Will ATI RADEON XPRESS 200M play...

i never said it was twice more powerful..........i said it was 30% more powerful

 

Well, right there was what I was pointing at. But, 30% is the performance difference, yes.

 

well in some cases the x300 is 50% more powerful especially if you overclock the x300. some users here got 1900 3dmark05 score with OC, while the x200m even with OC to 400MHz Core gets 900 score. I tried it on my dad's lappie

 

but overall i think the x300 is about 35% more powerful than the x200

 

The x300 is NOT anywhere near 35% faster then the x200m (128mbdedicated).
In the benchmarks you will find the x300 beating the x200 by 30-40% by some miracle but in terms of real game performance, the x200 will only outperform the x200 dedicated marginally. They are both pretty weak and you will not notice a major difference between them when trying to optimise your settings for games..

 

you do have a point fishy.
the x300 and x200 are in the same bottle............. but you will notice some performance increase over the x200m

 

Yes you will notice a difference but it will be miniscule and certainly not enough to shout about...

 

Im about to buy a laptop, the only game i want to play on it is CS:S. I dont mind playing it at DX7 or DX8.1 at like 1024, thats fine with me. But the laptop im about to get im not sure if it will play CS:S. Heres the specs, and just for an FYI its only $500, thats y i want it so bad lol

Celeron M 390 (1.5-1.6ghz)
256DDR2 Memory (i will be adding a gig stick)
ATI Radeon Xpress 200m Shared (im not sure if its 128 or not)

You guys think it will play?
Im also wondering if u think itll run Vista when it comes out.

 

Yep that will play CS:S at 1024*768 for sure. With 1 GB added, it should play smooth.

Charlie-Peru

 

hi. i have a question. i have a sempron 3400+ amd procesor 512 MB RAm and the ati xpress 200m. Now should the battle for middle earth 1 run ok on it or not because i have problems with the game on low settings there is very low option wcih runs kind of OK. is this normal? p.s. the EA easy check says that my cpu speed is 800mhz i checked it with cpuz and the speed actualy is 800 the multipier is 4. if the game should work normaly on my comp i have to take it back

 

Fishy, yes I did notice the resolution changing with the Omega drivers, in fact I switched back to the Toshiba drivers which are 6 months old. Do you use old drivers too? The A105 not only has the X200 GPU but the mother board chipset is ATI, I didnt know this till I ran a CPU-Z test.

To eveyone else I would not recommend the X200M as a card to play any fairly modern game on. My logic is that there are so many great graphical effects in so many games these days, by turning off these effects it kind of defeats the purpose of the game, my 2 cents.

 

I think you're on power saving mode , you would need to disable that. To do to that , just select Always On , in Power Options , that should set back the CPU to its original clock speed

ATI Radeon 200 series is actually a motherboard. ATI 200M motherboard has a bulit-in PCI-E Graphics card , that is ATI Mobility Radeon X200M and ATI Radeon200P board offers a dedicated graphics card solution for end users. Its much like Intel motherboard , one which has GMA and the other one which has dedicated slot for PCI-E Graphics card !

 

THANKS MAN U REALY MADE MY DAY! THANK YOU!

 

Yes i had to take off the Omega drivers and reinstall my old drivers..
I will say again that the x200 isnt as weak as it is made out to be.. Sure its nothing to compare to even a Geforce 7300/Ati X1300 but it will still play FarCry/HL2 on Medium-Max settings and that is respectable perofrmance. Especially for the many gamers out there that love to play their old titles over and over again.. Its a good offering in low end laptops.
I love to play Operation Flashpoint/HL2/ MOH Allied Assault/Ghost Recon/Far Cry and so on... and all of these games are as good as any new game out there but maybe a little limited in the extra eye candy..

 

My situation( just got a cheap Compaq m2000z series which come with Sempron 300+, ATI 200M and 256MB DDR333 ram) is that I bought 512MB DDR400 ram, pop it in along the existing 256MB DDR333 ram and CPU-Z or CPUBRAINID show the ram running at 333mhz as expected. But when only the 512MB DDR400 is used, the ram run at 400mhz.
The price for DDR400 and DDR333 ram is the same. I understand the need to overclock when you have existing 333mhz ram but does the rest of the guys know that if you use DDR400 ram only, then they will run at 400mhz? Just dun want to see people going out to buy DDR333 and then overclocking. fps certainly went up by more than 10% with 512MB DDR400 as opposed to 728MB ram@333mhz. Gonna to buy another 512MB DDR400 in the next couple of days and take out the 256MB DDR333 ram.

As far as I understand, the Sempron/Turion's memory controller is ondie and thus what I experienced should be the same for the rest of you.

 

The RAM will run only as fast as the slowest module you have installed. Your slowest module is 333MHz, so even if you install a 400MHz SO-DIMM, it will be automatically downclocked to 333MHz to match the slower one.

 

exactly what I was illustrating with my example. I am suggesting to those guys who are going to add ram... get DDR400 and remove the existing DDR333 if you do not wish to do any ram overclocking like me.

 

Has anyone tried Heroes of Might and Magic on X200? Is it playable?
Any idea how x200 compares to Radeon 8500? (frankly I've never heard of Radeon 8500, it must be some base model)

 

the x200m is one wierd card

there is a whole thread dedicated to it which has over 35 pages....and still some people dont understand what the card is capable of...

 

The Radeon 8500 was great for its time, but now it is much outdated ; it's not as powerful as the X200M, but that's not saying much. The Radeon X200M is also newer and supports advanced shading techniques the 8500 cannot do.

 

the x200m is like a Ferrari with a Honda V4 Engine(Ferrari's usually have V12 engines)

it has all the goodie stuff like pixelshader 2.0, DX9 support, and even its own memory.....but like i said thats only the shell.....the engine is quite weak

 

I have two laptops with two version of the card so I do understand what it's capable of. Yet, I experience great lag with Heroes V even at the lowest possible settings (where you can barely distinguish between the hero and a bush). The stated requirements are Radeon 8500, 512mb RAM. I have x200 with 768mb RAM. I should probably try some newer drivers.

Thanks Chazman

 

well its 43 pages now

 

I just baught a laptop here are the specs

2.0GHz AMD Turion™ 64 Mobile Processor ML-37 with PowerNow!™ Technology (1MB L2 cache)
1.0GB 333MHz DDR RAM, expandable to 2.0GB
120GB 4200RPM Hard Drive
LightScribe 8X DVD±RW and CD-RW Combo Drive with Double Layer Support
15.4” WXGA High-Definition BrightView Widescreen (1280 x 800) Display
ATI RADEON XPRESS 200M IGP video graphics with 128MB dedicated DDR video RAM

What i was wondering if i would be able to run Half Life 2 on it. Im not a hardcore gamer by anymeans but i just wanted to know if it would be able to take the game, or if the video was good enough, thanks in advance

 

please do a thread search. there is a whole thread dedicated to the x200m
you can find it here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=26318


asking the same question again and agian clutters the fourm

 

swordfish12, your thread has been merged into the thread which is linked above.

That system can play HL2 without problems.

 

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10072025&catid=20354

any idea wat card this 200m is?

 

Hi guys,

Been reading this thread eagerly, but I have a ***** of a problem with my x200.

I have an x800 in my desktop so obviously I was getting used to the fact I was gonna have to play all my games on low with this card....

My Specs are Sempron 3000+, 1gig ram, 128mb shared x200M.

I tried Wolfenstein, Soldier of Fortune 2, C&C Generals, Unreal Tournament, Quake III - all working at 1024x768 with all options on high. So far, so good.

Then I try Call of Duty UO.....runs like a dog. But here's the wierdest part - cranking the resolution down from 1024x768 with options on to 640x480 with options on low, doesn't improve performance AT ALL!! What I'm basically trying to say is that the game is fairly unplayble, very choppy, but its the exact same whether the game is on high or low settings.

Same story with Half Life 2. Judging from this thread people have decent success with the source engine. I tried DoD S and CS S - its too choppy to play even on 800x600, all options on low, only getting 15FPS???

Dunno whats wrong.....processor is more then enough, ram is grand, and my x200 just isn't performing, even to the levels it should.

Anyone any idea? Its set to 128mb in setup....as as I said I can run some older games perfectly, and then some games (of the exact same minimum requirements) wont run properly at all....

All I wanted to do was play older games anyway, Call of Duty for example which has very low specs and should run grand on the x200, but I can't even do that...

To use as a basic for comparison, I tried Call of Duty on my old desktop, 1.2ghz, 512ram, Geforce 4Mx 64mb. Now, the x200 is at least equal to a GF4mx in terms of power, but I can get 10x better quality on my worse spec'd desktop....someone please help, its driving me insane, why is it not working properly?

 

Got the latest omega drivers, seems to be alot happier now.....hopefully when I reinstall Battlefield 2 and Half Life 2 they will actually be playable this time around!!

 

The Omega drivers seem to do the trick for most people. Glad to see you got it fixed.

 

Yeah, its amazing the difference they made to be honest, didn't think drivers that were only a few months newer then the ones I already had would be so good.

This thread definately pointed me in the right direction.

Just for reference, I can now run :

Battlefield 2 at 800x600, low settings, smoothly
Half Life, 800x600, options on high, smoothly

I have yet to try any other more recent games but the indications from the source engine are good. BF2 is a total resource drainer so I'm not overly worried about its performance. Source engine is amazing though, the way it runs on lower end hardware is a lesson alot of other developers should pay heed to.

Plus all the older games like Wolfenstein, Battlefield 1942, Quake III, Soldier of Fortune, Call of Duty on high settings with very good frames per second.

 

The game Oblivion apparantly has very high demands with only these supporting it can i forget about it ever running on my ATI RADEON XPRESS 200M

Supported Video Card Chipsets:

ATI X1900 series
ATI X1800 series
ATI X1600 series
ATI X1300 series
ATI X850 series
ATI x800 series
ATI x700 series
ATI x600 series
ATI Radeon 9800 series
ATI Radeon 9700 series
ATI Radeon 9600 series
ATI Radeon 9500 series
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 series
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 series
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 series
NVIDIA GeForce 6200 series
NVIDIA GeForce FX series

 

Well I saw a few forum members running it on a ATI Xpress 200M. They used a .ini tweak named Oldblivion or something. It turns special effects off (some which you cant do in the game) and they were playing it at 640*480 at an acceptable FPS (20-25).

If you really want to play Oblivion, why not try it out.

Charlie

 

Oblivion might be possible with the oldblivion mod, but I severely doubt it. Haven't tried it myself, I ran it on my sempron 3000 with 1gb ram and could only get decent fps with everything really really low, which imho defeats the point of running a game of this caliber (ie you could just see a few feet ahead of you )
But as Hitman pointed out, if you really want to know you have to try for yourself. I for one am not gonna stop ya

 

Thanks it looks like an amazing game and after pretty much completing morrowind seemed like the one to go for think i'll just get a game that will run which seems to be most

If anyone has had success though and would recommend it do post at only £20 maybe worth a go

 

Does anyone play Call of Duty original on their X200m? I have it, and it won't run at all! Well, it doe run, but literally at 4 frames a second....like a slide show.

Its the same on the lowest options as on the highest settings i.e reducing resolution does nothing to help.

Basically, in indoor areas, its grand, but in open maps, it slows down to unplayable levels, I just can't figure out why??

Requirements for Call of Duty:

800mhz - I have Sempron 3000
256mb Ram - I have 896mb Free
32MB gfx - I have 128mb X200

Just can't figure it out....I have the very latest drivers.

This problem seems to be happening in every directx9 game.....Day of Defeat Source, Counter Strike, Call of Duty, Battlefield 2 - regardless of what settings I put the games in, in outdoor areas the framerate drops to unplayable levels (5-10fps) which should not be happening with an x200 if settings are on low....

Someone please help me figure out this hideously annoying problem!!!

The problem is not there with DX8 games - I can run Soldier of Fortune 2, and Castle Wolfenstein - both which use the same engine as Call of Duty but dx8 instead of dx9 - on very high settings with no slowdown at all.

 

This is exactly my problem with Heroes V. I will try the Omega drivers.

 

Its driving me insane. What good is a new laptop that won't even play old games? Knowing the limitations of the xpress 200 the only reason I got it with the z200 was to play old games like Medal of Honor, Call of Duty and such. When I can only play half those titles, what the hell good is the x200?? I could have saved a few hundred bucks and gotten a cheap dell laptop with the intel integrated gma900 that runs old games fine. As I said on another thread, my friends Dell laptop with a 1.5 Celeron and 512mb ram with an Intel GMA 900 - a truly horrible card that is, on paper, vastly inferior to the x200 - is currently playing all the games my x200 won't run properly on high settings no problems, and it cost almost half the price of my laptop.

Not exactly encouraging me to keep buying ati's products....in fact I'd be tempted to try and return the laptop right now if it wasn't for the notorious impossibity of getting the local store to accept something back that isnt broken.

Very, very disappointed with ati on this one. I'd be better off dusting off my old p3 800mhz desktop with a tnt2 card then using my laptop at this stage.

 

I haven't used a game on my laptop with the ati 200m that hasn't run perfectly and since i only got it in march thats to be expected but you have to except there will also be some games that need high performance video cards and if you'd done any research on this video card you'd know it wasn't

 

Well seeing as we are talking about ancient games that run on old 32mb cards I don't think you actually grasp the problem here.

This is pathetic. The x200 is without a doubt the worst opengl card in the last 5 years. It performs fine in direct 3d games, but in opengl, even on games that are 7 years old I can barely get 20 frames a second with the latest omega drivers.

 

I brought the laptop back, and for 200 euro extra the manager - who was great about the whole thing and understood what i was saying about the opengl issue on the x200 - gave me a sony vaio 1.73 pentium m with a Geforce 6400 as a replacement....bargin or what?

 

Hi guys i just bought this Cheap HP Pressario M2512AU and self installed the XP Professional OS on it. I used all the Drivers and softwares tabled on the HP Compaq website including the Directx 9.0.

The porblem is that this system doesn't Play even old games such as Age of Mythology or AOEII or Rise of Nations.

Also the Maximum Resolution which it is showing is only 1024 by 768. Is it the limitation on 15" XGA TFT or a problem with the drivers?

Somebody help me i am getting crazy with this lappie.

This is the Chapest Laptop available in india with a price tag of US$750

 

My number one suggestion is allocate a little more RAM to your Video card seeing as you've only got 32 shared at least go with 128, I would also suggest upgrading your RAM and once you've done that it should run fine.

 

hi i am new to laptops and the one i want to get has this video card in it (the ati radeon xpress 200m 64-128mb version). i am a hard core first person shooter gamer and i want a computer that can play counter strike source occasionally at LANS and is easier to move than my full tower desktop. i dont really care if it doesnt get amazing frame rates... and the cpu in the laptop i want to get is a 1.5 ghz celeron m with a 1 mb l2 cache. do you think i could get a decent frame rate with this set up if i put in a gig of ram?(decent frame rate being 30 or more fps) also would it beable to play command and conquer generals zero hour?Or my other option is to get a notebook with a intel gma 900 graphics card that is 8-128mb/ sis marage2 card. which one would be better for trying to play the games i listed above?

 

So odin,

does it mean there is nothing wrong with Hardware and 15" XGA TFT monitor can be set for higher than 1028 by 764 Resolution ?

 

I got Counter Strike Source running at about 20-45fps on medium settings with the x200 depending on whether I was outdoors or indoors Playable anyway.

The X200 shared version is an absolute dog for openGL games, if you want to play any game at all running on opengl avoid this card like the plague. If its the dedicated version it might perform better I do not know. Anyway, either version is grand for direct3d based games - I got Battlefield 2 to run smoothly on low settings.

The GMA 900 does not run CS Source very well (it has to be set to directx7 mode) but it runs Command and Conquer Generals fine.

Avoid the Mirage card at all costs unless you want to be playing only the original Counter Strike at lans

 

thank you very much havok.... how much of an l2 cache was on the laptop you had that running with?

 

128kb I think, not positive, it was a sempron 3000+

 

I dun think anyone would be able to help you coz I have the exact same laptop which in my case is called the m2502au here in Singapore( WinXP home preinstalled) at around USD600( SGD999)... can't help you at all coz all the games( HF2, NFS, Civ4, Shattered Galaxy etc) I installed ran smoothly. Only difference in my specifications is that I took out the 256mb DDR333 ram and put in 1GB DDR400, removed the 40GB Seagate HDD and added a 80GB WD Scorpio( damned Seagate was blazing hot) and used the Omega drivers instead of HP drivers. However I would suspect that it is due to your lack of ram. You have only 256mb of ram. As such, Windows XP barely run. And you can't assign more than 32mb of ram to the ATI 200M( I know coz when the notebook came, I went into bios and tried to assign more ram to GPU but the option was blanked out.). Suggest you stick in another 512mb ram, go into bios to assign 128MB to the graphics after that. Loan the ram from a buddy's notebook 1st and see if that help before going out to buy more ram.

As for the maximum resolution... 1024x768 is the native resolution for the 15" XGA screen. Other resolutions( lower ones) will look ugly. To have higher resolution, plug the laptop to another screen using the VGA or S Video output on the left and right side of the notebook.

 

I am starting to wonder why some of the guys can't run games smoothly... really puzzling... especially since the dude I specifically respond to have the same notebook as me... albeit I did some upgrading to ram and harddisk.