Will ATI RADEON XPRESS 200M play...

The only game you will be able to play is counter strike, the others just wont run fast enough. Call of Duty 2, you can get running ok, but it's not great, and possibly NFS, the others will be to slow though to even try and play.

 

even though the 200M looks to be depressing for hardcore gammers, dont fret! if you have an ExpressCard54 on your notebook (like I do) you might have a chance (in the future) to add some kind of GPU there. (ATI is working on it!)

 

it appears that since your 200m uses 32/96 memory, it is slower than mine.but i can play games like FarCry/Delta Force BHD/and quite recently BF2 at decent resolutions with decent framerates.

for example my 200m gives me 30~39 framerates in farcry if i have my settings on medium at a resolution of 1024x786. and if i turn my settings to high it gives me 25~28 frames (very playable). and if i set my settings to Very High frames drop to avg. 20. which is still pretty good considering it is an IGP. but maybe it also has something to do with my DDR400 memory???

 

Could anyone enlighten me as to how the X200M 128MB Shared compares to the desktop Radeon 9200 series? I'm curious as to how the laptop I'm planning on getting will perform as compared to my current desktop.

 

the 200M will play newer games than the 9200, mainly because the 9200 uses DX8.1 and the 200M uses DX9 . If your a heavy gamer then you should get something like the X700 (from ABS.com) or the X1400. but if your a light to average gamer, then the 200m should be fine! (it works fine for me!) but remember to get a laptop with an ExpressCard54, because in the future ATI might make graphics Cards that use that slot (or so i heard)

 

Thanks dello ^_^

 

Mine doesn't have and dedicated memory, and it's very, very slow, my GF2 is faster than it...

 

you actually have 32/96 memory (32 dedicated/96shared). the version with128 didicated is actually up to i think 40% better performance!!!

 

Mine has 256mb + 512mb = 768mb then - 128 for the vid, I have 640mb left, if I had 32 dedicated I should 762mb remaning.

Even if I had 32mb of dedicated memory this thing would be faster than it is, it's just too slow for any thing.

 

yes i suppose that your 200m uses all shared memory sorry you should have gotten a notebook from HP, they offer 128MB didecated 200M

 

Yeah, we're a little limited in NZ as to what we can get

 

The Xpress 200m gets only 970 in 3dMark03?? My GMA900 gets 946.

 

3DMarks don't mean much in terms of real-life performance, so don't base the X200M on them. It will handily beat the GMA900 as has been posted so many times before.

Chaz

 

I agree with Chaz!

 

Yeah, 3DMark shouldn't even be brought up. I noticed years ago how inaccurate 3DMark was. It won't give consistant results. You can run the benchmark twice and do nothing different except press the button to run the benchmark again and it will produce a different score. A friend of mine pointed this out on the 3DMark forums back when 2001 was the "in" thing and he got banned and the thread deleted and never a notice or even a word from the mods or anyone in the company.

The last time I used 3DMark was before that. I doubled my RAM and my processor (literally, Celeron 533MHz up to a Celeron 1.1GHz Coppermine). My frame-rate in Serious Sam: Next Encounter literally doubled with the same videocard. But my 3DMark score went up by about 300 points.

 

So from what Ive read in this post if the 200m with shared memory performs the same with either 64 or 128mb memory, would a computer with 512mb memory be better off just setting the video at 64mb. If the 200m is not taking advantage of the extra 64 wouldnt it in be put to better use as system memory in most cases?

 

I'd agree with that, I didn't notice a difference going to 128MB or Vram.

 

Anyone actually used a GMA 900 OR 950? You may be a little suprised.
Don't always believe what you read or see on the graphs my friends.

 

I bet they would still be good for games such as Warcraft 2, Starcraft, Diablo 2 and the Command and Conquer games (except generals). Still sounds like good fun to me lol. Probably even UT99.

 

You've got a great Laptop in your Signatur. Everything top, but I don't understand why with such a great system you've chosen a GMA950 graphic card!! If you'd chosen the Mobile 7800GTX you'd out do any Desktop!!

 

Well 1. if i was to get that card it would of taken months to recieve it. as they dont do it with the laptop at the moment and all the people that did manage to get it are still waiting. and 2nd, most importantly. i use my desktop for my gaming? i don't need to spend hundreds extra getting a go 7800 (and wait a decade) , i can play games on my pc. Plus I only paid $1,494.74 for the Lappy so... that's why i got it. Cheap for what i got. and i think i could sacrifice the graphics

It plays UT2004 Fine, so UT99 erm... of course it will. You can get 30fps out of wolfenstein enemy territory. not great, but still this is not a gaming machine for me. my gaming machine is my desktop. Oh and C & C Generals, Not sure, will test it pretty soon with that, when i get the time. Oh and the latest Battle for middle earth, BFME II, EA Support the 950 GMA, So it must work with that too. of course on lowest settings no doubt.

 

For anyone wondering about FFXI, the benchmark got me a score of 3020 in low res. I did not try the high res version... I have a v2000z with 128 meg assigned to the video card from my 1 gig of ram.

 

I was slightly curious as to how FFXI performed on it as I do like playing it on a laptop but don't want to spend too much, I was reletively sure that the X200M would play it fine though, seeing as my friend does, it plays much more taxing games and FFXI runs on a Mobility Radeon 7500 32MB, which is miles behind the X200M

 

hi
i test few games with my tohiba equium L20 (p-m 740 ,512-(64) ddr2 533 ram ati x200m 64MB )

BF 2 1024*768 -low :good
COd 2 800*600 -low :good
UT 2004 1024*768 -medium: very good
HL 2 1024*768 medium-high: very good
C&C Generals 1024*768 -high:very good
NFS most wnted 800*600 -medium:good
(good=15-25 fps very good 25< fps)

 

For any CS 1.6 junkies out there, I briefly had a Compaq v2000 with the Xpress 200m integrated video card in it. I play at 800x600 resolution, and was pleased to see that I got 80-100 fps playing in scrims and pubs. The only real decrease in performance occured when there were smoke grenades on my screen; the fps dropped to 20-40 fps when I was in the thick of it.
I only had 384mb system ram though (128mb was used for video), so maybe more ram would help the decrease in fps in smoke.

 

More RAM would probably remove the decrease in FPS during the smoke bombs. That's my bet anyway.

 

Geez, the Radeon Xpress 200M is definately highly-talked about isn't it? Just an answer to the original question about The Sims 2... I read on the CNET forums that The Sims 2 will run just fine as long as you have a slightly faster processer and a bit more RAM than noted in the requirements with the 200M. The poster actually said it "ran like a dream". I don't know about the other games you've asked about, sorry

 

Yeah it is. Wether an IGP can run the newest games playably is something any budget gamer would like to know.

 

Guys,just listen to me,

ahem,

InFormation about the X200m, FROM DELLO.

trust me when i say that the 200m is a great IGP chip, yes it dose not have the power of a dedicated chip, yet it performs like one (or close to it). my only experience with the 200m is with two games; FarCry and Delta Force Black Hawk Down (i know its old but i love it anyways ).

I will therefore list the results i got from those two games using the 200M.

FARCRY-------------------------------------Version 1.32
Settings.
Texture: Very High
Filtering: Bilinear 2X
Particle Count: High
Shadows: High
Water Quality: High
Lighting Quality: High
Environment Quality: Very High
Special Effects Quality: High
Res: 1024X786
Results---------AVG 32 FPS, Normally 28 FPS. (VERY GOOD!!! )

DELTA FORCE BHD---------------------V5.11
Settings: ALL VERY HIGH
RES: 1280x1024
Results--------AVG 48+ FPS (VERY VERY VERY GOOD!!! )

Conclusion,
dont underestimate the power of the X200m (128 dedicated). it is a decent chip that will run some of my favorite games (FarCry and BHD) at good settings with good FPS. I WOULD RECOMMEND IT! Because:
1) It is a budget GPU, so your notebook price wont be sky high
2) Performs really good
3) Runs cool
4) Consumes low level of battery
5) I could go on and on!!!1

Rating for X200m: 7.963/10

 

Hi im just wondering.. Im about to buy a laptop that has the 64mb dedicated version of the x200. (64mb dedicated+64mb shared).. and from what iv heard the version of the x200 that has all shared memory is pretty poor , wheras the 128mb dedicated is excellent. Well how do you guys think the 64mb dedicated one will perform. The extra 64mb which the 128mb dedicated version has shouldnt make much of a difference as the GPU itself shouldnt be able to really take advantage of the extra 64mb dedicated to it..? I would imagine that the gpu will be reaching nearly full potential with just 64mb dedicated to it..?

 

Yeah, the 64MB one should be close to the 128MB in performance for the reason you said - the GPU isn't powerful enough to take advantage of any more.

 

I have found an amazing laptop for the same price of the Toshiba Satellite A100 i was thinking about buying.. Its an ASUS A6 and its has a faster GPU and bigger hard drive and an ATI X200 Gpu. However the problem is that i dont know whether or not it has the dedicated version of the x200 or the fully shared version!..? Does anyone know what the story is with this?

 

I have found an amazing laptop for the same price of the Toshiba Satellite A100 i was thinking about buying.. Its an ASUS A6 and its has a faster GPU and bigger hard drive and an ATI X200 Gpu. However the problem is that i dont know whether or not it has the dedicated version of the x200 or the fully shared version!..? Does anyone know what the story is with this??

 

I'm nearly certain that the ATI Radeon Xpress 200M is fully shared as I have never heard of a dedicated X200 before.

 

I JUST HAVE ONE THING TO SAY:

AHEM,

NEVER UNDER ESTIMATE THE X200M!! NO MATTER WHAT THE BENCHMARKS AND STUFF SAY@@@@@@@@ LOOK AT MY REAL-LIFE RESUALTS:::::

 

Errr, that doesn't really help the poor fellow, the easiest way to find out would be to find a spec shet on the laptop, most places should have one, or even their web site.

 

I agree...never base a card on benchmarks...rather on person experiences . I discoverd that with my ATI Radeon 9000 128mb IGP

 

True. But then how come those benchmarks are all "faulty"(if that's the word)?

 

What exactly do you mean?

 

The problem with benchmark programs is - if I understand things correctly, that they test your machine under the criteria: 'How well do Your machine take on this test?'

Under theoretical circumstances that is a good measure. We all measure performance from the same test, and the number given as result represent the performance of Your system.

But fact is that a test never take care of real life performance. The drivers might be better for one game and worse for another. The game might be tweaked for one graphics card and not for another. Your settings might differ from another user with the same card etc.

So a number in a test doesn't really say anything about how well Your laptop or PC performs when it comes down to the games You play.

A good advice is to use the test results from a benchmark as a guide or rule of thumbs of the performance of the card / pc, but never let it be the descissionmaker for Your choice of PC / laptop

 

There are 3 dedicated versions.. The first has 32mb dedicated+uses 96mb from the system memory.. Second has 64mb dedicated+64 system memory and then a 128mb version that uses a further 128mb from system..

 

Iv looked everywhere to see what version of the X200M the ASUS A6 has and they all just give the usual descriptions.. X200M shared.. or X200M...or X200M Integrated.. They never say if the thing has any dedicated memory, if at all!

 

is this the longest thread ? whoa 35 PAGES!! looks the the X200m is VERY popular

 

Hey, nice find! Is this the correct setting to change (it was initially set at the option just above the highlighted one):

Edit: Ignore my post, I figured out it should be the MEMCLK Frequency setting on the right!

 

Is there any way to make these changes if you have an Intel Setup?? There must be..!

 

Not sure, but just wanted to add a quick tip: If your system freezes when setting the MEMCLK to 200, try setting it to 183 first, hitting set, and then try 200. For some reason I can only reach 200 if I move up in steps. Downside is that using this method you can't apply the settings to automatically initialise at bootup, so you'll have to repeat the process every time you boot. If anyone knows how to automate this, let me know!

 

dello: No the longest threads are in Off Topic... 35 pages is nothing compared to them. Try 350+

 

Is doing this dangerous in any way?

 

Messing with any of these settings is dangerous so its up to you.

 

How dangerous? Will it make my system run hotter?