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

I recently picked up a laptop with an X3100 (T5250, 2GB RAM), installed XP and tried some games on it. With the latest drivers on both OS's, XP runs substantially worse than Vista for CoD4. Is that normal?

 

The Witcher???????????????????

 

I think its actually normal. Most of the times XP drivers are much better than Vista, but there seems to be some that Vista runs better, ie CoD4/World in Conflict(in XP it doesn't run at all)

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=129343&page=34

From VR-Forums
Call of Duty 4 (FullScreen 1024x768 Everything Low, 2x AA, Trilinear Filtering) (Demo)
Max Fps: 40 (indoors)
Minimum: 6
(i'd say the average works out about 15-20 fps)

Hmm, I'd guess the hardware has lot of power still untapped .

 

Would turning 2x AA off result in a significant fps boost?

 

yes, AA kills.

 

Portal Screens (high settings, portal render depth 1). Low settings = +5-10 fps)
http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/4o0j-1-jpg.html
http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/4o0j-2-jpg.html

 

is that under vista or xp?

 

Xpeh.
..........

 

So Portal is unplayable running in XP? That's worth noting. Do you have TF2? Can you show us how that one does?

 

Because 8 fps is unplayable by anyone's guage, right?

 

the point isn't that the performance sucks, the point is that the GMA 950 performs way better on portal then the X3100

 

Hello,
I have a Sony Vaio VGN -NR11S/S with intel X3100 , runnig Vista Premium and some time i like play some games UT2004 / PES2008 / WarRock , but i dont have last drivers installed because Intel driver give me error when i install It , Says
Driver is not compatible with my system can you give me some help to find the correct drivers ?

Last Drivers can give more performance in this games ?

Thanks

 

i am having a hugeeee problem, right now my laptop (asus f3) has a hd 2600 and its not even letting me play with playable framerates on low, i have no idea why, and i was wondering is there a way to play in directx 9 mode on vista rather than directx 10, please someone help me.

 

you DEFINITLY posted in the wrong thread. this one is about the Intel X3100 IGP and NOT about the AMD/ATI HD 2600

 

Crysis Demo *runs* (-> http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/4o0j-3-jpg.html ) with LOW and weird graphic bugs and max 5 fps (tab in&out improves nothing)
ColinMcRae DiRT does NOT run at all (Error).. maybe no real Shader Model 3 Support yet?
I'll try The Settlers 6 (also requires SM3) tomorrow an I'll see if that one doesn't work too..

 

This has probably already been covered and I'll search through this thread's numerous replies after I post this, but how does the various The Orange Box games play (particularly Portal and Team Fortress 2)? Also, how's Bioshock?

 

Hey, new member here. I have a Satellite A200 with the 1.5ghz Core 2 Duo/Intel 965 Mobile express whatever its called (based around gma x3100 right?), I have 2GB in one slot and 512MB in the other so no dual channel but both HL2 and CS:S run sweet and smooth (minimum settings admitted), the CS:S video stress test came back with a 14 average. I do have the graphics memory footprint set to permanent maximum so maybe that's helping and i am running the latest drivers. HL: lost coast ran without missing graphics but did jerk some, haven't tried TF2 yet. Halo 2, Quake 4 and Doom 3 all still suck (why doesn't Halo 2 recognize 1280x800 - 16:10?)

 

im running a macbook on windows xp, latest drivers
2.0ghz c2d
x3100
2gb ram , 1gb x 2 dual channel

team fortress 2 seems to be unplayable on lowest settings, rats

however! I ran it in directx8 mode and it runs around 20 fps , bottom line is its pretty playable, water is totally white though , oh well not important

so...

http://img258.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ctf2fort0000wu9.gif
http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ctf2fort0004ud1.gif
http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ctf2fort0005rs7.gif

 

Doesn't look so hot, but as long as I can play Team Fortress 2 that is fine for now. Thank you chandler55.

What about Portal? I assume if TF2 will run decently, Portal will also.

Also, I don't have much hopes for this game, but it can't hurt to ask. Will Gears of War PC play at all?

 

5 fps is about right. The very first time I ran it, I was running it at 2-3 fps, clearly lower than than 5 fps you were getting. Somehow the tab in&out fixed it. Crysis uses a lot of video memory, so for some people it may have problems running them at the first time-which the solution is then to tab in&out(doesn't mean you'll suddenly run them at 20-30 fps). The graphical glitch is not surprising. Crysis is a new game(supposedly GMA X3100 shouldn't run according to the system requirements) and X3100 is still a developing IGP. I get around 7-9 fps, it is playable.

I got better hardware so I get comparatively better fps.

Anyway, I have told you to run Crysis demo just to prove the point it has hardware T&L, not that it performs well or something.

Please run Half Life 2 and tell me how it runs. I still haven't got feedback. I get pretty good fps so we can see whether its the GPU's problem or its Portal's problem. Portal is based on a Half Life 2 engine anyway.

Bioshock runs, but it crashes after 10-15 mins of gameplay.

Can anyone please just run Half Life 2 and tell me how it runs?? If you guys are running Portal bad, run Half Life 2 so we can find out what is the real problem. Portal/Half Life 2 is based on the SAME engine, so it should run similar.

No idea. I know that Unreal Tournament 3 Demo can run without problems. It doesn't run too fast, but its playable at lowest settings. Since Gears of War has same graphics engine as UT3, it should be able to run.

http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/isn/Community/en-US/forums/5/30229561/ShowThread.aspx#30229561
Archibael(Intel guy):
14.32 (production version) got released Friday. 15.7 (production version) got released yesterday. Expect them to show up at vendor websites and Intel's external website within a week.

The drivers are out on the Intel internal website. It should be out to download for us in about a week .

 

"I get around 7-9 fps, it is playable."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

I can confirm that gears of wars does in fact run on the X3100, ranging from around 5-7 FPS (open spaces, most of the time) to the mid 20s (rare). This is at 640x480. So yeah, it's more or less unplayable.

 

Haha. It may sound funny, but it is true for the single player version. I haven't played the multiplayer version so I don't know. But trust me, it can be played. If the frames aren't fluctuating and getting 7-9 fps, its much more tolerant than getting double that but getting 10-50 fps. I played WoW on a Celeron D 2.53GHz/GMA 950/single channel DDR400 for almost a year and I was getting 10-15 fps.

Still, my point was that games like UT3/Gears of War/Crysis runs. They will not run without hardware T&L/VS support.

 

no. 7-9fps is not playable. Sorry. This is not an opinion.

 

On my machine, HL2 and CS:S run very well, FPS 25-35. However, Portal does not run as well. It has very nice frame rates comparable to HL2 and CS:S, that is UNTIL you open a portal and look through it, at which time it drops to around 7-8 FPS. This is with portal depth = 1 by the way. I assume this problem wouldn't occur with portal depth = 0, but in my opinion the game is unplayable with portal depth of 0 because you need to be able to look through the portals to solve many/most of the puzzles.

 

not to mention that the game sometimes freezes for a couple seconds (or maybe it would be more appropriate to say FPS go to 0) when you try to go through a portal for the first time. But after that you can go through the same portal over and over again without the freezing.

 

same here, but I got it all right with portal depth 0...

noxxle99 is absolutely right. playable = above 25 fps (average!)

 

btw, settlers 5 is NOT playable (bluescreen), settlers 6 starts but has some weird graphic bugs, and its definitly >20 fps

 

Settlers 5 with bluescreen? acidicX... u really should do sth with your pc. 'Settlers 5' works... If u really need to see that i can post a screenie.

 

7-9 fps is a Power Point slideshow not a game...And play WOW at 10-15 fps!!! you are a very patient guy...

 

LOL. I call it a privilege. Though playing Crysis all the way down is not fun, WoW is more than okay. I used to be not tolerant, but after playing WoW I became very tolerant .

Actually I recalled it wrong. I get higher than that. It's average fps on Crysis on low 800x600 is around 9 fps I would say, with 8-12 fps. That is around the minimum playable point.

Trust me, average fps of 12 fps is equal to playability when its constant compared to average fps of 30 fps and fluctuating. My friend had 512MB of RAM for WoW with Geforce 6800GS, but you can notice lag a lot, because of the fluctuating fps. If people don't believe that is playable, well I went to AV-yes Alterac Valley, where 40 players on each faction go head on pvp. It wasn't that much worse than just soloing, or 5 man instances. GMA950 seemed to have a tendency in some situations to be very resilient-with certain games changes in resolutions won't change performance at all, and it ran at a consistent frame rate.

Anyway, the point is not fps, but the fact that Crysis runs. Games like Crysis won't run on the software mode because they REQUIRE hardware T&L and/or Vertex Shaders to work at all.

Fafex can run with TWICE the fps that yours does because he has Vista, so for Portal its a situation where Vista is faster than XP on GMA X3100. Acidix, please run Half Life 2.

 

Kudos on that, on my Notebook, WOW is at 12-19 FPS, though had to make several adjustments to the settings. The point made that Crysis CAN run is a huge for an integrated graphic.

 

I ran WoW on 800x600 with settings on medium, but I put the view distance to high because that's important to gameplay .

Now my system is better, I run E6600 with Dual DDR2-800 and G965.

 

XP or Vista?
XP bluescreens. I tested it on my "normal" winxp partition and on a fresh installed one just to make sure it's no compability thing, both are bluescreening...

/edit:
additional information:
S5 = gold edition with all addons, patched to v1.06
Bluescreen says smth about igp*smth*32.sys, so it's definitly the Intel graphics driver.. I can get you the full name of the file if you want to

S6: I haven't had the opportunity to patch my S6 to the newest v1.2a, I hope the graphic bugs are fixed with the patch, I'll update on this asap

 

Vista Home Premium x86

 

I have an old (2003) Gateway PC

P4 2.53Ghz
1GB RAM
ATI Radeon 9550 (256 MB)

is my laptop more powerful?

Vaio CR220E/W
Intel Core 2 duo 2.0Ghz
2GB RAM
X3100 (358MB)

I would think a Core [email protected] is about the same as a Pentium 4 at 2.53?
My PC runs Half-Life 2, Prey, and Far Cry perfectly, will they work on my Vaio?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

My Laptop Runs Vista Home Premium my Desktop XP Pro

 

the Core2Duo CPU should be faster, BUT the R9550 is a dedicated graphics card. Almost every dedicated card is better than an IGP, so it should be 'playable' (around 25 fps, low details on xp is my experience), but thats far away from 'perfectly'.

 

Make no mistake, the C2D will run circles around the P4. As for the video card, the 9550Pro is equivalent to a Geforce 6200, which to my experience, is somewhat faster than the x3100. Maybe drivers will change that soon.

 

How sims 2 work on x3100?

 

Core 2 Duo only needs to be at ~1.3-1.4GHz or so to be equal to Pentium 4 2.53GHz.

Geforce 6200 is 15-20% faster than 9550 Pro. But since Geforce 6200 is a good 50% faster than the AMD 690G, and GMA X3100 with best system config is similar, I doubt it will change much.

No, no, drivers won't bring that much performance. Geforce 6200 is MUCH faster than any integrated solutions.

Plus, integrated graphics have crappy bandwidth and fillrate. You won't see many games running better than 30 fps before it hits the bandwidth and fillrate limitation. Radeon 9550 in the other hand, won't have that and will run it faster.

 

Total X3100 newb here:

I am thinking of getting a Novatech X20rp (Sager NP7260) which has a Core 2 Duo T5250 and X3100.

What are the current best drivers to use and where can i get them?

Also the only game performance that concerns me is Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield. I'd like it to run at Native (1280*800) with texture detail on medium/high, Rainbow detail on medium/high and unimportant stuff like Tango detail on low, no AA or AF with decent frames.

my X200m will run it at XGA a tad stuttery but ok all on low, a Mobility Radeon 9700 will run it maxed at WXGA.

You guys think the X3100 can do that?

 

OK you guys, really much said in this thread, I had a huge coffee break (nearly a whole galon of it) until I read it all.

I'm up to buying a laptop, my budget is 1000-1200$, I need it for my work, but basicly I'm a huge fan of Call of Duty 2/Call of Duty 4, so what I need to know is, can I play COD4 on a 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo / 2GB DDR2, Intel GMA X3100 on very basics settings, such as 640x480 or 800x600, something like 20fps ?

 

Wow, this thread is filled with people who have almost no clue what you are talking about. I just got My vaio CR series laptop witha 2.0Ghz Core 2 and X3100 and The Orange Box works amazingly. I can also play the sims 2 much better than on my desktop. The only problem for those of you who do not own the X3100 and are only commenting on what you know about IGPs and wild accusations about how equivalent it is to other GPUs, is simply that the X3100 has no Vertex Shader Support or HW lighting & Shadows. If you guys are still not sure about finding a laptop that works with a certain game do this:
1. Find a laptop that suits your needs and budget that you like.

2. Choose which games you want to get. (I would recomend downloading Direct 2 Drive)

3. And try this website before you buy the game it saved me a lot of time and money: http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest
System requirements lab analyzes your PC (given it is the one you are buying)
And determines via your specs what Hit games can be played on it. If your laptop has the X3100 or another IGP you can forget about anything with high specs or that require vertex shaders such as: Prey, Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty 2, Far Cry, or die I say Crysis.

Now given that you have a laptop that has atleast 1.7Ghz, 1GB RAM and minimum 80GB HDD. You can run things like Morrowind, The Sims 2, and Half-Life 2, Perfectly (with Auto Detect) this will ensure the greatest graphics with smooth performance and frame rates. If you experience low frame rates simply lower the resolution and raise the settings until the game runs smoothly. I'm playing The Orange Box on My Vaio CR in the background as I type and the game is giving me a solid 24-27 FPS. Those are standard frame rates for any Game let alone a laptop. When ou go 40 and up you are talking desktop and alienware PC configurations.

Most of us in buying a laptop with an IGP are not expecting to be playing F.E.A.R. or Crysis. A laptop is almost always used as a secondary PC for most users. Anything below $1500 will be able to play anything standard like Half-Life 2 or the Sims 2 and all of their Expansions/Episodes/Portal/Team Fortress etc.

Basically what I'm trying to say is those pictures of Half-Life 2 are what you should expect from any laptop running the X3100 in other words anything below $1500 obviously those screenshots do not look spectacular but at the same time it is meant to be played on a Dedicated GPU in a desktop computer. Mid-range games with low sysreq should be playable at their settings. If you have any doubts whether or not a game will play on your system check the game sysreq on Wikipedia, the manufacturer's site etc and try the link above /\ to be sure.

Hope this was helpful.

 

Be assured we are aware that an IGP has limited capabilities when it comes to gaming. I chose my laptop because it has an unbeatable uptime of 5 hours (movie playback or powerpoint with display brightness low) with a 6cell battery. It's mainly for work.

My Problem is: Intel has yet to deliver proper drivers. Like, DX10, getting rid of bluescreens under XP even in 3 year old games...
And I would damn like to see a screenie of portal with cl_showfps 1 when you are looking through a portal with render depth 1 or 2. This is HL2 based, but runs far away from perfectly under XP. Vista seems to be better there, but one good point does not make it a good OS.

Btw, Episode One runs @ Fullscreen @ Low @ around 20 fps, but sometimes with large fps drops (commonly known as lags).

 

I picked up CoD4 today, and much to my surprise, it ran decently on my X3100! I was using printscreen to get my screenshot, when I realized I should have been using F12 (d'oh!) Anyway, here was the one screenshot I was able to salvage. Hopefully driver optimizations will make this game run even better!

Settings: 800x600, everything low, textures set on automatic (default sets to high, increasing texture size doesn't decrease performance, surprisingly)

 

Amazing, yet even on systemrequirementslab.com it test that X3100 wouldn't be able to play it. 20-40 Fps?! WOW!

 

Unfortunately, the game isn't as graceful in single player. In the first mission when it rains, the game brings the card to its knees. More screenshots coming soon.

Edit: more screenshots as promised. The x3100 doesn't seem to like particle effects very much at all (namely rain/snow)




Screenshot edited for language.

 

By Paul Mantis: "The only problem for those of you who do not own the X3100 and are only commenting on what you know about IGPs and wild accusations about how equivalent it is to other GPUs, is simply that the X3100 has no Vertex Shader Support or HW lighting & Shadows."

Sorry but you are wrong here X3100 has hardware Vertex shader/lightning & shadows.

They all run. Actually, Prey doesn't have a requirement to run hardware VS & T&L, but the other games do and THEY RUN. Crysis runs too. I can run on high without too much graphical glitches as long as I put the texture detail to low(or else the whole screen is glitched). The char is glitched that they don't move their arms & legs but it'll display everything else perfectly.

Sorry, but you are wrong. It's slow, but it has hardware support. BTW, Supreme Commander won't run at all without hardware T&L/VS either.

The reason people are overly complaining about the GMA X3000/X3100 is because their expectations about hardware T&L/VS and the IGP(in general) are too high. Dedicated cards with hardware T&L/VS are only fast because they invest tremendous amount of die space/transistors for it. People are underestimating what the CPUs are capable of and they believe dedicated processing=better. It is not in all cases.

AthlonXP 2500+'s pure hardware T&L capability is about as powerful as Geforce 256, go figure. And we all thought that Geforce 256 would kick AthlonXP's ass any day.

Now we have Core 2, which is far more powerful than AthlonXP was and we are comparing against IGPs which is the lowest of the lowest in graphics.

About FEAR:

FEAR: 39/57/101(min/avg/max) on 640x480 low. It should be playable with 800x600 on medium getting 20-30 fps. Call of Duty 2's performance is similar. And putting FEAR and Crysis on the same line in terms of playability?? That's is a BIG LOL.

 

Wait IntelUser, did I just hear you saying "Crysis runs too. I can run on high without too much graphical glitches as long as I put the texture detail to low(or else the whole screen is glitched). The char is glitched that they don't move their arms & legs but it'll display everything else perfectly."? Haha I need screenshots to believe that, along with FPS.

 

I believe he meant that it will run. It's testing what shaders and effects the X3100 supports.

Hmmm... MacBook or Vostro 1400... Choices...