X3100, THAT lame?!

Hi guys.
Very recently I got my Satellite m205-S4806 computer.
I've downgraded it to XP SP3, installed the newest drivers for everything, (didn't got the function keys running though...) crossed my fingers and got,
754 3dmark05 score!!! (free version)

God%^&it.
Game tests and CPU tests all scored 1.9-3.8 fps,
But the interesting part is that all feature tests and batch size tests are N/A.
how come?

I'm shocked, but my desktop amd athlon xp 1700+ with geforce 9200 (if I recall correctly) gets everything 3d running much nicer.

I couldn't find anything that even _tries_ to tweak the x3100.. though I don't think it will matter I would like to increase the graphic allocated memory to ~384 instead of 256 which is currently using, or anything else.
I'm just trying to get old stuff like Deus ex 2 (2003!) to be running nicely on it.

So, basically I would love any info on the subject because I cannot find any! I always knew intel were weak on the driver side of things, but looking at the hardware specifications of that x3100 I thought it's best to have that then an ATI. boy I was wrong.

 

it's an IGP (integrated graphics processor), what were you expecting? drivers can only help you muster up so much more power.

if your using the free version, I believe those tests are not available

 

Yes it sucks, and its not for gaming, with that said though, its VERY cheap. The minute you put an ATi or nVidia chip in there the price will rise by quite a bit, and also, the X3100 can play quite a few games and the drivers have steadily improved it a lot.

 

Well, it does play TF2 @ 800x600, low settings.

 

icecubez189: Ok, that's a fair question. What was I expecting...

The radeon 9200 was released in 2003!
I got it running on AGP!
It may have up to 256 mb (designated) ddr memory, but I might just have 64 mb, don't know, doesn't matter.
It's core clock is running on 250 mhz.
It fakes supporting dx9, hardware wise it only supports dx8.


The freaking X3100,
can share up to 384 mb of ram,
its display core can run up to 333 mhz,
is capabale of running DX10.

The overall conclusion was that If I could play hl2, portal and rbr on average FPS with a radeon 9200 (pretty low settings of course), athlon processor, and about 1.5 gb of ram,

a c2d processor with 2gb of ram using a far better graphics card (although only an entry level card this days)

SHOULD HAVE GET ME PLAYING DEUS EX: INVISIBLE WARS already!
I guess that's all I really wanted... playing the sequel of deus ex...

Maybe it's a good thing, it will keep me doing my work on the lappie and not playing pretty games...

am still looking for advices on the subject

Bibliography-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_X3100

 

People misunderstand the X3100 so much. The hardware specifications are NOT POWERFUL AT ALL. It does have 8 unified execution units, but they aren't comparable at all with pixel pipelines. In pixel pipeline equivalent X3100 has TWO. From that theory, its no more powerful outputting pixels than Geforce 6150 IGP does. AMD 690G IGP has 4 pixel pipeline btw.

It's vertex shader performance is extremely poor, which is contributing to the low performance in older games. X3100 will do comparatively better in newer games. This is how it can go from losing to the GMA950 to beating it substantially depending on the app.

 

Some ppl compare go 7300 to x3100. Well, I play HL2 everything boosted to the max on native resolution. Runs flawlessly.
Why do you need DX10 if you can't run 2004 game ? Again marketing in action. DX10 games will be played with 5fps on the x3100 at best.

 

you CAN play crysis at 1-3 fps.

 

At what setting ?

 

A setting where there is only 1 tree throughout the whole game

x3100 isnt powerful at all.. i wouldnt even match it up with a GO 7200. It runs Aero very nicely though

 

Out of mere curiosity.... (since a lot of laptops, a majority of them, sold in Bahrain, come with either x3100 or geforce 8400, very rarely geforce 8600).... what's the max resolution that the x3100 can handle ?

 

640x480 i think...thats what i used to game on with my 6200

 

No, I meant.... what's the max res it can handle on windows basically... viewing Aero ?

 

Well, I certainly don't understand even half the terms there are. But what do you have to say in regard to my comparison to an oldish radeon 9200 running on AGP much better then this piece of baby poo?


Btw, thanks guys, for all the comments that has nothing to do with my initial post. you thread thieves, go start your own..! (its free)

 

The max 2D resolution is 2048x1536 and I believe the 3D resolution is 1600x1200.

Radeon 9200 has 250MHz core with 4 pixel pipeline and 1 TMU per pipeline.

X3100 has 500MHz clock, but some of the more important functions run at a slower speed, at 400MHz. I'd believe its 400MHz core clock and 500MHz shader clock, just like how the Nvidia Geforce 8 has different clocks for core and shaders. It has 2 pixel pipeline equivalent with 2 TMU per pipeline. Single texturing wise the X3100 has LESS fillrate.

Radeon 9200's hardware T&L/VS is far superior to X3100's. X3100 is capable of DX10, but its doing a minimalist compatibility approach just to meet DX10. And of course, because it supports DX10, doesn't mean its faster. It just means it can display more eye candy.

Well, the X3100 is more suitable in comparison to running games like Far Cry. The problem they created is because they created a lowly IGP optimized for newer games, you have a IGP where doesn't perform fast whether you play older games or newer games.

 

Thanks for the info!

..... Like a slideshow.

 

Thanks for the info.
I am really disappointed. games were not my top priority, but I am using 3d mechanical software such as solidworks; The CPU really kicks in when it comes to static analysis of parts, But the GPU is slowish for viewing assemblies. I really thought it was going to be much better then the pc I have.

 

And Intel is going to beat both Nvidia and AMD with Larabee, go figure, they have some work to do

 

yup it be that lame

not ALL IGPs are bad tho ati and nvidia do alright, but i lean towards ati for igp and nvidia for dedicated

 

Believe me, you're not the only one disappointed out there..

In fact, if Intel weren't advertising X3x00 as gaming from the most beginning, no one would complain and blame 'em. Instead, everyone would be praising Intel for bringing such an affordable solution. What you get is what you seed.

 

Wait until you see the Intel GMA X4500 (Monty), now that might beat the 9200

I'd take my VAIO's Go 6400 over an X3100 any day, because it can play HL2 pretty much maxed out, sans AA.

If you get an IGP like the Intel GMA X3100, please don't expect to play any games with it, with an IGP, it'd be bonus if you can play a game, but as a rule of thumb, they dont.


.

 

theres no way you got that low in 3DM05, are you sure you aren't running on power saver settings or its not stuck in a low powered mode? my 6 year old desktop with a SiS 651 IGP scores higher than that :\

 

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7250 (2.0GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB)
15.4 in Wide Screen XGA+LCD Display w/TrueLife™
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz, 2 DIMM
Intel® Integrated Graphics Media Accelerator X3100
US$824

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T5470 (2.0GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB)
15.4 in Wide Screen XGA+LCD Display w/TrueLife™
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz, 2 DIMM
128MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8400M GS
US$899

I had a few concerns:

The X3100 vs the 8400, I dont know if the 3100 would work with Vista, I wont do any gaming. Some Photoshop or Illustrator. Maybe get 3Gb?

 

x3100 is running vista perfectly. Photoshop and Illustrator are cpu&ram dependant. Get 3gig, Vista will thank you for it))))

 

Seriously, just spend the $75 for the 8400. Even if you're not gaming, some day you may want to do some HD movie playback or something that requires more power. It's better to have more than less these days.

 

Are you sure about this?? Because SIS 651 in no way reaches 750 in 3DMark2005. And Geforce 7150 IGP gets ~750 in that same benchmark. You must have ran 3DMark2003.

 

r34p3rex:
Yes, I'm not running on powersaver. I actually made sure I was running in full throttle, not even adpative mode. (no speedstep.)
See inteluser's post and comment on it...

 

If you want to game, get a dedicated graphics card. Simple as that.

 

A dedicated graphics card will significantly reduce battery life. If you're using your laptop for Photoshop/Illustrator, save yourself the money and go with the x3100.

I find that the x3100 suits my casual gaming needs pretty well. Both HL2 and CS:S run well on the chip.

Of course, if you want to play the latest games, go with a dedicated card on a Desktop.

 

i agree, it really depends on what your gonna use your computer for.

btw, i was able to run bf2 on an intel x3100 (c2d t7250, 1 gig of ram), lowest setting , using the latest drivers from intel.

 

He got a appropriate score for 3dmark05. google around and you will see similar scores.

 

Yea I think he's confusing 3DMark2001 for 3DMark2005. Sis 651 doesn't even run 03, let alone 05.

 

yes, the x3100 is a lame integrated graphics card

 

How would the X3100 compare to an older card like the ATI Radeon mobility 9200? My current laptop has the 9200, bought it in 2004. I was just wondering if the X3100 would work for games likt Myst V, URU, and similar type puzzle games.

 

Have you read the thread at all?