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

@Sane

Call Of Duty 2 in Direct X 7.0 mode is smooth at Extra High level. And my old ATI Radeon 64 meg was able to run Morrowind. I'm pretty sure the game will run flawlessly.

 

hello,
i just wonder what amount of shared memory the x3100 has that you guys are talking about.
i´m thinking bout buying a Acer Extensa 5220-050508 with OS Linpus Linux, it´s x3100 has max 64mb of shared memory.
so i wonder what amount of memory your x3100 have?
also i wonder if this max 64mb thingi is caused by linux drivers?
greets

edit: yeah yeah..i reached acer, they told me its because of the notebook only has 512mb main...and the shard memory scales up with adding mor main mem...

edit: anyone here who testet battlefild 2 on the x3100?

 

Cronos, what sort of visual hits does Call of Duty 2 take when run in DX7 mode? And if the details are set lower but it's run at DX8/9, what differences would there be, both performance and visually? Thanks.

 

@Wax:
Mainly; shadow is visually better in Direct X9, there is a Doom 3 plastic effect that is generated on some textures, also, some textures seems to look crispier.

At the same time; I played some level and I'm now able to play it through DirectX9 at Normal setting. Only the first level was really unplayable.

 

@Wax
there is also some tweak that can be done via autoexec.cfg, to make it faster. Without degrading visual quality.

search for call of duty 2 tweak

 

Thanks. It's a weird feeling moving from a discrete card (old Go440 64meg) to an integrated card and expecting to see a rise in performance. I'll finally be able to play HL2, Far Cry, CoD2 among others. Not new games, but ones that I've been missing out on. Far Cry ran ok on my old notebook, HL2 was pretty bad though.

 

Has anyone tried Need For Speed Carbon or Most Wanted?

 

I've downloaded Call of Duty 2 Demo to test out something.

The demo is unplayable on WinXP with Final driver in DirectX9.0, while on Vista with the beta driver the game is playable.

I wonder why...

 

Out of sheer curiosity, has anybody tried running the Bioshock demo? Yes I know you might need to run it as low as 640x480 but still it'd be interesting to know if it's playable.

 

what were your Bioshock results Cronos?

 

Bioshock demo on X3100:

Can't judge the games;

The game is playable at 800x600 at medium level but I must turn one graphics option to off, if it's on, the game is REALLY unplayable. (I don't remember which one.)

But as soon as I enter the underwater world, I receive a BSoD when loading the level.

I don't know if it's the driver or it's the demo that have the issue.

My specs are:

WinXP Pro
Intel GMA965, 14.31 drivers
2GB RAM
Core2Duo T5450 1.67ghz

 

hey guys
even i have a problem with farcry(without patches)
the whole place goes blue
no textures on the trees and all
but i cant seem to apply the patches either
it says it cant find the game and i have no idea what to do with it

i will be installing quake 4 soon so i ll see what i can do with that

btw out of curiousity
do u really think x3100 is capable of something with new drivers and all ..
i mean intel and their integrated graphics dont really have a good reputation..

 

I'm confused as to how Far Cry ran? Did anybody get any specific benches on it? Will the x3100 be able to this on medium settings?

 

it ran perfectly in the start when the guy is inside the building but when he goes out everything is blue blue except some green parts
the whole texture isnt working
the game was completely playable other than the no texturing part.it was running smoothly

 

Mmm, hopefully there is a patch for that. I really want to get this game. And I might be getting a laptop with the GMA X3100 in it, which could be a good thing or a bad thing.

 

id still say if u can get a dedicated gpu laptop
then throw x3100 out of the window

 

That's the thing, though. My options are limited at the moment. If I'm getting a laptop, then I want to buy it in person. I don't want to order it online. That basically kills off the dedicated GPU factor. I can rarely find a laptop in store with a good dedicated GPU.

 

Ok guys i installed quake 4 today
first of all i must say one heckuva game that is
it does run
but even at low settings and 1024X768 reso it started jerking and becoming non playable at times.
it defaulted at lowest reso tho

 

I had this problem too on the GMA950, and it also happens some Nvidia cards. Apparently, patching up to the latest version is the solution, although I didn't try.

 

Has anybody tried to run gothic 3 or Two Worlds on the x3100?

 

So has anyone actually ran bf2? I'm interested to hear if that plays alright.

 

I posted a link in the X3100 driver thread with a link with testing of the new XP 14.31.1 driver on the desktop X3000.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2484085&postcount=96

The guy found 35-45fps at 800x600 with low settings and 15-20fps at med. A laptop will probably be a bit slower, but should be playable at 800x600 at low settings. This is on XP though, the Vista drivers are no where near as developed right now.

 

Ugh, at least I know it's playable if I opt for integrated graphics. ty.

 

Got the latest image from World In Conflict (demo). This demo is running on Window Vista, 1.8 Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB, 160 GB, and using X3100 with 15.6 Final driver. The benchmark looks as though the performance is crappy, but in the real game it performs at an average of 10-15 FPS. On resolution at 1024 x 800.

 

Note: I did some more testing on World in Conflict, and the results are much lower. The new average FPS is 6-10, on low setting. Not much but its still playable.

 

Someone have tried command&conquer 3 with the lastest xp drivers?

 

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showpost.php?p=4252499&postcount=384

The above link provides results for Company of Heros, Supreme Commander, Command & Conquer 3, Age of Empires 3, Battlefield 2, Bioshock, World in Conflict, and Wolfenstein Enemy Territory. The results are using the desktop GMA X3000 with a E6600 so you can expect notebooks to be a bit slower, but it'll give you an idea. Needless to say, the 14.31.1 XP drivers appear to be playable in most of the above games at 800x600 - 1024x768 and low-med settings. Pretty decent for an IGP.

 

Damnit, this means the Vista driver does have advantage over the XP driver(so far one advantage lol). I can't run it without having the XP bluescreen right after the cinematics(yea I am the user on the link, maybe I'll post a screenshot or something ).

 

Let me give you couple of things I have noticed when testing games.

Call of Duty 2: This game seems to be playable at 800x600 medium or even 1024x768, until you encounter lag, then it stays in perma-lag . I have no idea why. It does not happen in lower settings like 640x480 low DX7 off. I haven't tested the latest 14.31.1 driver, the latest I have tested is 14.31b I believe.

World of Warcraft: Don't be judged by the fps its giving you. Because of the nature of the playstyle, 10-15 fps is well playable. Hell, I played it on the GMA 950 with Celeron D 2.53GHz (800x600 medium-high).

Company of Heroes RAM latency settings: On my 2x1GB DDR2-800 Transcend RAM, the default latency settings were horrible 5-6-6-18 settings. I put it to 5-5-5-15 and noticed around a 10% improvement.

I am trying to get Elder Scrolls of Oblivion IV and Sims2 to see how the media-interpreted "G965 gets rendering errors in Sim2/doesn't run Elder Scrolls at all" is true or not.

Also getting Warhammer 40000: Dawn of War Dark Crusade Demo. I might try to get full version of Farcry to see if the patches fixes the problem. AOE3 is probably the game that exceeded the expectations. I honestly didn't think it would run that well.

The performance scales REALLY well with the CPU, at least on World of Warcraft. I think the frame rates tripled after going from Celeron D 2.53GHz to Core 2 Duo E6600, which is about how fast it would be in single-threaded CPU-intensive benchmarks.

Update:

Dawn of War: Dark Crusade runs very good. I run it at 800x600 because my monitor can't support 1024x768 resolution in some games. With 800x600, and everything HIGH, it gets between 35-40 fps. It doesn't have the message: "you don't have hardware T&L" message that Intel's site says it does.

 

Oblivion, Gothic 3, Two Worlds? Anyone?

How about Heroes of might and magic V or HOMM: Dark messiah?

 

Sorry didnt go through the whole thread except first few pages..

whats the playability of x3100 with quake 4 at medium or low settings?

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2446670&postcount=118

 

quake 4 can be playable at reso 640x480 with medium setting, disable shadow....still a lil lag...
download the latest patch to increase performance..

 

I tried out Oblivion today. Basically, at 1024x768 and medium settings, its playable in dungeons, and not playable outdoors. Dungeons I get around 10-20 fps, and in outdoors I get 5-8 fps.

Vista users:

Seriously, I think the fault is not entirely Intel's here, but rather Microsoft.

From Nvidia having difficult with Vista drivers:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/nvidia/p...sue-nvidia-over-crap-vista-drivers-234718.php

Some reports of Crysis, which is suppposed to be made for DirectX 10, running better on WindowsXP: http://www.tomsgames.com/us/fringedrinking/2007/08/crysis_development_-_trouble_with_directx_10.html

to Microsoft offering WinXP downgrade: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9027

And finally Intel having trouble making proper Vista driver(and coincidentally the XP driver running better)

The fault here might be just Vista.

But before I make a final conclusion(or for that anybody), there has to be a person who has the latest VBIOS and a good CPU(E6300 or better) and test games under Vista. People who are having bad experience in Vista seems to have one or the other.

There are people who report bad experience in XP drivers with games like Age of Empires 3, while I don't, and that's because they are running on the P4.

 

I can vouch first hand that Vista can pork the most stable games when run in XP. I dumped Vista after so much time wasted getting games to run properly, or with poor performance...

XP is best for now... maybe in another year Vista will show signs of improvement.

 

so how good is the ati x1400 compared to this? for future reference

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568
GMA X3100 rank among the lowest peformance video card while X1400 is sitting in mid-range video card.

 

whoever own, u300/305 series, can they tell me their max video memory?? i have been trying to change mine from 128 to 384 and i cant, its just nowhere to find or change

 

Will Half-Life Episode 2 "Orange Box" run much like HL2, considering that it is practically the same game?

 

maybe, expect some graphical improvement though.

 

i only get a max of about 10-14FPS with ALL setting on low or none on COUNTERSTRIKE:SOURCE...

i wish it was better... when im not moving the graphics look so awesome and clear but once you try to kill someone... theres no frame there...


i need more ram...

 

Can someone post some benchmarks for Team Fortress 2?

 

DutyHunter the bad gameplay you're experiencing right now are contributed by either insufficient ram (vista is memory hog OS you'll probably need 2GB ram to play game on it) or immature vista driver.
According to some X3100 users on forum they see vastly gameplay improvement by switching vista to XP. You should try it and see the difference

 

thanks for the link about the Microsoft offering WinXP downgrade David, just ordered my XP Recovery CD now and will finally (hopefully) be running games as quick as you

 

I hope so too. Good luck on it.

 

Team Fortress 2 anyone???

 

Has anyone tried Silkroad with the x3100?

 

I get about 27-29 fps in HL2 and CS:S. I have a C714NR(x3100) with XP SP2, I went from vista premium and the drivers are a lot faster on XP than on vista. I also have 2gb of ram! In CS:S source I'm playing at 1024X768 on high settings with everything enabled, using hardware direct x 9.0.

 

You can't change your fixed graphics memory above 128MB. It's because 384MB is dynamically allocated by the GPU. You don't need any control for it. If you are just surfing internet, your video memory will be little as 32MB or so. When it needs more video memory, X3100 will do it automatically.

Screenshot and FRAPS in UT3. It runs 8-15 fps at everything low at 1024x768. Medium settings will drop it by half or so.


Company of Heroes performance:
800x600 Low:

800x600 Medium-low:


14.32 driver will be coming between next year and now.

 

I Can honestly say HL2 Orange box runs great well at least i like to think so, i get 33Fps and high settings. i have a DV6500 from HP Intel Celeron64 with 2 Gigs of ram and Vista home premium clean install, i also play Guild Wars online and been averaging 18-31 fps depends where you are. So far i can't complaint
but i have not tried playing bioshock or R6 LV but i already order the alienware area51 m9750 because i want really be able to play games with out having to lower settings. the X3100 is a nice step for intel cause i seen other IGP from Ati and X3100 performs better.