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

kinda yea

Edit: i feel like im the only one posting results in this thread & all i get is hate talking about my screens are just me starring at a wall when thats not true. not all my screens are starring at a wall.

 

with all due respect Unreal, Splinter Cell is not the only game we need to see. Yeah, its a high graphical requirement game that pushes even the last gen graphic card to its limit. But what we meant was that we need to see 'action' sequences, such as, shooting, explosions, or 3 guys firing at you while Fisher is holding a hostage; those kinds of pics. Also, we need further information like specs and settings, just so that we can test it out also to verify it.

 

Your attitude is whats getting you the 'hate'

 

ok ill try to add more info & action into my screenshot posts, but yall gotta understand that its not easy to get a screenshot when alot of people are shooting at you. thats what im tryin to say.

 

well im sorry i can't help that.

 

Yes it is, you just press a key.

 

Yes you can, and this is another example of why you are getting all the 'hate'

 

alright ill try.

 

anyone know why kotor wont run on my laptop? wont start at all and the config scan fails

 

Wait, really?? Can you put it into words or pictures?? If Vista's drivers are par with XP, and Vista has more future potential, then I will return XP CD and get Vista . I read with the newest Vista drivers, ET: Quake Wars can run. The person says that it runs slow, but you know in XP, it doesn't run at all XD. At least the latest Vista driver allows it to run.

Unreal(or for that matter, anyone) you can test CS:S with lots of people. Run with bots by making your own server. I have put 31 bots + me to see how it runs. I get 50 fps staring into a wall 15-20 fps with the bots, running on DX9 mode with no config and everything High 1024x768+HDR. Of course the HDR intensive maps drop to 10 fps in some situations. But its not like that in all the maps and its mostly playable.

 

Whoa there slow down. Though Intel has finally manage to get the Vista's driver up in par with XPs, its not yet close to the strength that XP wields. Yea, I can confirm that ET: Quake War can run on Vista (800 x 600) 10-15 FPS, though I'm still working on the ConFig. Also, XP has been known to run things much faster and better, since Vista still require lots of hoops to jump through for developers. So now, keep the XP disc. I'll keep updating on the Vista performances until that one driver to rule them all...

 

Hmm, well as I told you, none of the driver versions run ET: Quake Wars on XP. It tells I am missing some OpenGL functions blah blah... I also can't run World in Conflict. Who knows if there's more that doesn't run on XP but on Vista.

Anyway, it did sound like you said the performance is on par. Can you see if the latest drivers improved performance in the games you tested before??

If: "Though Intel has finally manage to get the Vista's driver up in par with XPs, its not yet close to the strength that XP wields."

is true, then its not par. You said XP is much better and faster XD. I know that the 14.32.3 driver really didn't do anything for my X3000.

I got XP Pro OEM for $180 CDN after taxes and everything. I already had it for couple of days now. If the latest drivers show any improvement, its gonna start making me regret the purchase very quickly. I do keep to plan keeping the OS CD for quite a long time you know. Got around 10 days to return I think.

 

Quake wars doesn't run at all on XP

 

Testing Half Life 2/CS:S/Portal/Team Fortress 2 would be a good indication if the drivers have improved. If not, test something else that can be compared. Thanks .

 

switching to vista because 2 games are running?
rofl.. yeah, we can speak again in 3 years, after SP2/3, when the really important functions are working properly..

 

Actually, I have a Vista enbled system, so I know what to expect. Of course its not my main machine but still. If the performance is up to par, which is what I am trying to ask, then there's no point of XP really. It'll be short time before support for XP is pulled by Microsoft.

I am starting to hear games that's running with better compatibility and performance on Vista than XP. I know its one game, but the recent support for ET: Quake Wars tells me that the disparity will increase. There are conflicting reports yes, but that's also because some people use X3000. I can recall in my head 2-3 games that runs equal/better on hardware mode on X3000 that runs slower on X3100.

So I'd like to hear reports of 15.7.3 drivers, if it changed anything.

 

It seems as though the hardware performance increased a bit, but still not to the level of software mode for most games. I'll take screens later this week as proof. It also seems as though Source games are less stable under Software mode.

 

Revisiting a classic: Call of Duty. Using Windows Vista, X3100 IGP, 2GB DDR2 Memory; no problem at all for this old-timer. FPS at 1024x768, Character Model (low), World Highlights (Models Only), Number of Corpse (Tiny). Results: High 60s to low 20s(for a very short clicks).

http://i32.tinypic.com/2yowiea.jpg
http://i28.tinypic.com/fp599k.jpg
http://i30.tinypic.com/2nqtx91.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/2iw11qh.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/2hs2dm8.jpg

 

^^ why 1024x768? you should be able to go higher than that & should be able to take the graphics up more as well. what FPS u get all on High?

 

Unreal, 1024x768 is more than a reasonable resolution for FPS on notebook. At the Highest setting, FPS is still at manageable low 15-40.

 

No problem? That's a terrible result for a game that's running the Q3 engine and is about 5 or 6 years old, even for an IGP.

I actually found COD ran OK at the GMA950. At better settings then what you've listed...

 

I think the drivers for Vista really need to mature. They obviously aren't at the best the can be.

 

Both the drivers for XP and Vista need to mature. You won't get too much more frames in XP on that game. Actually that's how the X3100 is. You probably won't get much worse frames running Call of Duty 2.

Do you mind running some Quake 3 Arena benchmarks startscreamforever?? If you can, run the demo001 using the built in benchmark.

BTW, quake 3 arena runs significantly faster on the GMA950. E6300 with G965 can get 200 fps at 1024x768 High, while my system with E6600 and G965 gets 130.

I will run the demo and see how it runs on the X3000.

 

Call of Duty Demo
30-50 fps, 1024x768 everything set to High

Didn't see it drop below 30 fps.

 

StarScream4Ever whats ur specs?

Edit: i got Call Of Duty 1 laying around so ill install that later & post my results & of course like i said ill be sure to include action screens for you guys, with like 50 people going at it & it shouldn't be hard to do cuz people today still play Call Of Duty 1 online.

 

Any info on the X3100's performance in BF 2142 yet?

 

I couldnt get it to launch with XP

 

I got it to run at 800x600 all high at around 25-35 FPS & i tested it with 30 people in the game, but theres alot of bugs wit it though.

 

um.... Can someone else verify this please? This sounds very suspicious. Performance for 2142 should be similar to bf2, right?

 

Unreal must have tweaked his card and game like crazy, because like I said, my buddies 7150 runs BF2142 at low with textures medium, no shadows etc., 800x600, and gets around 30FPS. I just can't see this card running all high with that good of a framerate.

 

naww hehe the game does run like i said i dont see why everyone sayin it doesn't run, idk what made it run but it does run, i was goin to take some screens when i had the demo but it has alot of bugs with it though, if you want i can re download it & takes some screens for yall if you want.

 

It's up to them. I have no reason to doubt you, just find it pretty weird.

 

yea, ill post some screens later.....

 

By request, here's Quake 3: Arena (Demo), 4 Person map. 1024x768, Geometric Detail: High, Lighting: Lightmap, Texture Quality: Default, Texture Filter: Bilinear. Results: quite wonderful performance, the FPS rarely dip below 50. Also, the Vista driver I am using is 15.7.3 for reference note.

http://i29.tinypic.com/23lgrhe.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/fml5cl.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/2qtke3o.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/213hqv4.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/2afkg8x.jpg

Next up: Fear

 

We might be closing this thread pretty soon if misinformation continues to be posted.

 

wow .

 

Thanks for posting those screens but it doesn't look like its all on high though but maybe its cuz its an old old game hehe.

 

i played q4 on x3100, without shadows on it runs quite acceptably, even with shadows its playable but not really

 

Call of Duty2:

Driver: 14.31.1
800x600
Direct X7 (DirectX9 in WinXP is Unplayable; I remember playing the demo on vista with the beta vista driver and it was VERY PLAYABLE )

Trilinear
Body: Medium
Textures: Extra

 

Quake 4:
Not so playable. Worse than Doom3
Driver: 14.31.1 (was worse with the 14.32 driver)
(Medium - Shadow to Off, SkipPostProcessing=1)

http://i29.tinypic.com/epnmop.jpg

http://i28.tinypic.com/2u40l8j.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/25rlg69.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/28vcf0o.jpg
http://i28.tinypic.com/2l5nwx.jpg

 

meh, game sucks anyway, i uninstalled it before even getting to the end, its amazing how they havent made any progress in gameplay since quake2 SP, nice GFx though

 

If you do some tweaks in the config you can actual get it to run at around 20-35 FPS like i did. Heres a tweak Guide:

 

yea, that was what i was thinking. atm im using my igp ati x1100 and can play at 1024x768 @ default settings (textures med.) and get just bearable gameplay - im talking about 10-20 at most in a 24-person server. i know the nvidia 7150 is probably the most powerful (DX9) igp crad available atm, so i dont know how the x3100 compares with it. if anyone has anymore info, please post. im thinking of getting the dell inspiron 1525; its just so cheap, but the x3100 is the only graphics option...

 

I finally uninstalled it, and installed Capitalism II...

which is much more fun, and more relaxing!

But thank you for the tips.

 

Hey.....

Thanks to everyone thats posted results and screens etc, its been a good hand

I think iv got a prob though...i have ran the installer etc for the new drivers for Vista 32 Home Premium and it says it succesfully installed...but once i go back to check it has actually updated in device manager the driver version still shows up with 7. something (would check but my lappy isnt with me now )...is this because the 15.7 drivers havent installed, or is this how its meant to be? Thanks for lookin', id appreciare a reply, as im a bit clueless at the mo

Hope i posted this in the right place btw, if not sorry...

 

Install the latest driver from Intel from their site: http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Det... Vista* Home Premium, 32-bit version&lang=eng

Once you download and install it, right-click and go to Graphic Properties, click the Information icon, and look at Drivers Information, it should be 7.14.10.1409 (that means that the new driver has been install.)

 

ah yes, thats what im getting...i just thought maybe it was maybe meant to show up as 15.7...

Cheers for quick reply...

 

FEAR!!! well here's the performance and report: 800x600 or 1024x768 (neither has any serious impact on the performance), low setting, minimum effect, Direct X8 shaders, and a surprisingly good performance. FPS is also impressive: Lowest(13), Average(30), and Highest(46). Since its mostly indoor fighting, FPS is expected to be above 25.

http://i32.tinypic.com/2u3ywr8.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/j8zaso.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/9k9jpy.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/2m2be45.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/mud63r.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/14j4xop.jpg
http://i28.tinypic.com/zmfh3k.jpg

PS. Very important that you install the latest driver for FEAR (1.08), otherwise the game would crash during the middle of Interval 1 (first level) and cannot continue the game. Also, use the latest driver from Intel (15.7.3) it help.

 

Just another game that looks terrible at lowest settings. Such a beautiful game, weird to see it look like that.

Side note, why in your signature do you have 358M next to the X3100? That's quite misleading, as it has no actual memory, just allocated. I guess I could slap "1017m" next to mine... but it wouldn't really be a good impression, as it only has 256m and some turbo-cache which it never uses.

 

Can you just run the built-in time demo?? I know the demo offers 001 and 002 map. Just run the automatic settings that's in the game. There's option of fastest/fast/normal/high.

More likely the X3100 would use the memory because unlike the Geforce, the X3100 doesn't have dedicated memory at all. With testing, 256MB dedicated+some unknown amount shared would mean that usually only the capacity and the bandwidth of the dedicated memory would be used. However, all memory bandwidth and capacity is using system memory.

There are two numbers for Intel drivers. The one that shows on device manager is the Build Number, and the "15.7" is Version Number. There are two numbers because Build Number is essentially a version inside a version. The driver engineers make certain changes before its released and the Build Number changes. Of course, we never get to see the changes.

It's possible. Some games run really good on the X3100(and the X3000) and those must be the games(BF2/BF2142) that really takes advantage of the hardware. The funny thing is, it takes sometime to stabilize, like its loading into memory. After it fully loads, it runs pretty well. Just remember though even running Windows Media Player will make it lag. Actually, you can't really run anything if you want to not degrade your frames. I realized that when I found out miniscule program likes FRAPS made it unplayable.

Once it fully stabilizes, it can get 15-20 fps even with 1024x768 High. It's with 8 players, 7 bots+me. If anything, bots use AI and will be more demanding than players.

BTW, at least for me FEAR runs faster on DX9 shaders. You might want to try it out.