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

From anarky321-

I think its not fill rate limited, but shader performance limited. Since Half Life 2 runs well while the derivatives of the engine doesn't, I bet its the fault of the driver. The X3100 has unified shaders, so it doesn't have T&L, it just runs T&L on shaders. You can find out if its fill rate limited or not by running it on higher resolutions. If it doesn't run it significantly worse, its limited by something else.

Doom 3 based engine games also have a problem. I can run the first couple of minutes of the game smoothly as I can in 640x480 low as I can with 1280x1024 Ultra High. The fact, is why would I run it on lowest settings when Ultra High settings with 1280x1024 provides smoother game play(not fluctuating as much)+much better graphics?? Ultra High+1024x768 runs at 10 fps at average, but 640x480+Low goes from 10-50(stays close to 10, drops to low as 6), so its as laggy.

OpenGL performance is definitely lacking, or at least Doom 3 performance is lacking. Despite the reviews saying Doom 3 has DirectX mode, I am thinking performance will improve when Intel improves the OpenGL portion of the drivers.

Even though its 4+ months since Intel introduced the first Hardware T&L/VS capable driver, they still need lot more work to do.

EDIT: Example of a game that's more fill rate limited is games that are already running decent on the IGP, like Farcry and BF2. These games will benefit from having more fillrate.

 

i find it very hard (impossible actually) to believe that statement, FPS plunges when there are 10 people on the screen shooting and throwing grenades at each other and barrels and bodies flying through the air, your screenshots of you staring at a static screen at barely 30fps says NOTHING about performance in a full server, fyi i get 130fps on my x3100 staring at a wall like that, but it doesnt mean anything because as soon as there are more than 5 people on the screen at a time shooting it plunges to 30-35, what your fps must plunge to at those settings i cant even imagine, but let me take a guess, about 10, can i prove this? well yes i can since we have an identical gpu and i have a much faster cpu than you i should get 30fps at that resolution in a busy scene, but i dont, even using your config, in which, like i pointed out before, weapon models are DISABLED, which means that if your weapon models are NOT, then you aren't using the exact config that you posted by definition, which makes me wonder why you advertised it as such; if i sound provocative i apologize, im just making a point that the gpu is NOT playable at those settings in CS:S unless your in a 4 player server, but you can prove me wrong easily by taking screenshots on de_dust2 in a full 32 player server with at least 5 people on the screen

p.s.: for cs1.6 and cs:source the statement "well this game is x years old so obviously it should perform awesome" does not apply, original CS was 5 years old and still stressing computers on full servers, i know because i went through 3 desktops over 4 years before it played completely smooth in full servers

 

I played CS 1.6 on my FX5500 back in the day, P4 2.4Ghz, 1G PC3200 RAM, all high, 1024x768, and played 32 man servers with 40+FPS. The game is not demanding...

 

Yes, with a graphics chip from a company with infinitely better drivers. Also, the X3100 is made for much better performance with newer games that feature advanced shaders. Unfortunate, because it means running both low settings and high settings at unplayable frame rates.

I bet part of the CS:S problems are still because of bad drivers.

Wait, they are talking about CS:S not CS 1.6... You can't compare those two. Gonna run CS:S on the X3000.

 

Yeah, I was talking about 1.6. CS:S wasn't out when I had my 5500.

 

You write way too much, im only gunna anwser 2 things

1. like i said i will post screens of me in action later and im 100% sure the FPS doesn't go lower than what i said above.

2. weapon models are not disabled, im using the config i posted eairler & i made no changes to it before doing the screens WEAPON MODELS are enabled if they arent like u said in the config than the command obsessively isn't working for some reason cuz as u can see in those screens its ON

I mean come on now am i gunna have to make a video on this to prove you or what?

Edit:

Thats total bs & i think everyone here will agree with me.

 

first: watch your language.

second: he is right. you can get more fps if you are just staring onto a wall especially if there is no action going on. I've played FPS games for years now and it's always the same.

The fps will definitly drop below 30 fps if there are many ppl on the screen, grenates exploding, or the worst: smoke grenades (particle effects + x3100 = 0 performance).

I know that r_draw... commands do not work in normal mode in CS1.6 or Source. They were disabled (I can't remember why, but I think it was because of cheating or smth). So when it's in the config, is doesn't mean it will work ingame. Unreal maybe just copied it out of a low-fps-config for CS, and there are plenty of them, some years old.

The amazing thing is: the x3100 doesn't care about the texture detail level. Almost the same framerates with low, mid or high settings. The only things really changing the fps are resolution + particle systems (DX8 mode has less particle effects, so I think thats why CS:S performs better in DX8 mode).

 

here are the screenshots
im waiting for yours in a busy scene in full server

 

screenshots in a full server with lots of people on screen , fps falls to 30-40 with more than 3 people on screen, this is less than 1/2 what i get when noone is on the screen

 

I've noticed significant fps drops when the action picks up in counterstrike as well.

 

I've tried Deus Ex multiplayer and performance is terrible when there's a lot of action. Deus Ex for those of you who don't know is an 7/8 year old game which needs DirectX 7.0a. I've yet to try a newish game but I am going to try F.E.A.R Combat and see how I get on with that. If performance sucks with that too then I think I can safely come to the conclusion that the X3100 is a pittance.

 

dude u dont understand ur running it at 640x480, of course ur gunna get that FPS just by starring at a wall. im running it at 1280x800, theres a HUGE difference there.

 

Reporting the fps from starring at a wall is useless, as previous posters have noted. Try throwing a couple smoke grenades in an open area with at least 6 other players in view.

 

of course its gunna slow down especially cuz the X3100 doesn't handle smoke very well.

Edit: Splinter Cell Chaos Theory Screens coming later.....

 

Right tried FEAR Combat and it barely runs, oh well it was worth a try.

 

ive also noticed that the rendering quality is very low, for example comparing my ATI card running CS:S at 800x600 and the x3100 running same resolution and settings, both outputted to my CRT look very differently, the x3100 image quality looks like a cross between software rendering and hardware, image quality is quite poor when compared side by side with the ATI

my thoughts

 

As I repeat, the X3100 suffers from numerous problems. Part of it is that its an IGP, but other is the drivers. There are major issues in certain games which I assume its driver related, and won't be something that they can fix it easily.

Unreal596, they are just pointing out to you that you are not really giving real world frame rates by staring into a wall with nobody!! They want you to prove that its playable when there's lots of action going on, not standing around and going uhhh.... which is what you are doing with your screenshots. All you are doing is saying your e-ego is bigger than others. "Oh no, X3100 is weak with smoke so I won't use it in game, and I'll only play 1v1 CS because it lags with more than 2 people". THAT, people is not realistic at all.

Might want to see how it looks like on the much higher settings. The GPU seems to have a tendency to perform better/look better with certain games. With some games, I don't see artifacts I see at low quality/resolution when I up them to high. Which points out to drivers at fault.

X3100 sometimes run better on higher quality settings. Weird, but its true. Performance in lower quality has to do a lot with optimizations. I know Doom 3 640x480 Low runs almost similar to 1024x768 High, go figure. Do not enable DX8 shaders for FEAR because, DX9 shaders are faster.

 

did anyone else have problems running Deus Ex? i had to disable the second core and run single core or the game would run way too fast, something with dualcore compatibility i think, oh and to relate this to x3100, it runs very fast on it and good image quality too

p.s.: i learned German playing the german version of Deux Ex...true story

Tschüss!

 

Flatout 2 On The X3100 (Runs Good)

The Game runs actually good, even when theres alot stuff on the screen it still manages to stay at a good Framerate. The only thing is they dont let you tweak hardly any settings which sucks but maybe its only the demo. Also it was Kinda hard to get a screenshot when in alot of action because its a racing game & i only have 2 hands, but tried my best.

Avg 24-35 FPS, Mainly 31 FPS

Setting Screen:

Gameplay Screens:

 

Unreal, I think it would help solve the CS:S problem if you posted action screens of the game, instead of other games. They are really interested in CS:S.

 

Splinter Cell on the X3100 (Runs Good)

The Game runs good, but its a very Shader intense game like someone said in another thread, so it doesn't run like it should but still very playable. Also didn't see much of a difference from 800x600 to 640x480.

Settings:

800x600
Everything Low

Screens:

 

Unreal, I have a strange feeling you just quit caring about the CS:S requests.

 

i really dont care because the game is old & im not a big fan of CS so i am really about to just uninstall the game from my laptop, but if yall wanna see some action screens ill post them in a sec......

 

I think it would help. I don't like CS:S much either. Too fast paced and annoying. CoD4 is fast paced... but has more strategy and logic. (To me at least)

 

CS: Source Action screens @ 1280x800 all high

Did the best i could, its kinda hard to find a good server with alot of people when having a cracked version of CS: Source. & obsessively lowering it to 1024x768 or 800x600 will make it alot more playable but i dont really care cuz this game is gettin uninstalled anyway & for some reason believe it or not, 15-25 FPS on CS: Source feels more like 30 FPS to me, idk maybe its cuz i set the max FPS to 1000, i also noticed that in the Splinter Cell series for example 20 FPS in splinter cell 1 feels more like 30 FPS to me. idk maybe its just me.

Screens:

 

That should help some people. But I think the guy earlier was right. Dust2 with those settings would average around 10FPS.

 

For the record, splinter cell does NOT run fine. It works 'ok' as pictured in unreal's posts in certain areas. But there are many areas where the frame rate drops to unplayable levels. Anybody who can put up with splinter cell on the x3100 has never owned a real graphics card.

 

Needs more testing!

Weird, I installed Rainbow Six: Raven Shield (2003), and while I get very playable frames, the game speed runs half as slow.

I will try to test FEAR and America's Army as soon as Vista stops acting up.

 

i played FEAR on x3100 already, it runs fine on low gpu settings and high cpu settings

deus ex gets a BSOD after a while, just like morrowind (for me anyway), but there arent any performance issues

edit: nvm my sound acceleration reset to "full" from "basic" somehow, i reset it back to "basic", thats probably what caused the BSOD's (dont ask me why it just does lol)

 

the only level that struggles alot is the GFO Oil Rig mission. i get about 10-15 FPS, but on 640x480 its real smooth on every level, but looks like crap to me.

 

Once again, i must LOL at 640x480. And just about any area thats outside in the open will drop the frame rate.

 

Have u tried SP Chaos Theory?

 

Lets not even get into that: FPS 10-15, lowest setting possible.

 

i think the best way to look at the x3100 for intensive gaming is as a card of last resort, like when your at school and or your desktop is broken, its obvious from all the pages of posts that the card is a poor performer with recent..and not so recent.. 3D games; bad drivers, poor architecture, what have you, but the bottom line is it sucks for 3d gaming, its major advantage is in battery life and portability, for example my laptop can play games on battery for a good while, which just wouldnt happen with dedicated graphics, so i look at it as a "gaming when you just cant game on anything better" solution, and in this niche it does its job sufficiently well and im sure we'll see significant improvements in the next generations, as laptop IGP gaming is in its infancy but steadily growing up, personally i like being able to load up morrowind or deus ex and play on battery while being able to drag my tiny laptop everywhere with me, its a sacrifice; on the other hand, after SONY's introduction of the hybrid graphics system it bugs me that it hasnt been implemented by every other company, being such a win-win solution of performance and battery life; there are two ways to go from here, either we get a good hybrid system implemented or the IGP's get ALOT better, and chances are its going to be the latter as its easier and cheaper for the manufacturers to implement

ok rant over

 

True, the X3100 is ofcourse best reserve as a "last option" graphic card. Yeah I'm surprise that no other company would come up with their own notebook model implementing Sony's Hybrid Graphic System. Perhaps it was either too costly or that it was not a matter of interest. I also found it strange that the X3100 CAN in a way handle current-gen of games well while does poorly on some older games (Knights of the Old Republic took a hit of a maximum of 20 FPS.) Perhaps the new driver does in way increase the power of the graphic card for future games. Also regarding the new 15.7.3 Vista driver, I find that it nearly brought the Vista system up in par with the XP setting.

 

haha wow, i get like 20-35 FPS, ill post some screens later.

 

I have all settings on low in FEAR Combat and DX8 Shaders off but the FPS is crap in MP. My Deus Ex MP now runs ok with all low settings and 800 x 600 resolution.

 

Sony's Hybrid Graphic System?

Well, nVidia is coming with a similar one on the next gen chipsets / graphics cards (9xxx-Series)

 

Thats BS. I can confirm chaos theory is about 15fps. Yes you can stare at walls, and there are some areas where you will get 30 fps. However, in open areas, and in general any time lots of actions is taking place, it drops significantly.

Unreal, I suspect you are being really selective with the pics you post trying to prove you can get more than the rest of us. You are extremely annoying.

 

Thank you for backing me up.

 

Its not like you need it, Unreal's posts don't have very much credibility.

 

guys...arguing about who has a higher fps on an x3100 is like kids on a short yellow bus arguing about who's the least retarded; im personally dropping out of this thread and going to go play some Undying on my desktop...at 1600x1280....at 100fps....constant....mwahahahaha (jk)

 

This thread really was serious before unreal came and boasted about his I'm-staring-at-the-wall-awesome-framerates. He's absolutely annoing.

This is a thread for potential customers of the X3100 and ppl having problems with the chip, and not a who-has-the-best-lowfps-config-comparison chart.

If unreal keeps posting nonsense framerates, maybe people are buying a laptop with the X3100 and are wondering why the performance is so crappy.

Maybe he gets sponsored by intel... lol

Sorry..ignore the last one..^^

 

have to agree, have ordered a new notebook from Dell with the x3100 and originally looked through this thread to find out what it's performance is like, and found it adequate for my needs, however as you say Unreal is posting screens and trying to convince himself and others that the x3100 is a gaming graphics 'chip', possibly misleading to anyone just skimming over this thread

 

wow just wow, Splinter cell is not a very intense game meaning theres really never more than maybe 6 people shooting at u on the screen, which is not alot to handle at all.

 

And what type of Screenshots do u want to see dude? i mean come on now its kinda hard to take a screenshot when ur on a racing game or just in alot of action on a shooting game.

u tell me, cuz i think ive posted some good screens, and if you look back to the very 1st post the person who stared this thread "Chaz" in his screens i dont see any action at all.

 

We want screen shots displaying a very low fps. We know you have them, but refuse to upload them.

 

I think he doesn't upload them, simply because they don't exist! The x3100 is just that great of a card!!1

Testing Portal, the game ran at an amazing 40FPS! Take that, high-end video cards hahaha!

The Portals made the game run even better, at an amazing 111 FPS!1

In all seriousness though, did anyone notice more instability running Source games in software mode with the latest drivers? I can't seem to go for more than one minute without the game crashing, regardless of the DirectX mode.

 

huh?

Edit: im the only one in here that is nice enough to post screens for yall & i get disrespect from everyone & its not nice, if you dont like my screens than dont bother to reply, & like i said im nice enough to post screens for all of you. I haven't seen anyone post some screens with action in it & im the only one that has come Close to it, Also its not easy to take a screenshot when ur in action & some of you aren't being very scripted on what action you want to see. Now i no my screens dont have much action in them but not all my screens are just starring at all wall, thats just ridiculous. im here to post my results on the X3100 & help yall out, now i know i brag about my results alot but its just the way i am and im sorry for that.

 

:O :O :O what?!