radeon HD 4250 is about the same but just because of the drivers for Intel HD it wasn't good as the Radeon HD 4250 but today the Intel drivers are really good so it should perform the same as the low end Radeon 4250.

 

9200 and 9400 are both made by Nvidia. Nvidia doesn't support Crossfire. Im not sure how you got those numbers.
Nvidia allows SLI between 2 cards that are the same core. I know for a fact thought that an igp and discrete graphics will have different cores.

Even with Nvidia's SLI, the faster card will clock down to match the slower. A good example is putting an 8800gt and 8800gts in SLI. Assuming you have two that have G92 cores, you can use them both at the loss of some clock speed from the 8800gt. You can overclock both cards to match speeds, but the faster of the two will always throttle down.

 

I got those numbers from notebookcheck.com average's. I know that Nvidia doesn't support CF, but SLI and CF are basically the same thing so the principle is the same. The higher clocked GPU doesn't run slower, it just does most of the work.

 

my intel hd in my back up laptop amazed me.

It is using the 1066 buss, dual channel 4gb ram. That makes a huge difference.

the cpu i have is called a pentium but its actually a low end c2d plays fallout nv functionally

civ 5 very well

played through sc2. From what Ive seen the intel hd is better than a amd 4200.

I do believe its just the buss and dual channel ram have finally made integrate gpus work.

 

Ya I just got the The Sims 3 today and it runs soo smooth normaly the FPS is around 105 and lowest it goes it around 90 FPS. This is smoother than Doom 3since Doom 3 was around 40 FPS and low as 30 FPS and some areas 60 FPS.
I' am very sure that if Crysis plays it will play even Call of duty black ops. I notced that Crysis needs more video power than Call of duty black ops so if Crysis plays around 22 FPS and low as 17 FPS and sometimes around 30 FPS then it should play Call of duty black ops better or at least the same. I am soo happy that I can finaly play newer games even if it has to be on the low settings since my old Sony wasn't even able to play any newer games at all.

I think The Sims 3 is good as The Sims 2 game and probley because both Sims games don't use much graphics like Crysis. I think all Sims games are made to actualy work on older machines than mine but not as old as my old Sony.

 

Btw I did find out that the Intel HD has 196MB of dedicated ram and then the rest is going to share from the system if a program needs more than 196MB. Ya the old Intel 4500MHD only had like 64MB of dedicated ram so having 196MB it alot better. I wish it had 256MB of dedicated ram but 196MB is better than 64MB.

 

It does have more than that... it just uses that 196MB to run your computer.

It has NO Video RAM, it just uses your system RAM to work (much slower for this task) so it can use as much free RAM as you've got... up to 1.7GB.

 

So when it says that it has dedicated ram it doesn't mean it has it's own ram and then the rest would share from the system?

Well eatherway the Intel HD is better than what you guys original thought it looks like and I guess IGP isn't as bad as most people say but of cource if I had a dedicated card it will be soo much better but for an IGP I think this is really good chip.

Is there a way you can increase the amount of video ram so it can share more if you need more than 1.7 GB? Like would adding more ram also add more video ram? Or is 1.7 GB the most I can get even if I had 8 GB of system ram?

 

I just remember that my old Sony notebook that I got as a gift back in middle of 2002 the Intel IGP on that notebook added more video ram just by adding more system ram. Like my old notebook original came with 256mb of ram and then I added 512mb of ram and the video ram went from 32mb to 48mb. But that was the highest it can go. Later on I did take out that 256mb stick and added a 512mb so total of 768mb but still the video ram was 48mb. Too bad I wasn't able to remove the non removeable 256mb ram since it was part of the motherboard. There was only one slot to add more ram so I was only able to go upto 768mb.


This new Sony is also a gift too since no way I can afford this new Sony notebook.

 

Don't worry about the amount of system memory dedicated to video on those crappy Intel IGP's. If it needs more than is dedicated to it, it will overflow into the memory dedicated for the system. But either way, it is poor performance, so it does not take a whole lot of ram. A low amount of ram is not going to bottleneck it the way a low amount of ram is going to bottleneck a high end video card. The amount of ram is far from the weakest link here.

 

Well eather way my point is for a onboard video chip that is not a dedicated video card this IGP is very good for it. You can't really compair them to a dedicated card though since if you do then of cource the IGP is not good compaired to them but compairing all other IGP the Intel HD is pretty good. I may be wrong but some people think they can compair IGP to dedicated cards but they can't since they are different.


Btw on notebooks that has dedicated video card are you able to remove it and add a different card? Just wondering since I never used one that has a dedicated card on notebooks. I assume that you can't remove it if you wanted to upgrade it.

 

It depends on the notebook, some you can, such as mine.

I wouldn't worry about video ram tom much, video processing power is far more important. I can max the settings in GTA IV and still have free video memory and ram but my CPU and GPU can't process it fast enough to keep it smooth and prevent pop in/up

 

With the majority of laptops the GPU cannot be upgraded. Only a few such as specialist gaming laptops can do that.

 

You know what else is funny?
It says that Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 will run at 26FPS on a Intel HD when it can run at 12-20 (with Fraps) and 18-26 (without Fraps) on Intel X3100. More FPS can be accessible when lowering settings and resolution. This is where I got the reference from YouTube - Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 on x3100

It's smoothly playable on laptops and computers with X3100. I can't understand the theory of people saying that it won't run on a Intel HD when it's the latest graphic chipset out there from Intel, even though Intel doesn't make good graphic cards. Intel X3100+ can for sure play Modern Warfare 2 on lowest settings at a frame rate of 18+.

Something very surprising to all you guys is that Doom 3 can run on GMA 950.
I don't understand. On a GMA 950 with modded drivers and with Fraps it can run at 40-45 FPS on Windows 7. Here's where I got the reference from YouTube - DOOM 3 on GMA 950/945 GM

Watch the other videos on the side where GMA 950 can handle Half-Life 2 etc.
Intel HD may not be a good graphic card. But there are ways to take out real experience of Intel graphic chipsets.

I.e

1. changing the windows theme to classic
2. using game booster to smoothen gaming
3. using CCleaner to remove unnecessary files and optimize your computer
4. If you're on battery, plug in the charger and change the process to High Performance
5. closing unnecessary programs such as MSN, adobe reader etc.

Those are basically my ways of increasing FPS and they work.
Try them out Dustin and probably you can run MW2 on higher FPS.

May not be satisfying for dedicated graphic card users, but they work.

 

I'm quietly closing this thread; it's moving away from its original topic. On top of that, it's potentially misleading.

The last thing I want is people coming to NBR from Google and reading that "oh the Intel integrated graphics can run this and that" -- most people who buy computers are not nearly as tech savvy as you guys. While you might be sensible enough to tweak the settings, those people likely won't be. Therefore, they will buy the game and not be able to run it well or at all.

Thanks for understanding; thread closed.