REQ: Intel X3100/X4500 Perf in GR/RvS/CSS

Hello,
I am currently looking to get a laptop that has an Intel X4500 because the version of the model with the dedicated HD 3470 gets 1.5hours less in Mobile Mark (5 vs 3.5).

I know the X4500 is faster than the X3100, etc.

Can anyone test out the following games on either the X3100 or the X4500 for me?

Ghost Recon (original)
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six 3 Raven Shield
Counterstrike Source

*EDIT*
KOTOR/Beyond Good and Evil as well would be nice.
And Medal of Honor Allied Assault.


----------------
Now playing: GFW Staff - GFW Radio weekly podcast - 07/23/2008
via FoxyTunes

 

bump. no replies?

 

I don't think it is that much faster, if you want to play any games at all the only integrated one you could get away with would be the ATI 3200 thats in the HP dv5z and a few other notebooks. Besides, to save battery I think you can switch between the integrated and the dedicated on a lot of models, so when you are gaming you can turn the dedicated on.

 

Well, you can't on the SR and most other laptops... so... XP

Anyone, fps?

 

Dude, if you need to game I am telling you what everyone else is going to tell you, you cant run games made within the last 7 years with any decent settings on an integrated chipset. If you want to run games you at least have to shell out a little bit of money for a low end card such as the ATI 3450 or Nvidia 8400 or something similar.

 

I don't have fps numbers for you but I can almost guarantee you won't have any problems with the original Ghost Recon. The original GR doesn't even require a GPU since I'm pretty sure it could run on the nVidia TNT2 which didn't have DX7 hardware T&L support. Raven Shield also shouldn't be a problem since it uses a build of the UT2.0 engine that predates that used in UT2003. The game only really uses DX7 level T&L and I've run it on a GeForce2 MX.

The only real concern is CSS. It will run, but not at high settings or resolutions.

 

Excellent - thats the kind of answer I was looking for. Much thanks, *crosses fingers*. CSS, I'll prob bump the res down to 800x600 or whatever the laptop counterpart is.

How bout KOTOR/BG&E?

 

You're pretty lucky that your favourite games are old enough that they should actually work decently on an IGP.

Both KOTOR and BG&E supported DX7 generation graphics cards so they should both run. They're both in the same generation as Raven Shield.

http://swforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=427170&forum=27&sp=105

In the above link on the Bioware forum, near the bottom of the page nova1972x reports KOTOR running "smooth" at up to 1024x768 low-med settings on a GMA X3100 in a Dell Inspiron. Assuming the initial GMA X4500 drivers aren't buggy, you should see even better performance.

 

There are 4 versions of the X4500 so be careful when making a purchase

GM47: 640MHz clock
GM45: 533MHz clock
GS45(low power/small form factor): 266MHz clock
GL40(low cost): 333MHz clock

The GM45 will be 50-70% faster than the X3100 and the GM47 will be 1.7-2x faster. Also, make sure to get a 1066MHz Core 2 Duo CPU with DDR3-1066 RAM.

*Centrino 2 has been introduced, but only the PM45 is here. The integrated graphics versions are not here yet, should be here in 2-3 weeks*

 

Hehe, they're just the only good 'old' games I happen to have.

 

Wait, (sorry to double post) anyone have any ideas on Medal of Honor Allied Assault perf?

 

That's not true at all. So by what you're saying, I couldn't play blitzkrieg, released in 2002, on high settings/resolution with integrated graphics, or HoI1/2 either. For that matter civ3. Or even Klingon Academy (ok that was 2000, but it was VERY demanding in its day).
It depends on the game, and how demanding it is. You can certainly play some games made in the last 7 years.

 

My current laptop has the x3100 chipset and I can assure you that Counter Strike Source and KOTOR doesn't work. CS Source is laggy because of the dreadful graphics performance of the x3100. According to what I have heard the x4500 chipset is around 3 times better. But since x3100 is terrible for games, 3 times better doesn't sound too convincing to me.
The battery performance of the x3100 chipset is quite good and I have to admit that it's good for normal work. (By that I mean non-graphics intensive work).

My advice is to go for a laptop with the AMD puma platform with the dedicated graphics if you want to play games. My old laptop with the ATI Express 200M chipset is better than the x3100 and I don't believe x4500 would do any better.

 

Heh, I suppose 3 x 0 still = 0

Could you test out GR/RvS/BGE for me? Please?

As much as I'd love to get the HD 3470 model, it loses 1.5 hrs of battery life, and it doesn't really help my video editing, so x(

 

Most people can't test these games out for you, as most don't play them. They are old.

 

You can still get a HD 3470 and have lots of battery life. Just get an overclock program and... underclock the card and, if possible, the voltage. When I had a ATI 9700 Mobile and wanted more "juice" I underclocked to 50MHz GPU and 100MHz Graphic RAM. This gave me a good amount of energy saving and enough power to ensure normal windows operation and video playback (non-HD video)

 

Well can't help you there man, I don't have those games (or any hard drive space to download them ). Anyway I have tried to play Half Life 2, Devil May Cry 3 PC edition and I think I tried hitman contracts. The result was either laggy gameplay or the game not being able to load at all. Intel's drivers didn't help either. The only game that I currently play is Warcraft 3.

Although I constantly complain about the x3100 chipset, it is brilliant for what it's meant to do. I get nearly 4 hours of battery life without heavy applications, runs quite cool and the performance for that stuff is reasonable. The new x4500 would probably be much better as well.

So Lencias, if you want to play games I think you should get a notebook with a dedicated GPU like the Nvidia 8600, 9600 or ATI 3470. Or get the x4500 for work. Take caution if you want the middle ground or you will end up with a notebook that’s not brilliant for either. (Like my old HP zv6000 )

 

Well like I've said the 3470 gets 1.5hr less approximately, and that seems like a really huge hit.

 

does anyone know which one of these is in the X200 Thinkpad?

 

in case anyone is interested the X200 Thinkpad has the GM45 Chipset

 

I have the x4500 and I get over 50 fps in CSS when I run the stress test. fully playable. It looks great.

Edit: that's with 1280 x 800, all settings high

 

Hy,and what about Half-Life 2(I know it's mostly the same as C-S:S) in some not-too-high resolutions like 1280*800 in low or middle settings without all those AA and AF?
I REALLY like this game and I'm thinking about buying Acer eMachines e520.
So,anybody able to try it?

 

Sorry to bump an old thread, but am hoping to get some input.

I got a x3100 summer of 08 for $400. All in all, it does everything I need it to do for an on the go computer. I factored in I wouldn't be able to play cs:s.

Now it's a year and a half later, and I'm seeing the new $300-400 range for laptops is more or less the same as mine, except now with x4500 and 667fsb pdc's vs 533fsb.

I'd be tempted to make the switch up and cash in whatever I can get for my old laptop, but only if I'd be able to play cs:s.

I read of there being a bunch of different x4500s and only the top of the line one is 2x faster than the x3100.

I'm guessing the 300-400 dollar laptops would use the gl40 chip? I don't care about detail (obviously, since I'm playing cs:s), but I'd like to be able to run native resolution (i'm guessing 1280x800 or 1366x768?)

Doesn't matter if I have to set details to low. Looking to be able to have avg fps above 30, and hopefully min fps above 30 except for maybe some real intense brief scenarios.

Am I still dreaming?