Lenovo C200 with Intel GMA 950 - games

First of all, I am aware that:
-Intel integrated graphics are not for gaming
-It's always better to get a dedicated GPU

However, I am very much considering this laptop mainly because it's cheap and can run Ubuntu 7.04 well.

Intel® Celeron® M Processor 430 1,73 GHz
2 x 512MB DDR2 667 MHz
Intel Media Graphics Accelerator 950 up to 128MB shared

Will I get good performance (without any graphical issues/glitches) with these games:

Icewind Dale 1 & 2
Baldur's Gate 1 & 2
Planescape:Torment
Fallout 1 & 2
Gothic 1 & 2
Sacrifice
Sacred
Neverwinter Nights

Can Intel GMA 950 run 3D games well at all, regardless of their... age?
Can I watch DVDs with it without any problems?

Oh, and one last question: How much better is a PentiumM or a CoreDuo processor compared to this CeleronM?

Thanks

 

That is a single core processor, which is old and outdated. Unless you are getting that for about $300, it is not a deal at all.

 

QFT. Also, Intel integrated graphics are not for gaming of any type. You will be lucky to experience playable FPS in *any* of the games you mentioned.

 

Even those old Black Isle games? If that's true then I really shouldn't mess with it.

 

For the old games its more of a driver problem than a lack of execution resources as it is with the newer games. Intel graphics have drivers tuned for stability, not performance. Thus they get little in the way of performance optimization for anything but basic everyday PC usage.

 

That's a pretty ancient setup. If you're planning on getting a cheap laptop, then atleast go with a dual core and integrated Intel GMA X3100 card. It's much better than the GMA 950 and also keeps laptops cheap and power efficient. I think it'll play the games you mentioned too.

 

Are you guys smoking crack? Baby Boy, please ignore what is quite frankly appalling rubbish from techguy2k7. Those games will run fine on the GMA950, most of them at high settings. Check out my sig, I have a GMA950 Screenshot thread - I think if I can get Call of Duty, Dawn of War, GTA III and Half Life 2 to run you're hardly going to have issues with games from 1999....honestly the crap people spout about the GMA without having a clue is staggering.

As for the Celeron D it's basically a Pentium M with less L2 cache, so while it takes a slight hit in games it's not too bad, it's still fine and the GMA950 will limit you far sooner then the Celeron will so don't worry about it. For multi-tasking however, obviously any dual core would be better.

However I would agree with those that say it's an old setup. It'd want to be very cheap to warrant buying it, especially when notebooks with integrated low end Ati and Nvidia graphics (6100/6150/x200/X1150 etc) are found in even the cheapest of laptops these days.

 

You've got to be kidding me. Clearly these are the words of someone who feels the need to defend a (poor) purchase choice. Your own screenshot thread shows pathetic graphical detail in extremely old (and therefore not graphically demanding) games. You said it yourself in that very thread:

The above is all correct (except you said Celeron D instead of Celeron M). Why defend such a sub-par graphics chip though?

 

Heh, this is exactly what I came up with after searching this site for hours on this subject...some people are diminishing the Intel GMA 950 too much and some say it really isn't meant for any gaming. And now my head hurts . I really don't need any newer games, just the ones I mentioned, but seeing how no one can say for sure that those games run without any probs, I'll have to pass on any laptops with the Intel GMA 950.

 

Hold on there. I never said the GMA would tear through Crysis now did I?

What I'm defending is the actual capabilities of the GMA950, crap as it may be. You posted that it wouldn't play any of those games at acceptable FPS - which I'm sorry, but is absolutely bull.

The games Baby Boy listed are old games mostly, some of which only require 4mb video memory. We're talking about games that are 8 years old. And you go and claim they won't work well, which goes to show you haven't a clue about the cards capabilities.

Thats the whole point - it runs old games fine, and even some new-ish ones. The games baby boy listed are years older then even the games I tested for the most part. Getting the picture yet as to why exactly your post was totally wrong? Oh and I didn't realise Half Life 2 was 'extremely old'. I think if I can get that to run, games that require a 266mhz cpu and 4mb Video memory aren't going to exactly pose any problem.

Like I said. I'm not leaping to the rescue of the GMA. What I'm doing is disproving another crock of **** that someone posted because they're hopping on an already popular bandwagon. Like it or not, whatever the GMA can do, your post was tripe and unhelpful. If baby boy is happy just playing the games he listed, it doesn't really matter if he has an 7950GTX or a GMA950 for the most part as - bottom line - they are old games that the GMA950 will run through no problems.

 

LOL, I'm not doing any bandwagon-hopping-on here, just stating the truth. The GMA 950 isn't worth considering for gaming, end of story. There's no point in debating this further. I'm sorry you're saddled with such an inadequate GPU and feel the need to defend it though.

 

I have an 8800GTS in one desktop, an X1800XT in another and a Go7400 in my main laptop. You really think I'm defending my own GMA950 because it's all I've got? That's what you seem to think.... Hell, it isn't even mine to be honest, it's my mothers work machine. What I did was try to show people what it could, and what it couldn't do and dispel common crap myths people like you circulate - that it cannot play anything at all.

The bottom line? It can do what you said it can't. Can it really dispute that? Not if you've any sense.

Sure it's not for gaming. I've no problem telling the world - wow, the GMA950 is crap for gaming! You get people all the time asking can they play Battlefield on it. No, run a mile away! I'd be the first to say that and advise against it.

But it doesn't mean it's not for gaming full stop, end of. In fact, for really old games, like what baby boy's mentioned, it's ideal. Less heat, longer battery life....you don't agree? For old games? I mean when someone comes asking if it will play those sort of games....why bother spouting about how it doesn't run the latest games? It's not relevant. I mean if someone came to you looking for a bike and said hey, I've got little money, and this is cheap, I only need it to ride to school a few minutes a day. Would you start off by telling them that they can't compete in the Tour de France with it and ergo it's useless? I don't think so.

Everything has its place and merits as long as you give weight to the circumstances. Which you, unfortunately, haven't done.

 

HaVok is right you guys....while the GMA maybe...sorry, IS crap for NEW games such as rainbow six vegas, oblivion, crysis, to name a few....IT IS more than enough for games made in the late '90s to the early '00s...up till 2002 would be my guess....

1997~2000 games=======Moore than enough
2001~2002 games=======OK...will run them
2003~2005 games=======LOW to LOWEST settings depending on game
2006~Present games=====NO NO...NO GMA950!!!! unless u want to run a 1 fps slide show...

NOW there are exceptions, like the GMA capable of running oldoblivion, but that dose not mean that the GMA will run crysis on highest settings.....but for old games (1997~2002ish) IT IS FINE, if thats all you will play

 

rofl i like how ur playing F.E.A.R. and HL2 @ 640 x 480 on low. but i guess it really depends on a person definition of the word playable, when it comes to Frames Per Second. for me 50 - 60 is playable. anything below that is garbage. maybe 40fps but thats it. if it dips below 30 fps in any situation i lower some details in the game. now ive seen people play games @ 25fps and say its outstanding. its all personal preference

 

Quoted for truth

 

Playable to me does not equal lowest settings all-around with OBVIOUS visual glitches thrown into the mix with fps dipping into the single digits at times (all from havok's screenshots). Even if it can play the old games with decent FPS, it's still got the loverly screendoor/cheesecloth effect everywhere.

 

i think the games he listed were mostly 2d, which the gma can do. it can run 3d games sort of. old 3d games should be ok.

the celeron m is both old and it was a budget processor even when it was released. overall, that is a really good setup for about $300 as stated previously.

 

What's your problem? Are you a troll?

The ENTIRE question here is about older games - YOU stated that the GMA950 cannot play those old games from 1999 with acceptable framerates. We're not talking about the latest games. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

And seriously, talk about being selective. Lowest settings all around with single digit frames? The only game to dip into single digits was Doom 3 which I clearly stated ran like crap. The whole point of the test wasn't to run everything I could at high settings. It was to set base points of performance to compare it to other cards and prove what the GMA can and cannot do. Not to claim it was a good card as you seem to think I'm claiming.

Half Life 2, Dawn of War, Call of Duty, these all ran fine despite your best efforts to somehow imply my screenshot thread is full of games running in single digit frames. Who cares if they're running at lowest settings? Baby Boy did not post asking how the GMA950 was going to handle the latest and greatest. He specifically named games that date back to when I was a child and a 32mb video card was the business. Now again I'll repeat - if these ran, modern-ish games, then I think that's proof enough that ancient games from 4 or 5 years predating those ones are going to run splendidly.

Honestly, what's wrong, did mommy buy poor techguy a GMA950 for his birthday and now it's scarred him for life? Seriously, get over your obvious deep rooted hatred of Intels chip.

It is that hard to accept you were wrong in your original statements? Because that's all this argument is really about....

@I'mhungry - I think you also miss the point completely. Techguy said that the GMA cannot play 8 year old games at reasonable FPS, which I seriously found an totally baseless comment that is most certainly untrue. I even said MYSELF that FEAR was totally unplayable in my screenshot thread, my whole argument was based around the original statement being a load of crap. Please don't post if you're not bothered reading the thread in its context...as I've already stated the thread is from a machine that's not even mine and I don't play my games on it, they were only installed for reference and testing, then uninstalled, period.

 

ROFLMAO, you make all these petty personal comments and then call me a troll?

The GMA 950 is a joke for gaming. Application compatibility is terrible, visual quality is abhorrent, and framerates are pathetic. There is absolutely no point in discussing this any further. Why you so vehemently deny these facts makes no sense to me.

 

Ok Techguy, put it this way.

The OP made a list of games on which he wanted to know how each would perform with the GMA950. They are all old games, some as old as 8 years old. Yet you stated, and I quote:

Do you still support this claim? This is what the argument is about, not current games. In fact:

1) I myself tested out modern games such as Doom 3, FEAR and Far Cry and found them ran terribly on the GMA950 and said as much in my own thread. . So maybe you can point out where I'm denying that the GMA950 is crap for the latest games? Surprisingly you can't because I never said that.

All I said was that your original claim, as quoted above, was totally false. Do you, or do you not agree, that the GMA950 is capable of playing games that are up to EIGHT YEARS OLD very well? That's the only question here, so maybe you can stop beating around the bush and going off on irrelevant tangents relating to the latest games and answer that specific question relating to older games then for us?

 

What's the point? You and I both know the GMA 950 is a joke. Why continue this discussion? The X3100 is far more interesting, or at least will be once Intel releases some decent drivers for it that enable vertex shading.

 

trying to play modern games on the gma chip will most likely result in a headache. however, these games are pretty seriously dated. some of them are 2d. the ones that are 3d are still really old. the gma 950 can run half life reasonably well in low res / settings. things dating before that (or in this case, way before that) should run fine.

 

What I am trying to decipher is: Is Intel GMA 950 something not meant for any gaming, thus will play any game with terrible FPS and graphical issues, regardless of how old the game is, or just say, um, something like an old GPU whose age has passed, but which can still play the games it's meant to play.
I did find someone say you can't play Baldur's Gate 2 on this graphic card without 3danalyze program or something, and if that's true, that will pretty much be the death sentence for the Lenovo I am looking to buy...
What would really help is someone actually playing demos or something of the games I have mentioned.

 

No, that is completely false. Trust me when I say those games are not going to pose any problem running on the GMA950.

The GMA950 is indeed not meant for gaming but it can do so with older titles, and generally by older I'd actually mean titles from 2001-2002, and at that, titles that were intensive in their day. The games you've listed are, not only often older then that, but games that have meagre system requirements. In fact I've checked most of them, and most only require 4mb vram, some only 2mb.

The GMA950 might be crap for modern gaming but being reduced to the stage where people claim it can't run games that require 2mb of video memory is a farce. Yes, it will run older games at high FPS, to answer your question, and is only terrible at the somewhat modern games starting from 2003 up.

This is a direct quote from a GMA950 owner in another forum:

He plays them on his laptop. Maybe you got the 3d Analyse bit here, as it is required for NWN 2 - a fairly new game, about 7 or 8 years newer then some of the stuff you're wanting to play

What 3d Analyze does it emulate features that your card doesn't support through the CPU enabling you to play games that wouldn't run otherwise - this only applies to newer games. The game you've listed are literally over half a decade away from needing such a thing. You do not need it for any of the game you have listed.

IF you plan playing newer games I would be the first to avoid the GMA950. But if that list is honestly the extent of what you're playing, then a cheap as chips laptop with the GMA will suffice easily and play those games without any problems.

 

Hm... I think Havok made himself quite clear regarding the capabilities of the GMA950.
You should check out his GMA950 Screenshotthread and see for yourself.

For further clarification, the GMA950 was designed to be cheap, cool and very power-economic.
Although it has a 3D accelerator built in, its designers didn't have games in mind.
This is quite obvious, since it comes without Hardware T&L, which means that the main CPU has to do atleast half of what the graphiccard would usually do.
This rules out most 3D based Games but the lack of Hardware T&L can be compensated with a strong CPU, thus it is possible to run quake3, HL2 and F.E.A.R. to name the most current ones that are possible.

Well, in your case this probably won't work (I don't know for sure though), the Lenovo C200 doesn't have a very strong CPU but I can assure you, older and mainly 2D based games are not very demanding and should run.

Yes, that is probably true.
BaldursGate is mainly a 2D game and should run without problems, but here's the catch: It uses the 3D accelerator for some of its magic-effects.

Since the GPU doesn't have certain things like Hardware T&L, you might have to use 3danalyze to trick the game into using the main CPU instead of the graphiccard for rendering effects.

I can't say for sure though, since I haven't played BaldursGate in ages.

 

I have played all those games on my Averatec 3200 series laptop.
Spec.
Athlon XP-M 2000+ (1.667 GHz actual clock speed) Thats Single core of course =9
512 ram
64mb (shared) VIA Unichrome graphics integrated (no, no hard ware t&l)

All on high-full settings at 1024x768 res, smooth, no lagg, on Windows XP.

Now if you compare the Unichrome graphics card to the GMA 950, you know oldschool gaming is cake for the GMA you dont even have to question. Even the GMA i850 is better than my card. Ive also played warcraft III, deus ex, american mcgees alice, giantz citizen kabuto, black and white, freedom force, classics man... All of which will be cake for the GMA 950 since my garbage card can handle them great. Hope that helps.


Also, some more advice.

DO NOT get an ATI card what so ever, integrated or dedicated. Youll go through hell intalling drivers in ubuntu. or any Linux for that matter. Stick with nvidia or Intel graphics just for that portion of your laptop requirements regardless of gaming which you wont be doing on ubuntu I assume. Dual boot?