So...Integrated Graphics really are bad.

I have a Dell D531 with a TL-60 (2 Ghz), 2 Gigs of DDR2-667 ram, and X1270 integrated graphics. I'm running a clean install of Windows XP...and for games, its not that great. I mean, I figured for older games like CSS and Warcraft 3 it'd work great, but...not so much. CSS on lowest settings at 1280x800 I get ~30-40fps, sometimes dipping to 25 if theres a lot of people. The only thing that I can't figure out with it is that if i decrease the resolution...the FPS stays the same, I can't get it any higher.

I have also tried messing with the heapsize and the DirectX that its running at, ranging from 7.1, 8.1 and 9.

Anyone have any suggestions? That, and is it weird if I use the newest ATI drivers, instead of showing up as X1270, it just shows up as the X1200 Series...and its weird that it doesn't seem to perform better than the Xpress 200..hmm.

Oh well, thanks

 

integrated graphics are not really that bad...unless you are a exteme gamer

 

Well, its not that bad...I should be used to this, as its what I used to get on my P4 with 512 ram and a Geforce 6200.

And then I built my rig with 2 gigs, an e4300 and an 8800 GTS

I mean, I just think its weird that changing the resolution doesn't affect it at all.

 

They're not bad, they're just not meant for gaming at all.

 

I guess.

On the other hand, I should be happy its playable. I just thought it'd be faster (thought it was more processor based).

 

That's weird since that would indicate that you're being limited by the cpu (if my logic is wrong lol).. But I don't know how the heck that would happen.. Are you sure your cpu isn't being downclocked or anything?

 

I'm sure - I have it set to performance on demand through RMClock, in which its undervolted by ~.2 volts at the highest speed (2 ghz.) Hm, gonna try it at max...

Set it up .1v, and forced it at 2ghz, and nothing.

 

And the Integrated Graphics is superb when it comes to power saving

 

..Yes they are. the other day, I was trying to run down the battery to ~40% or so for storage. Started at midnight or 1am, and was just browsing at 800mhz...at .75volts...

and I think I went to sleep around 4 or 5...and the battery wasn't near 40% yet.

 

Ok, I'm starting to think the processor may be limiting it. The only other computer that I have thats close in comparison is my desktop since sometimes I have it running at 1.8ghz, same speed ram, and completely different video card, but when I run the game for the heck of it with as many bots as possible, my desktop runs smoothly - in contrast to the notebook, which just dies (5 fps?)

Not sure what its because of though...for everythin else, this processor ain't bad though.

 

They are bad for games, in all other respects they aren't bad at all, and can actually be a better fit depending on the use of the notebook, less heat and longer battery life is the primary advantage. In retrospect I kinda wish I had opted for integrated on my M1210, I hardly ever game on it, I'll install something, tweak it out so it runs well, then thats usually it aside from showing off to people how well FEAR can run on a 12.1" notebook, but to actually play the game, I'd much rather play it on my desktop with all settings maxed on my 22" widescreen at native res.

The TL60 should handle it fine, you might want to do a clean install, fresh drivers, then try the game without all the tweaks and see how it treats you, CPU bound is a term thats getting way overused these days, I know I can get a boost in my FPS by upgrading my desktop CPU, but it wouldnt be huge.

 

On a basic level yes, they are relatively poor for gaming but you should definitely be performing much better then what you've described in CS:Source. I would say just to uninstall drivers, clean, reinstall and get rid of any programs or tweaks you're using. Also, are you experiencing this playing online too or is it just with bots?

 

A TL-60 should be powerful enough, the problem is that the integrated card is stealing cpu power for itself (hence integrated - uses some cpu power) and as such the cpu isn't enjoying as much power to do it's gaming tasks with. Were you to have a TL-60 with a dedicated card I'm sure it would fly.

 

If it were me I would stop running any kind of tweaking software just as test. Undervolting, overclocking all of it, turn off power now, go in ATI Catalyst make sure power play is set to max performance. Then I would see how it works. It can't hurt and if it improves hey.

8 to 10 hours battery life while surfing the web?

 

i have the x1150, and i wouldnt say thats its all that bad.. try checking ur video driver.. coz when i first bought my laptop, it had version 7.3 and it really sucked, but having upgraded it to version 7.7, it really is a lot more enjoyable.. the 7.3 driver couldnt even play VT3 at vga resolution (singles, exhibition) but the 7.7 driver could play it at 1200x800 with minimal lag for gameplay..

 

Integrated graphics are suited for lightweight multimedia tasks such as watching video and playing (older) games. The intergrated graphics shares memory, cpu power and so on, slowing the system to a crawl.

 

Eh, maybe 6-7 hours of battery life. I'll try removing all the stuff though.

 

...No improvement with ATI Tray tools, Catalyst Control Center, and stock voltage set. This is just weird.

I guess since integrated is takiing CPU power it really is a lot...or soemthing.

 

Not having tried running CS:S on an integrated card I can't really say but I wouldn't have thought It'd be THAT bad!

Try Omega drivers?

Also check your ATi 3d settings, make sure it's set to performance instead of quality, things like AA set to application preference and in the application make sure things like AA, AF and vsync are turned off.


Edit: you could also use powerstrip to overclock the system core speed but this would be at your own risk. My Toshiba saw some improvement when I tried this.

 

Everythings set to performance. Omega Drivers are based on on Catalyst 7.5, the latest are 7.7, and they get about the same in 3DMark05, so...I'll give Omega's a shot.

 

I still think something could be screwy with all the tweaks you made, sometimes they arent as easy to reverse as they are to apply, I'd do a fresh install and see what happens. Whats windows itself set to?, I honestly cant remember how it worked in windows, but with vista, unless its set at performance mode, my card runs about half speed, regardless of my powermizer settings, plugged in or not.

 

A fresh install of what? Windows? ATI Tray Tool?

I'm out of ideas for the most part, but at least its playable. I just isntalled Omega's drivers and am still getting 25-35fps.

Worst comes to worst, I guess I can format and start over to see what happens, or just make a partition for it.

And shoudl I leave AMD's dual core optimizer in? Last time, when I was in Vista and tried running this game without it (or maybe it was Vista) there was like a second delay between clicking and when an action would occur in game.

Eh, I'll try a format or something for the hell of it. Will post results later

 

i tried cs: condition zero on my 1150, and i run it at 800x600 with minimal lag, but it does lag when there's a lot of enemies around.. i played at de_dust with 5on5.. setting the resolution a notch higher will really result in a lot of lag. btw.. whats the diiference between condition zero and source.??

 

Condition Zero still uses the old engine I think...graphics and hitboxes are the main differences.

 

So clean format, Omega drivers, and 30 fps still. I think I give up.

Man, this is weird.

 

What settings do you have the game and the 3d settings in ATi control panel set to?

You could also try overclocking with powerstrip (at your own risk!).

 

oh lol i play 12vs12 with that setting except i put on the medium setting
-----------------------
i was wondering angel, but does overclocking ever help in gaming??
because i oced my card once for bf2 the whole map got screwed.

 

Game - I have it set to 1280x800, everything else set to low. Regardless of the resolution, the FPS is the same.

On Catalyst Control, I have it set to Max Performance for everything.

 

they're not bad... fopr mine sweepers

 

Well, now I'm thinking that its just a processor-related issue, although WPrime gives me a result close to what I should be expecting.

 

One question - does only having a 65w adapter restrict it at all?