Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500

Could anyone enlighten me about
' Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500 ' ?

Would it serve my purpose ?

I do NOT play much graphic-intense games ... ( like Crysis ) .
I plan to use my laptop for another 5 years !
Would X4500 interfere with running of any non-gaming software ?
or should I go for a ' 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 9200M GS ' ?

Thanx in advance

 

If you're not using it for games, then it should be fine. 5 years is kind of a long time though, so idk.

 

Those of us with computers with Intel integrated graphics from 2005 or so were unable to upgrade to Vista (well, the Aero interface, anyway).

Is this a big loss ? Probably not. But it is something I never would have expected.

 

2005?? Intel GMA900? GMA950?

 

Up until a few months back I was still using a Dell Latitude C600 (2000) with a 8MB video card, it was starting to hit a wall it couldn't use stuff like Google Earth and didn't have great playback of videos, but it still could do basic web/email/word stuff OK. Five years, hard to say, you might have to do without a few newer things (like Aero) but it should still be able to make do for basic stuff.

 

My laptop is 5 years old, it has Intel integrated graphics and I love it. And I just upgraded it to 2 GB RAM so I expect it to last yet another 1-2 years. I say you go for it, your battery will last longer before needing a recharge with integrated graphics (they drain less power).

 

Not much of a difference anymore between integrated and dedicated cards in terms of power saving. I can get up to 5 hours on my MBP with an 8600... and the 9xxx series are supposed to be even more efficient.

My old desktop had an integrated card and I started to have trouble around year 3, if that helps. You really should go dedicated if you're keeping it for 5 years. That's a real long time.

 

I say go for the 9200 gs with the 256 mb or ram it will make your laptop more futureproof maybe not 5 years but at least 2-3. You may not be using any games but future applications may require some 3d rendering of some sort and you would get better performance if you decide to do some casual gaming.

 

I think x4500 would be good for the next 3 years at least. I am still on my near 5 year old Compaq NX9010 which has the lousiest integrated card in the world Radeon IGP 345m and I'm still going strong on some light surfing, web videos and the occasional flash game. Heck, I was even playing guild wars on the lowest settings at one point though the fps was really bad but I was still rather enjoying myself.

 

I am curious, you aren't playing Crysis, but you imply you might play other games. What kind of games?

With NO gaming, the x4500 would be fine. With LIGHT gaming (World of Warcraft), you should also be fine. ANYTHING newer or more intensive and you aren't going to be able to play much very well unless it was made a couple years ago. Then again, upcoming games like Starcraft 2 would be fine. It isn't going to keep up with this kind of "Blizzard" gaming for 5 years of new games, but maybe 1 or 2.

 

Folks ,
I am a student of mechanical engineering
n would commonly be using tools such as CAD , CAM , Matlab etc.

Should the above influence my selection of a graphics card ?

In other words ,
would X4500 run the present versions of these programmes n stimulations without any hiccups ?

Thanx in advance ...
- Vijay

 

5 yrs is a long time if all you play is hardcore games...I use an 8yr old satellite with a 16meg graphics card. I don't game. Still does everything I need it too. It is nice to try to keep it a long time, esp if you're gonna lay down some cake to buy it.
just my opinion....

 

' GMA X4500

In a review performed in May 2008, it was established that the GMA X4500 had a performance superior to the low end GeForce 8400M G dedicated graphics card, that same review estimated that the final version of the GMA X4500 driver will have a performance comparable to the GeForce 8400M GS '

Ur say on this ...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_X4500

 

No, the 8400 gs is like 1/2 more powerful than the gma 4500, the gma 4500 barely runs for example COD4 at low settings, with a 8400GS 128mb GDDR3 you can run COD4 at medium/high settings, also you can run crysis decently at low/medium settings with some details off, the GMA 4500 cant even run crysis.

 

most important, no hd movies which willbecome standard in future

 

Yep
If X4500 cannot support HD movies ,
then The quoted would be my determining factor

- Vijay

 

5 years is a long time if you do anything except check your e-mail, lol.

 

There are no Call of Duty 4 benchmarks on the X4500. X3100 can run Crysis so X4500 can too. Of course, the X3100 is slow at it, but it can run, and there are different meanings for everyone for "decent".

X4500 can fully accelerate VC-1, H.264 and AVC on its hardware with HDMI 1.3 specification.

The mobile version of the X4500 is named X4500MHD, full Centrino 2 launch will be on the 18th with integrated graphics and rest of the CPUs. We'll see then.

 

In other words the X4500 isnt even close to the 8400GS, the X3100 runs crysis with tweaks and barely runs crysis at 8fps , so they say 200% improvement? so give 16-19 fps to the X4500 while running crysis at lowest settings. Lmao

I understand that everyone have a meaning for "decent" and decent means for me at least 25 Fps.

You know even the 8400GS isnt a good gaming card is more like a mild gaming or pretty nice multimedia card, the X4500 is just a crappy multimedia card. Wow that amazes me.

 

Just clearing that up, of course running a game and pushing your card to full load will still take more power than an integrated card would take, but an integrated card of course can't be used for things that push a better card to full load anyways.

 

I wish I could say the same about my first laptop: a HP ze5460. Then again, besides carrying integrated graphics, it packed a Pentium 4 that wouldn't give me more than an hour and a half's worth of a battery charge.

Nowadays, I don't even bother with integrated graphics, period. If I need lots of battery power, I'd charge up a spare and keep it on hand. Sounds impractical, but yeah.

 

Seriously if you want to an integrated get a something with a hd3200. It's more powerful than a 8400 gs but you still get the benefits of an IGP, mainly better battery life.

 

200% improvement=3x

 

I just got a new notebook with this. Anywhere to get good drivers? Or are there not any out yet?

 

Looking forward to ur feedback on X4500

Thanx ,
Vijay

 

stanny1 if possible could you test some games in it please?

 

i just recently purchased a hp pavillion dv2700 but i was extremely unhappy with the video card, a mcp67m, because it was GARBAGE. i was able to play older games like CSS if i put the settings on low, but what really killed it was its inability to play videos. in winamp, the movie i would be watching would be all choppy and laggy, even if the video screen was minimized. and then the windows media player would unsync the video and audio after 20 minutes of watching.
i am returning the laptop and need to get a better one. if I get one with the x4500 will video watching and casual games (like css, doom3, old games) be alright, or am i wasting my time and money?

 

I don't think x4500 can handle doom 3, css should be fine though

 

Just get the dedicated card and you wont have to worry as much if certain programs will run. x4500 has been proven that the hd playback is sub par and has a high cpu utilization. http://blip.tv/file/1129114

 

Looks like not much people around here has a x4500. I gotta do some testing on this and post results. Unfortunately, I don't have any PC games with me.

 

Hey stanny1 ,

eagerly awaiting your feedback

 

anyone know how it stacks up against the x3100 in CS:S?

 

Alright, just tried TF2 with this. 1024 reso, mostly low settings, getting around 20 fps average. In closed room can be around 30 fps, but when fighting with others it drops to 15 fps. I would say playable but not a good experience. Won't even think about gaming modern games on this. Maybe WoW and stuff.

 

If it struggles with TF2, it'll die with Crysis etc. But seriously: who buys a laptop with an X4500 to play Crysis?

The X4500's gaming performance matters to those who bought a laptop for work but want to play the occasional game in-between classes or meetings.

I'd say any game 2004 and older should work well. Far Cry (4 years old) did 30-ish fps at 1280x800 on my ancient X200m. There's no reason why it wouldn't play smoothly at medium settings on the X4500.

Anything in that ballpark should work just fine. We're talking HL2, CS:S, Pirates, UT2k3, etc.

 

Stanny1, what is your system spec and what drivers are you using??

Go to the Intel graphics tray and click on "i" on the top right of the window see the graphics driver version.

Try the latest drivers here: http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Det...OSs=164&OSFullName=Windows Vista* 32&lang=eng

 

Chances of a well updated driver version of the 4500MHD running starcraft2?!?

 

Really?? From the limited benchmarks I can find on the net, that means Unreal Tournament 3 will have similar performance as TF2 .

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2008/0825/g45.htm

Again I repeat:

"Stanny1, what is your system spec and what drivers are you using??

Go to the Intel graphics tray and click on "i" on the top right of the window see the graphics driver version.

Try the latest drivers here: http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Det...OSs=164&OSFullName=Windows Vista* 32&lang=eng

 

I am guessing gains of around 5-10 fps generally.

Run, no problem. Playable, probably not. Maybe at all low settings. Historically, Blizzard games requirements are pretty low. But starcraft 2 looks too intense with hundreds of units on screen.

The link you gave me links to a desktop graphic driver. I'm on the latest mobile Intel ones no worries. Specs are P8400, 2 gigs of ram, x4500MHD. I haven't really tested much, but after trying with TF2, I ain't going to bother much with modern games that came out past 2006. It's not going to be worth it. The reason you guys should be thinking of getting this card as you said previously, is to do work, because the battery life will be boosted, maybe an extra hour or so if comboed with Core 2 Duo "P" processors. If you want to do the occasional gaming it would be alright because a wide range of games will be playable on low-medium settings. Vista is also smooth as hell, I am loving it. Got a 4.0 on index score for Aero.

 

Vista smooth as hell on 2Gb RAM? Wow, that's a first.

Jokes aside, thanks for your preliminary benchmarks. When I get my new X200 (in 5 days) I'll put this chip through some intensive torture and post some numbers.

 

Looking forward to the benchmarks! Is this faster or slower than an ATi Radeon X300SE?

 

Intel uses unified drivers.

 

As the X300SE is a 3-year-old integrated chip, I'd guess the X4500 to be way faster... but I have neither numbers nor first-hand experience to answer your question properly.

 

Hi,

relating to the GMA X4500MHD, altought i dont play games, do you guys think that this gpu is suitable for beginner DirectX 10 development?

I bought this book and i need to know if i can use it with the GMA X4500MHD.

thanks

 

I had Aero enabled from my 2006 laptop, Intel GMA 945.

 

Same - my old TravelMate had a GMA 950, and it ran Aero just fine.

 

Could anyone give us a feedback from personal experience with X4500 ?



Thanx,
Vijay

 

Have you received your laptop yet? I'm really looking forward to more x4500 numbers.

 

Never say can't
vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6X3K2Rkh1E
X3100 + Crysis

 

hi, how does the 4500 play normal movies from dvds, not high def. Does it use loads of cpu?

thanks

 

It doesn't use up too much CPU. It's powerful enough to run blu ray movies.