***The Intel x3100 is *NOT* an acceptable gaming card!***

And that's why threads like this should exist... for awareness!

 

Yeah, but threads like this usually become very misleading and pretty much eliminate all that "awareness"

 

Let's just hope against that, shall we ?

Atleast for me, one bad review weighs against 5 good ones.... so considering the amount of negative views about the X3100, and even if we assume that the positives and negatives are balanced in this thread, most people, even in the least bothered about gaming, will hopefully tend to NOT buy it.. There's your awareness

 

I did a quick search on the new X3100 drivers....any feedback on them? Shows 2/22/2008 they came out. I have read some posts on the new drivers but nothing clear....any insight would be helpful.

 

When I bought the laptop with it, I thought it was a high end ATI card.

IE my X1300 in the thinkpad isn't a bad laptop gpu.



FWIW, I'll be looking for a replacement for the thinkpad around october ... I plan on replacing it with a cheap laptop with the x3100 - why? I take notes and thats about it but I still need a second laptop.

 

I was actually thinking of buying a laptop with a X3100 IGP because of my very limited budget. The specs were promising but reports about it on the internet gave a very mixed bag on it´s performance. So I shelled out another 50 euros and got a laptop with an IGP that would at least be more compatible. I´ve had my Aspire 5520 for a week now and it runs the games I require from it like a charm, C&C Generals, Sims 2, Freelancer etc. There might be potential in the X3100 but with Nvidia you get good drivers so...bottomline, you get what you pay for and don´t expect to get something that your not paying for

 

From Notebookcheck.net:

NVIDIA GeForce7000M
Core Speed-350MHZ DirectX 9c
Ranking: #84 (out of 105 tested)
3DMark01- 4400 3DMark03- 1380 3DMark05- 612

Intel GMA X3100
Core Speed-500MHZ DirectX 10.0
Ranking: #79 (out of 105 tested)
3DMark01- 5029 3DMark03- 1721 3DMark05- 831 3DMark06- 499

----------------------------------------------------------------

From Fudzilla.com:

Acer Aspire 5520 Athlon 64 X2 under Vista
"Integrated Nvidia GeForce 7000M card is a part of the relatively new nForce 610M chipset, released in May this year. Compared to its stronger brother 7150M graphics, this solution doesn’t offer hardware decoding of MPEG2 1080i / H.264 720p video, and the core speed is 350MHz compared to 425MHz on the 7150M."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Oh well, looks like you get what you pay for ...

 

Known fact: Notebookcheck isn't very accurate with their benchmarks.

 

the X3100 is however better then the geforce 7000

 

I was getting 925 points in 3dmark05 with my x3100 when in SOFTWARE emulation mode (devs set this to default for 3dmark05, but this can be adjusted in the registry). However, I scored around 700 points when I forced hardware shaders mode.

Another user with the x3000 (desktop version of the x3100) says his scores were the same under both HW and SW modes in 3dmark05. According to some benchmarks the x3000 is 30% faster than the x3100.

 

The Notebookcheck score of 831 points for the x3100 seems spot on with the average that Greg was able to get (812 points).

Good enough.

 

Yea, i wasnt criticizing your report. I was just supplementing it with the lower scores when running in HW shader mode.

 

So the X3100 is capable but it sucks because of its drivers? I mean it has all the support of a relatively modern GPU, but come on, 10 FPS in KOTOR, thats a joke!

PLEASE Intel, i would kiss youre monopilistic arses if you made my laptop have some gaming potential!

 

You guys should know from start that you do not buy a laptop with integrated graphics card to play games, PERIOD.

 

Actually the reason the 3dmark scores are misleading is because Intel's drivers run the benchmarks on software mode, which runs hardware transform & lighting and vertex shaders on the CPU. 3DMark score on software mode is only comparable with games that run on software mode, and 3dmark score on hardware mode is comparable to games that also run on hardware mode.

As I like to mention, Quake 4 runs about equal on the X3000 on the 640x480 low mode as it does on the 1024x768 High. FEAR also likes DX9 shaders instead of DX7, even though supposedly DX9 shaders are more intensive.

 

Well, as I mentioned. I knew that the X3100 was better than the 7000m spec-wise but compatibility and driver support is much more important for me. I mean, any company could make a superkiller graphics card but if they can´t make the right drivers it´s useless. I never expected to be able to play newer games with this laptop. I´m using it primarily for work and studies. It´s nice that I can play some older games that I never tried before though, amazing how many great games that are out there that I haven´t tried before. Playing Freelancer at the moment, it´s great fun.

 

I don't think the X3100 is better than 7000m spec-wise even.

 

It's too bad there is no playable demo for Starcraft 2 which is what I really want to know if it'll work....

 

i dont think it will run on the x3100

 

my test's

lego star wars I - high - fast

audiosurf - medium* - fast

*it has some shaders gliches

system:
1.6 dual-core
2gb ram
winxp x64
14.7 drivers

 

What's the X3100 like in general OS usage? I'm in between a M1330 (8400) and a Macbook, it'll never be used to play games so I'm only concerned about OS performance.

I had one of the first Macbooks when it was the GMA950 but I can't remember how it performed, was slightly before Vistas time as well so I never tried it on the Macbook.

 

it performs very well and uses very little battery compared to a dedicated graphic card. So if u looking for a light,stylish and long lasting battery laptop u better go for x3100. I am very happy with the one in my specs. It works faster in Windows then my desktop even though i only got 512 ram on it right now. This is however in XP not Vista. I also got a GMA 945 which also works excellent.

 

This guy still hasnt shown us a video.

 

Here's the whole thing on the issue of "dedicated graphic cards" for laptops.

Unless you buy a laptop that has a removable graphic card (VERY expensive), it's just not worth spending the $$ on a laptop with your average "dedicated" GPU.

You see, your basic decent laptop with an IGP can run you as little as $500-$600.

Add even the most basic mediocre graphic card, and you've now doubled the price (even though that low end graphic card is REALLY only worth a $100).

Now get a mid/high range GPU, and you've effectively tripled that original $500-$600 amount.

And seeing how graphic cards are basically worthless for the LATEST games after maybe just 2 years, then (as far as gaming is concerned anyway) all you're left with is a 6lb. $1000-$1500 paperweight.

So for serious gaming, I have my desktop ...

• Athlon 6000+ Duo Core
• Evga 8800GT Superclocked
• MadDog PSU

 

but its more fun to game on a laptop, they are not big and ugly and it jst feels a lot better.

 

To me, my laptop was MUCH more uncomfortable for gaming than it is with my desktop.

And then there's this comparison:

Your Laptop --------------------- My Desktop

Celeron M 540 1866 MHz ---- AMD 6000+ Duo Core
512 DDR2 667 -------------- 3gb DDR2
X3100 --------------------- Evga 8800GT Superclocked
120 GB Disk ---------------- 500GB Hard Drive
256 3DMark06 -------------- 10,346 3DMark06

Now for normal use, I might replace my older laptop with a newer one that has the x3100 (and the x3100 ONLY).

Because anything else would be a total waste of my hard earned $$ ...

 

well my friend Alienware with 2x GF GTX SLI and a 2,8 GHZ cpu gets 13456 on 3Dmark06 so gaming laptops can be nice as well, but reeeally expensive.

 

I think he's loooonnggg gone. Oh well, he was fun to argue with.

 

13,456 with a GTX on SLI vs. my 10,346 on a single GT?

That's seems horrible!

Well, at least on an Alienware laptop I think it has a removable GPU so that you can upgrade it (i.e., "the laptop doesn't become worthless").

But in my opinion, the $$ that you have to spend on an Alienware laptop to get that kind of a function makes it WAYYYY too expensive.

Not worth it ...

 

well its more compact and SLI dont upper the score by much, he gets little bit over 10000 without SLI enabled. of course the GPU for Desktops are stonger but they are to big and to much wires and stuff.

It is also easy to bring a laptop to a lan and when the laptop beats most of the best desktops like yours i think its cool, but the price is extreme though.

I would also no buy a gigh end like that i would like a laptop with the 8600 GT because it can play all games out to this date with okay details and graphic and gets about 4500 on 3dmark06 overclocked which is nice and as i said worls very well for all games to this date.

I would rather use the money people use to buy high end laptops to onvest in stock marketing etc just my 2 cents. Anyway i love to game on laptops though even with my x3100

ohh and the new GT cards beats the old GTX card i prooved that with my brothers desktop so your card is better then the older GTX if u got the new 512/1 GB mb GT

 

Lmao........Im still here people, & yes i have a video for yall, sorry its taking so long, ive been madd busy in the studio workin hard so yall just gunna have to wait just a little longer.

Edit: i found the problem to the NFS: Pro Street Crashing in Xp, it was the Exe, so i replaced it with a cracked exe & bam!!! no more crashes, But it doesn't run all that great, i mean its playable but struggles alot.

 

*looks at title of thread* well duh

 

wow....Shutup

 

Sorry, did I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry you expected more than sluggish performance from an integrated card in a modern game.

 

HAHAHA u funny........

 

do the video how hard can it be enter the game with fraps, play for few minutes and post it

 

Thing is, recording with fraps on an X3100 will more than half your frames per second, so it wont be an accurate guide by any means.

 

+1

Proper benchmark of that would be using a high quality external camera, making the capture entirely independent of the computer and vice versa. Otherwise computer resources are spent on capturing the video, which can be pretty substantial depending on the software used for capturing. Lets not even start on how important RAM is for this type of action, which will influence performance substantially if there is not ALOT of it.

 

Seems to me that people who pay $3000 for a notebook that only comes with an 8600M GT should be careful about how they use the word "duh".

Sorry, did I hurt your feelings?

Just don't spend 3k on a laptop to get it ...

 

hahaha yeah u get the 8800 GTS for 1200 bucks these days.

 

Yes i just did a video for Cod 4, ill up it on youtube in a sec, but like he said when recording a video, The Framerate does drop alot, like 10 to me, And it was very hard to kill someone cuz it kept......i guss skipping, it was just a little skipping but hard to aim & it only does that when recording the video, so it was very hard to kill someone but i manage though. But on the video playback it was smooth.

 

If the framerate drops that much then recording a video with FRAPS is useless. Just use FRAPS to display the framerate NOT to record video.

*edit* i noticed you said the playback was smooth. Does that mean the playback properly represents your avg framerate?

If not, find some other way to record the video with FRAPS displaying the fps, or else stop making preposterous claims about frame rates.

 

So you just return when I said that you are long gone 0_o. Unreal, it does not take many weeks or months just to record a 30 sec long video.

 

What makes you think I spent 3K, OR got this laptop specifically for an 8600m GT? Gaming on it was not why I bought it. Who are you to judge my financial position anyway? For all you know I can be typing this on my own private island.

 

Its not a 30 second video dude, more like 5 to 8 minutes, and unlike you i have a life & and a job, im sorry i dont have as much free time as you. i said ill upp the video in a sec. give me a freakin break.

 

just post some proof and real video or images NOT user opinion, since thats whats everyone is arguing about based on user opinion.

 

Did you steal it? Because 3k is the going price ....

That wasn't my point. My point was "the type of card that was supplied on a notebook that cost 3k".

Once again, you missed the point.

I'm not judging your financial position, I'm judging the reasoning of anyone buying a notebook that costs 3k that is stuck with an 8600m GT GPU.

World to Arquis! World to Arquis!

Hello?

Wake up ... anyone there?

 

k then... name me a list of 17" Macbooks that have something better than an 8600m GT that cost less than the 17" Macbook Pro... if you can, I'll be happy to say "yes you have a point." Because until then... you really don't. If you're saying Apple overcharges for their specs, you're totally right... but if I need OS X, what's my choice?

I seriously don't want to go on too long with this argument though, because it's pretty silly

 

lol @ firefrank i think all laptops are stuck with whatever graphics card they have. that was pretty...dumb..do you have a laptop with interchangeable graphics card?

@ arquis i dont think firefrank has a laptop or is jelous coz cant afford ^^

eitherway the point that unreal is suppose to oppose that the x3100 is at least a decent gaming graphics card has yet to be presented.

if unreal doesnt have the time why bother even arguing?

 

Uploading the video to youtube now, should be done in 30 minutes.