Why does ATI X1250 score lower 3dmark 06 than intel X3100 ?

sup guys I heard from lot of ppl saying ATI X1250 it's far much better than intels GMA X3100 card.. but here you see the opposite..

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4396&review=Toshiba+Satellite+A305D-S6831

I also checked notebookcheck and states higher marks on GMA X3100 in 3dmark 06 , this is confusing me cause I'm going to get a cheap laptop in between these gpu's x1250, Intel GMA x3100 and there's something odd going on here. Could anyone clear that out to me thanks

 

First, it varies from notebook to notebook.
Second, it's still an IGP, performance doesnt even matter.
The ATI should b e better then the Intel though.

Also, drivers can be a factor.

 

3DMark isn't everything.. like 9600GT and 8800GT score about similar marks in 3DMark, but in games 8800GT totally dominate 9600GT

X1250 is about 20% faster than X3100 in games in general and much better compatibility with games

 

3D mark is a synthetic test. Although it will give you an idea of how hardware will preform in a controlled environment, you're better off getting benchmarks for the software you'll use.

 

You don't have to cross post... you have another thread almost identical to this.

 

The x3100 probably scores higher in 3dmark06 because it is a dx10 capable part with unified shaders(a little more useful here), but the x1250 is better in everything else because it has more raw power.

 

When did the X3100 become a DirectX10 card?

 

Always has been. But it's useless, as no IGP can use the DX10 effects supported in current games.

 

some other choice I got was an nvidia 7150M in between these two X3100 and X1250 by the way is the X1200 almost the same a the X1250 ? Thanks so much for al your thoughts.

 

Namaiki: If you look the ati card which I have in my laptop(BTW it has 128mb memory shared), is running at 400mhz core and 400mhz memory while the intel card is running at 500mhz(the intel card has up to 384mb memory shared). I know that there is not much difference between the 2 cards but then how does the ati card have more raw power?

 

raw core speed has nonething to do with raw power. look at the 8600m GS vs GT. the GS has a core of 600 vs 475 of the GT yet the GT is faster then the GS due to the amount of the stream processors. the ATI cards on the desktop and laptop level are clocked higher the the Nvidia chips yet the nvidia preform a little better in games.

 

My brothers Acer w/ the 1250 wasn't really that good for gaming at all, try to get a newer integrated card if you are on a budget, possibly the x4500MHD, 9200G, or 3450/70.

 

X3100 got higher score because it got SM3.0 which add up to the final score on 06
In game wise X1250 is 20% faster

And X4500MHD is waaaay slower than other IGP made by nVidia and Ati and are also plagued by game incompatiblity

For DX10 gaming IGP and low end gfx card is a joke, X4500MHD only got 67 on Vantage vs 101 on HD3200
http://service.futuremark.com/hardware/graphics_cards/intel_gma_x4500hd

A far cry from 9600M GT which got 1400 in Vantage which is only about 1/3rd power of desktop 9600GT which got 4100 Vantage score

 

Problem with the X1250 is it's dependent on the paired CPU as it doesn't have vertex shaders. The CPU performs vertex shader functions. This of course, is extremely slow.

 

ntsan, Although what you say may be true, the fact that the OP is looking at Intel cards means s/he is considering them. Might as well get the best possible one, no? (I know the new gen IGP's aren't good for gaming, but they are still better than the last gen IGP's.)