What will Intel 950 GMA will play?

Ok, I've found this list (thanks to dell guy too), as it is, Intel's chip is not that bad for older games:


Intel GMA 950: http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intel945gm/sb/CS-021400.htm

Intel GMA 900:

http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intel915gm/sb/CS-020153.htm

It says it will play City of Villians, Doom 3, Fable, RCT3, WoW, Guild Wars, HL2(on GMA900 and as GMA950 > GMA900 i guess its playable on both) and many games, The Lord Of The Rings, Many star wars games and so on.

But I was wondering, will it play CS:S at lowest resolution, no eye candy at all? at more than 30 FPS constant?

We should make a list. Have you tried any? Im gonna get a MacBook so this is a big surprise

 

no way its gana play doom 3, it didnt play on my friends ati mx200

 

Ars Techica posted a review of the macbook which has some 'gaming' tests.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbook.ars/4

Macs are impractical platforms for gaming and have never been regarded as such. I wouldn't expect much out of a GMA950. You'll have to look for another computer if you want to do anything but basic (if that) gaming.

 

Hey ogando_jose,

You can play almost any game as long as you turn down the settings. Take it from me, I was asking the same question as you not that long ago. I got a GMA 900 in my dell laptop, and I run San Andreas flawlessly. I think alot of people are ill informed about the GMA 900, and are too quick with the "aww it sucks, you wont be able to run anything" answers. They just see that they are integrated graphics and assume they are just complete garbage. The GMA 900/950 are top notch as far as integrated graphics go. However, as good as they are for being integrated graphics, most low priced cards will out perform them. But none the less, the GMA 900/950 are better than they get credit for. I would avoid any of the REALLY high spec games like Doom 3 and HL2, but pretty much anything that calls for a minimum setting of 256 MB ram (assuming you have that) and a 3d accelorator with 32-64 megs of ram, should run JUST FINE on the Intel GMA's.

 

ryangassxx

Thanks for your answer I got San Andreas too and would love to play it again. I got HL2, CoD2, BF2, but I know I can't play those games (maybe CS:S). Is there any other game you run flawlessly? Any good one?

Thanks for your answer

 

I actually just got this computer a few days ago and San Andreas is all I've really tried so far. But judging from how well it runs (blazing fast) it could pheasably run something even more graphicaly demanding.

Have you tried HL2 and the other games you mentioned? Or are you just asuming they wont work? Perhaps you should give them a shot and turn the settings all the way down.

 

no man, I haven't bought my macbook yet. I'm preety shure I want one, but I'll wait till I go to spain (cheaper than in México) also, Gonna get 2 gig of ram so it runs flawlessly lol. Don't worry, I'll try to post a review covering all that (if i get one, of course, which im pretty shure I will)

 

sounds good ogando jose. definitly keep me posted. Have fun in Spain.

 

Hey I just played a demo of Rome: Total War at about medium settings and it ran pretty good. Cool game too.

 

Sorry Chazman, I have to differ a bit there. I agree any machine with a GMA950 is a NOT a gaming platform. But to call Mac’s not practical?

The new dual boot Intel Macs is a different story when offered with a true GPU. Some of the older Macs, hampered by Crapola processors, always had the mainstream video cards as options.

We all know and love Bungie with the Halo titles? They used to be the Mac premier game developer beginning with Pathways to Darkness that led to the classic Marathon series. Uncle Bill knew a good developer when he saw one, no?

Game installation on the Macs were normally a joy, something I rarely see across the pc platform

Ya know same old song and dance…

 

I tried running Fable on the GMA 900, just to see what'd happen. I was averaging 5 frames per second.

Fighting 2 guards dropped me to a whopping 1 fps.

Now mind you, while I did play with some settings in the hope of improvement, I didn't exhaust all possibilities. And my computer setup itself might not have been optimal either. I wouldn't be surprised if someone more capable/willing could get better performance, but for a quick "let's see what happens" test, it wasn't the best experience.

 

Im sorry to inform that the My GMA900 does not play half-life 2 At ALL i have a GMA900 on my T43 but the closest thing to playablity are only on custom maps (I mean SMALL maps) around 30-40frames at the most. ON the default Death-Match dont expect to get anything over 10FPS --> lower the settings do not help... ive tried to tweak the "autoexec" (Looks like the orignal doom) and still no improvement.

Ive Tried, sorry mate

BankBen

 

What about RTS games such as Civilization IV?

I don't need a powerul notebook that plays game as graphically intensive as Battlefield 2, as I don't have time for games like that anymore.

Will the Interated graphics allow me to play games such as these half-way decently?

 

Just want to bump this up and hopefully get an answer to my question.

 

what can I say, why dont you try the demo?

 

I think the reason people say the Intel 950 won't play a lot of 3d games are because (A) Many newer games refuse to even load with this videoboard. (B) Newer games that will load run so badly, even at lowest settings, that the majority of people don't consider it worth it.

No one is saying you cant' run older titles like the afore-mentioned San Andreas, but 2005-current titles probobly won't work. I work with a guy that bought a new Dell with a Intel 950 and he can run a few things (SWAT 4, the NFS that came out before Most Wanted ((NFS:MW would not run)). But even those titles run choppy & barely playable.

If you plan on playing older pre-2004 games, you will probobly find a wide assortment of great titles that will run respectably. Otherwise, opt for a better videoboard.

 

well my m140 with a 1.73 cpu and 1.2 gig ram plays call of duty 1 great with the settings on high and at 1280x1024 res. so im really happy. i think that the gma 900 can play any older games (05 and older) but its just lacks the power for new games (06-present)

 

Update:

I've tried a couple more games. I ran Madden 06 on full settings and it ran flawlessly. No slowdown at all. I was actually quite surprised. I also ran Command and Conquer Generals. High runs a little sluggish, but medium runs without a hitch.

 

hi everyone i have a gma 900 too and what i have played so far are this:
rome total war 1024x860 or something
star wars empire at war dont remember resolution
half life 2 low fps
call of cthulhu
fifa 2006 and the world cup 2006
the sims 2
wining eleven 9
unreal tournament 2004
thief 3 deadly shadows with sometimes low fps
mafia
max payne 2
vietcong
age of empires 3 great game
hitman series dont think will work the blood money
warhammer 40000k and the expansion
and Need for speed Most Wanted 800x640 you can look at the specs in ea.com and there it says the gma900 is supported as in the godfather the game
i have borrowed a lot of this games from my friends and as i saw in your posts im gonna try the san andreas
this is my specs
centrino 1.5 ghz
1 gb ram
pretty low i want to bought more ram soon and see if that help me more and as i use this laptop as video editing

 

Good to know that Thanks man.

I have HL2, Thief3(came with the desktop vid card), NFMW.

I would love to try AOE3, do you get low FPS at all? is it fully playable?

thaks for this man

EDIT:

BTW, is NFMW fully, I mean, 100% playable?

 

in NFSMW in some spots it slows down and in aoe3 in the ships battles but there is a patch for that in their website,probably you will get more fps in both of them, what are your specs?

 

HL2 uses fancy startup menu, with transperancies, which are unsupported by GM900. Solution is either adding this to the target string in the shortcut "+map_background none" or simply delete all the background.bsps's in the /maps dir.

As for frame rates, force the game to run in directx6 mode and you can finish the entire game with 15-50 fps on average.


Personally I do not see why anyone would even want to play anything on GMA900/950. Myself however, I once was caught by an importptu lan party with nothing more than my Vaio on me, so had to find out the hard way. Surprisingly it ran HL2, Quake3, UT2003, Systemshock2, and Warcraft3. Basically it can run anything as long as you keep it at 640x480 and force the game to run in directx6-7. For doom3 this would mean turning off bumpmapping etc.

 

Well, I dont think anyone who is, is doing so for the graphical experience of it. Some games are just fun to play. I love playing command and conquer generals, and it doesent make much difference to me if the graphics are polished or not. Its just about playability. And as I'm starting to see, the GMA 900 seems to be able to accoplish that just fine.

 

and tried far cry too 800 x 600 a great game with some missing textures but you need to download the lastest patch and the problem is gone

 

Man thats awesome, Source is the BEST, but the BEST, engine I've ever seen I mean, I knew it could run in directx7 mode, but in 6, thats awesome.

What about counter strike:source? I guess it's fine but just to be shure

EDIT: I'm starting to think that even BF2 might run with proper patches, look:


From http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intel945g/sb/CS-021729.htm

When Battlefield 2* game is launched, the splash screen is displayed and then the game exits to the desktop.

It doesn't mention anything about low framerates, lack of capabilities, anything. And BF2 is not that graphic intensive

 

For those of you who care, I tried running CS1.6 on a stock T1, widescreen mode, OpenGL, 32bit. It averaged 20-50fps.

 

whats wrong with 20-50 frames per second? you know that the human eye is only capable of detecting like 30 right? anything above 30 frames per second is just extra.

 

Huh? Civ IV to me is one of the most god-awful addictive, time consuming games I've ever played...like a black hole that just sorta sucks hours outta life, yet you say you don't have time for Battlefield 2?

 

i heard that civilization 4 gives low fps in this cards

 

I finished HL2 on my Vaio with GMA950 and 2GB RAM and it was fine. The settings were on low, but even so it was a great experience and I was averaging around 30fps.

Right now I'm playing Dreamfall, Call of Cthulhu, Tomb Raider Legends and The Indigo Prophecy on it with the GMA 950 and they all run without a problem. TR Legends can't run with the next-gen content, of course, but otherwise it's totally playable with settings on medium.

I ran CivIV without a problem too, but I uninstalled it because it was sucking my life away. What a great but addictive game. I don't know if a lot of people who complain about the GMA 900/950 have actually tried it or not, but I've found it will run most games I want to play, even current 2006 games like Dreamfall and TRL. It's been good for my gaming purposes.

 

whats your specs Arcanum84 i want to try civ 4 and is it good the indigo prophecy game?
I once tried the brother in arms game but i couldnt run it does anybody knows how to run the game in this cards?

 

anybody tried rush for berlin with this graphic card?

 

help i cannot play the godfather, i use intel core 2 duo with intel gma 950 and memory 2GB only blank screen forever....

 

CS:S wont run stably at all. Note even at 640x480 with all eyecandy set at low. But it will run hl2 decently at medium 800x600. Expect between 10-25fps.

 

what about in dx7 or dx8 mode?

 

You WILL be able to play HL2, not cs:s, and you might might be able to play cod2 at lowest settings at dx7. BF2, it's worth a try. When I had a gma900 i could get hl2 running at medium settings just fine. But CS:S, even at the lowest possible sttings, it still got like 10fps.

 

You might try in dx7 mode. But in dx9, no way. And cod 2 might work at dx7 with all settings at low. BF2 is worth a try as well.

 

that happens cause it doesnt support that card... it did that to my desk top when i had a radion 9250 in it... then i got an x300 and it ran on medium then later i got a 7600 gt and it runs maxed out with 60 fps constant

 

no way doesnt even run on dx 7 with my friends x200 m 2.0 ghz amd hp he gets like 7 fps on alot of maps and in side of small buildings and thats also with muilti player and only 6 people playing

 

why wouldn't CS:S work if HL2 works? they are essentially the same game, not unless CS:S is different in some way. would your internet connection play a role?

 

Thats below average for the x200. I had an x200 with crap DDR 266 memory and still got about 20-35fps in most maps, with several players.

BF2 does not and never will run on the GMA900. BF1942 and Vietnam do work though, maybe give those a whirl.

 

that is what i was wondering, but it just doesnt run at all.

 

I never bothered playing using my Intel GMA900 till a while ago. I turned off my Geforce Go 6600 and I tried running my games. CnC Generals Zero Hour was running at like 5 FPS (not sure, but it was damn slow and choppy) at 1440x1050, everything maxed. LOL. It was a bit playable (read: SLOW but kinda smooth) at 800x600, low-medium settings, but it stutters sometimes. Other games that I have installed such as Test Drive Unlimited and Company of Heroes just refuse to start. FarCry craps up except for the menu.

Then again, I only use the Intel GMA900 when using the batteries. I get over 4 hours of battery life so I'm happy with it. I never play games while it's running on batteries only.

I know it's not the GMA950, but I posted anyway since the two cards are very similar (and crappy...)