*****The GMA X3100 gaming thread - HL2 screens + more*****

Impressed by peoples findings. Intrigued by the tweaks. You? To boast about your 20- framerates. Look bud, I already said I am more than impressed at what you got this card to do... but don't go laughing and jumping around that your Core Duo is out performing other C2D's. I believe on page 44 (not sure), a guy with C2D was getting better framerates than you, and you ADMITTED his C2D was faster. This is a forum. People are here to help, not to boast.

 

Yes im impressed on what the card can do to, and yeah but he was only running it at 800x600, im running it at 1280x800 big difference

 

Yeah Maybe im a bit crazy but i just don't understand how my Dual Core is out performing your core 2 duo's, thats what im tryin to say thats all. which yet again brings me back to my question that no one still has answered:

What do you guys got running on your computers?

im tryin to help you guys out,

here look at my desktop i have barely anything running, the way it should be:

http://i15.tinypic.com/8alahjp.png

 

Perfect example, that i didn't even see before. Look at all that crap thats running, there is no reason for that at all, and thats exactly why you guys are getting bad results.

 

You have a very strange and INDIRECT way of asking questions. Its pissing a lot of people off as well.

 

I'm trying to help yall out, you not understand that?

If its not too much, can everyone with a X3100 post there desktop so i can see what you guys got running, cuz no one has still answer my question. Things like AVG, MSN, AOL, AIM Etc all sucks up alot of memory & thats where you guys are getting bad results.

 

Please keep this conversation under control, thanks.

 

no problem chaz, just tryin to help theses guys out, thats all

 

It won't matter too much. With hardware T&L/VS mode, and such a low performance range(10-20 fps), your CPU isn't gonna make any difference anyway. The game will be GPU-bound to care about the CPU. Core 2 Duo vs Core Duo isn't like comparing a similar clocked Pentium 4 you know. I have seen wide variety of performance benchmarks on otherwise what looks like a similar config, and I think its because they are all measured with FRAPS.

 

oh ok that explains alot, but having less programs running in the background should make performance better.

 

Sure, makes sense, though I do keep 1-2 Firefox windows open when testing. I know running FRAPS in Battlefield 2 can make the gameplay choppy, which makes the whole point of running FRAPS in the first place pointless.

 

It is very true background apps can bog the system memory down. Use your Task Manager to check what you have running. Technically, the only things you should have running are the necessities. (taskmanager.exe, explorer - not Internet Explorer -, etc.)

 

Actually, CPU does does make a difference. Aren't IGP's to a certain extent dependant on the processor. Looking at Unreal's Halo screenshots compared to mine, I get 50-100% more FPS than him.

 

I tried the Witcher Demo... took me about 10 mins to load it and then it ran about 1-2FPS at the lowest quality setting...

Im running Dual Core 1.46Ghz, 1GB Ram Laptop. Sony Viao VGN-NR110E.

 

Alright. So I went to Intel site and researched a bit about Pentium Dual Core. There's two versions. Ones with 64-bit support and one without. Since There are both Yonah and Merom cores for the Pentium Dual Core, the 64-bit one is obviously Core 2 Duo Merom based one. If you look at unreal's spec, he has a Core 2 based Pentium Dual Core, not a Core Duo based one. Since the difference between the two(yours and his) is 20% higher FSB on the Core 2, and double the cache. Since we know the amount of cache impact on performance and 20% increase in FSB is pretty minor for Core 2, we can basically ignore it.

And no, IGPs that are sensitive to CPU is the ones running in software mode. Unless you are forcing your X3100 to run in software, it'll be more GPU bound than CPU bound anyway. Even if it was a Core 2 vs. Core Duo comparison. Plus, you did say you were running CoD4 at single digit frames while he does not. I don't know what unreal is doing, but the results are not consistent enough to put that as CPU difference squarely.

No guys, 15.7 driver is not pulled, 14.32 XP driver is pulled!!

 

theres no freakin way your getting 50-100% more FPS than me thats total BS. You where only getting like 10 to 15 FPS more & thats deff. not 50-100% more.

Now i found in Halo that setting it to -Use20 (Shader 2.0) makes it run much smoother than on -Use14 (Shader 1.1) which is weird but i gain about 5 to 10 FPS on that so my Avg is about 25 - 35 FPS.

Edit: Ahhh also your running it in Software mode where im running it in Direct 3D theres a big difference & if i could run it in Software mode id get just as much FPS as you would be gettin, Possibly even more.

 

Why do you insist so much on your system, obviously slower, out performing everyone else. I mean, you just said "Getting as much FPS, possibly more". Computers aren't a guessing game. While they aren't 100% statistically accurate, they aren't a guess. A Core 2 Duo will most definitely outperform.

 

Did you even read IntelUser's Reply?

Its not slower, & if you had read my reply correctly i said:

Im not running it in Software mode like he was, im running it on Direct 3d & only getting like 10-15 FPS less than what he was getting. If i ran it in Software mode im sure my FPS would be better than his.

Next time Read the hole thing before you question people.

 

Ok... let me get this straight. He has a Core 2 Duo... you have a Core Duo? Right? You believe your system will outperform his, which has almost identical specs, aside from his better CPU. Maybe I'm missing something. The thread became a trainwreck. I'm just trying to clear up your reasons why your Core Duo will out perform a Core 2 Duo.

By the way, here's the funny thing. You think your CD's are outpeforming that guys C2D. 1280x800 isn't a "big difference", running in a TWO generation old DirectX makes the difference. You're running in DX8 mode, as you said. He wasn't.

 

1. Dual Core not Core Duo (LMFAO!!!! Specs in Sig Dude HAHAHA)
2. Where did i say DX8? cuz im running it on -Use20 (Shader 2.0) which is the highest Possible Graphics Halo will go, his was in Software, theres a huge difference between Software & Direct 3D, Think about it dude, why is he running it in Software mode? cuz he gets better FPS, i garentee if he ran it in Direct 3D mode & used the -Use20 Command his FPS would be right where mine are or even worst who knows.

Now i understand that Core 2 Duo's are faster than Dual Core's but its the fact than im getting better results than people with Core 2 Duo's, That guy should be able to run Halo in Direct 3D mode no problem especially when he has a Core 2 Duo, So if hes running it in Software mode, his computer must be Crap......... Cuz im running it in Direct 3D mode & only getting 10-15 FPS less than what he was getting.

Oh and PS: Medal Of Honor Airborne doesn't work on the X3100, Video Card Not supported message comes up & doesn't go into the game.

 

Typo buddy. Don't understand why that's worth "LMFAO". Immature. Anyway, you stated when you ran Team Fortress 2, you ran in DX8 mode.

Quote- "Very playable & i barely tweaked the config file, really the only thing i did was force the game into DX8, & look at the results..... 1280x800, & not that silly 800x600 that someone posted earlier & he had a core 2 Duo as well.... HAHAHA...... My Dual Core puts that Core 2 Duo to shame Seriously........" - Quote

I don't believe he was running in DX8 mode. Now get what I'm saying?

 

Wrong. Hardware mode in Vista is broken. XP's hardware and software mode are very similar, performance wise. Basically, Vista's software mode is comparable to XP's hardware mode, until shaders kick in, where hardware mode excels.

And what do you mean by you're running it in Direct3D and I'm not. Do you even know what you're talking about anymore?

And let's do some math before you call me a BSer. I have better things to do than lie about the performance of an integrated card. Let's compare the Halo screenshots you and I took. I made sure that my pictures were as similar as yours.

Firing the covenant rocket - Hang em High:
You: 17FPS, Me: 34FPS
Difference: 100%

Warthog - Blood Gulch
You: 20FPS, Me: 38FPS
Difference: 90%

Pistol reload - Blood Gulch:
You: 15FPS, Me: 37FPS
Difference: 159%

I guess I am BSing.

 

The whole CoD4 issue only existed on XP for me, on certain maps, where the framerate would be 1-5. On maps like Wet Work, I would hit 20-40FPS, and was playable. In vista, I never hit single digit frames (yet), still far from playable, though. We can all agree though, that Intel writes terrible drivers. Looking at the Pentium Dual Core issue:

He has the T2310, which is a crippled Yonah Core. The desktop counterparts are based on the Core 2 Duo Allendale Cores, with half the L2 cache disabled.

You should take that as a compliment. The Pentium Dual Core is a crippled Core Duo. "HAHAHA" to you too, sir. Please, take your head out of your ass and educate yourself before you talk.

 

Let's watch the language and such in the thread guys. There's no need to flame, or get angry. Unreal is proud of what he did, and he should be! He took a low-end integrated card, and pulled a little something out of it! This shouldn't be a competition.

 

Read your own quotes man. It says:
"The first processors using the brand appeared in notebook computers in early 2007. Those processors, named Pentium T2060, T2080, and T2130[2], had the 32-bit Pentium M-derived Yonah core, and closely resembled the Core Duo T2050 processor with the exception of having 1 MB L2 cache instead of 2 MB[3]. All three of them had a 533 MHz FSB connecting CPU with memory. "Intel developed the Pentium Dual-Core at the request of laptop manufacturers"[4]."

He has a T2310 not T2130. You can see from Intel's own website that T2310 supports Intel 64. It says on Unreal's own notebook specifications that its running at 1.46GHz, which is clearly a T2310.

And even if he had a Core Duo, the difference isn't big enough between your CPU and his. The performance difference between the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo at 2.33GHz lies at less than 20% in average. When we take the fact that a more advanced architecture like Core 2 Duo will take better advantage of cache and FSB, then at 1MB cache and 533MHz FSB, the difference will be even less, perhaps at 10%.

 

Dude where not talking about Team Fortress 2 were talking about halo results.

 

Thank you very much for explaining that.

 

Ok, my misunderstanding. I saw you talking about your performance in TF2 being better than his.

 

Thats the thing your not getting your running it in Software Mode where the X3100 is gunna do good at, where im running it in Direct 3D with Shader 2.0 the way the game is supposed to look, now i understand you can't do Hardware mode, but thats not my problem & you can't compare my Direct 3D Screens with your Software mode screens, Untill let say i put Vista back on my machine & run it in software mode, than we can compare FPS results. & you can't possible think Software & Direct 3D are the same, cuz there not at all seriously.

I wanna see you put XP on there and run Halo on it, i garentee your results will be the same as me.

 

UnReaL596, try running it on software mode. I believe that you will still benefit, even in XP. After comparing software and hardware T&L/VS results with a XP using laptop user and me using a desktop, I think the X3100 is just much weaker than the X3000. I am talking about the X3000 because its the IGP that Intel and others all base on games being very playable, etc. On software mode where CPU should make a greater difference, I only found 7% difference in 3dmark05 between him and mine. However, the difference was fairly large in hardware, at 45%.

Anyways, Vista doesn't run all games bad compared to XP. There are few games I know that it runs significantly better on Vista, like CoD4 and World in Conflict(this one won't even run at all in XP!).

Seriously, Unreal is running on a Core 2 Merom based Pentium Dual Core, not a Yonah based one. I keep telling you guys, when you run on hardware mode, it'll be GPU bound and Yonah/Merom won't matter. It's not like he has a Pentium 4.

 

Ok, but how do you run it in Software Mode, Don't you have to Force it?

 

Go to regedit, and search for _3dmark05.exe. You can also find _3dmark03.exe, and _3dmark06.exe. It's the easiest way to find the patch in the regedit because the graphics driver sets certain games to software mode forcefully because it runs faster. You can try with other games, if you have WoW, you can try to find. _wow.exe. For age of empires 3 its _age3.exe or something. All you need to find is a list where it says _originalfilename.exe.

Then when you find it, see the file name for the game you want to change the rendering mode. Then make a DWORD with _ in front of the file name(Make sure you put _ in front or it won't work). Then do F3, or whatever is the find next shortcut to scroll through everything with the _ and DWORD values(there's a dozen values or so, some seems to repeat the first couple, but be sure). Change ALL the DWORD values to 1. 1 is software, and 0 is hardware. By default, the games that does not have the regedit value runs on hardware. Then run your game.

 

D'oh! I read it as T2130, my bad.

Edit: Unreal, software mode, in terms of visuals, is exactly the same as hardware mode, except more work is being done by the CPU. I should have explained that earlier, my bad. That being said, if hardware mode is holding you back, you will get a decent FPS boost in software mode. Although on XP, framerates were similar for me. I'll do some benchmarks tomorrow on XP with software vs hardware, but I'm almost certain my framerates will still be well above yours.

That being said, the possible reason why your framerates may be so low as compared to mine is because your CPU is throttling, due to XP's half-assed power saving features. Download a program called "Notebook Hardware Control", and set the processor to run at "max performance". Tell me if you see any differences.

 

not finding _originalfilename.exe?

 

What he meant was to type in the original file name . Just do a search for _3dmark06.exe, and add the DWORD for the game in question, in this case, add _halo.exe

 

oh ok thanks.

Edit: ok so i added the _Halo.exe & change it to 1, now is that all i do?

 

Yup. Try running some benchmarks without -use20 and whatever other tweaks if you dont mind. If this works, your framerates should be comparable to mine.

 

ok it worked, now i get about 30-40 FPS

 

Unreal, can we have the screenshots again with software mode?? If possible with same location that you took screenshot last time?? Try to use linkable mini images to save bandwidth .

BTW guys are you running full version??

Thanks.

 

After testing again, its really not much of an improvement running it in Software Mode, i also compared 1024x768 to 1280x800, and it looks like 1024x768 is my sweet spot.

Screens:

Oh and i shouldn't have to put the images like this at all, you guys need to get a better connection, & it certainly doesn't use alot of bandwidth, you guys just have slow internet & thats not my problem, but ima be nice about it this time and make them click able.

 

Here's a screenshot of Halo on XP using hardware mode.


I missed the reloading animation, but it dropped to 31FPS. I still don't understand how you were hitting 20. See post #483, unreal.

 

yeah i install that program & it only helped a little.

 

Did you make sure to choose max performance? Also, in the Intel GMA control panel, under display settings, choose power settings and uncheck Intel Display Power Saving Technology. Tell me if that changes anything.

 

huh not seeing that?

 

Right-click desktop -> graphic properties -> display settings -> power settings.

 

Its not there dude:

 

Odd, for me it's right under the "enable rotation" option. Which driver version are you running?

Also, I was able to reproduce your framerates in Halo. I hit 21FPS with the pistol reload on blood gulch. This was done using Notebook hardware control, where the flag icon is set to "max battery". make sure it's at "maximum performance", once again. I'll post the screenshot tomorrow, I'm off to sleep.

edit: looking at your screenshot, I see it's running at its max speed. Once again, tell me the driver version you're running.

 

14.31 .

 

Oh boy. You should really not be like this. Not everyone has fast connection and they will not spend more money just so they can look at a picture on a forum because the guy refuses to post lower bandwidth pics. Since you are trying to make a point, it MAY work if you are a bit more nice and cooperative.

 

Good thing that's not how we were suggesting that you do it.



That's an example of what I was thinking of. A clickable preview that links to a full sized image. Image Shack makes this a breeze to do, also allowing you to resize the photo during upload if you need to.

And thanks for the suggestion of getting a faster connection, but for some families it's not really possible. In my particular situation, we get our internet through Verizon, and we're limited to a 768Kb download rate because we're too far away from the distribution node and FiOS isn't available in my area. We're not using cable because in order to do so we'd have to disconnect our antenna from the coax cable running through my house that we use to get TV (not going to pay for cable TV, waste of time/money IMHO) in order to get cable internet. Plus we don't want to pay for the added cost of a cable connection vs. our cheap DSL connection.