bioshock crash on x3100

first level with the plane and elevator plays fine, but once the submersible gets to Rapture and the next level starts to load it freezes on the loading screen, has anyone gotten it to run fine with x3100 past the first level?

 

Maybe I'm too skeptic, but Bioshock doesn't run on the x3100.

 

i play the entire first level on it, its the second level that crashes and other people had this problem with nvidia cards too

 

X3100 .....

No way..Forget it

 

???? if an intel card can get to the MAIN MENU I would be suprised.


what OS are you running?

 

maybe he meant x1300???!!! X3100 doesn't support SM3.0
There is a fan-made fix for bioshock which add supports for SM2.0
but it's not stable.

 

nope its a 12.1 notebook no way it can run it.

 

LOL ok just once again for the nonbelievers, i have an x3100 X61 notebook , Intel 965 chipset, 1.5Gb of ram, the laptop is X61 Thinkpad, game settings are everything low at 640x480, game plays at 10-15fps, first level plays without any problems, and game freezes on second level load which is not a problem with my hardware requirements since first level plays , and im not using any shaders 2.0 patches because x3100 supports 3.0 shaders...ok...so now if anyone can tell me how to skip levels through console or cheats or something that'd be great because i think its just that level that crashes

 

If you want a cheat, goto gamefaqs.com. However, we would like to see screenshots of Bioshock with a FPS meter running. That way, we can know that there is a way to play Bioshock on the x3100, and can answer thusly when someone else asks.

 

:yes:

Prove it!

 

Well I was trying to be more eloquent and not outright call out the OP. Maybe it is possible...I for one, would like to know.

 

Yes me too...

I never trust this kind of stories after the 725/725 8600M GT OC guys case

 

ok i got the screenshots with fraps, how do insert images? do i have to upload them to a diff site first and then link?

 

haha, I had the same problem. I have a 7900GS though. Put your graphics settings at "Low", and update your card drivers to the most up to date. I believe the beta drivers are currently best for Bioshock (thats what I've been told at least).

 

mm are you talking about x3100 beta drivers? because the nvidia ones deff wont work for me =)

 

Graphics Media Accelerator Drivers

 

lol i dont want to install beta drivers just to play bioshock, the final drivers work so good for most games, ill just stash it until newer drivers come out or i get another laptop, i heard the game is really buggy anyway

 

Still waiting for them screenshots. If you need help posting, there's a guide here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=125037

 

My question is why are some people shocked that they can't play a game like bioshock with an onboard video chip?

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=173312
Should have been linked along time ago.
Yee, I agree even with the lowest settings ANY GMA will never run BioShock!

 

screenshots w/ fraps





fps inside the lighthouse is lower than outside, and lowest by the submersible

 

Well, now we have a definition for "fine" - a blazing 12 fps in one of the lowest-impact sections of the game lol.

Your GMA X3100 simply can't handle BioShock. I'm not trying to be rude, but that, to me, seems the most logical answer. If you wanted to play the likes of BioShock and World in Conflict and such, you shouldn't have bought a machine with Intel integrated graphics. It's that simple.

 

Playable ROFL!!!

-Josh

 

It's like saying you can run windows xp on less than 64 mb of ram.

 

Guys, he said from the very beginning that it played fine at 10-15fps. His issue is not the low fps, but the fact that the game crashes on the second level. I fail to see why you're berating him.

 

Thank you anarky. I appreciate you taking the time to give us screenshots. This adds to my knowledge of what the x3100 can do, and will help me in the "Can my notebook run it" thread.

 

Man, playing a game on 10 fps in the least intense part of the game: staring at a wall, is NOT playable. Imagine what would happen if you have 10 of those zombies coming at you or one of these big daddies, you are seriously tripping dude. 12 FPS is NOT considered playable.

 

It doesn't matter. We're not debating whether the game gets good enough framerates or not. I was just wondering whether it runs period. Now having knowledge of how it runs is wonderful.

 

Keep in mind that this is only true for XP, it's unconfirmed whether the Vista drivers have VS3.0 support which is required by BioShock.

 

First question, are you sure you meet the other requirements? It is possible that it is overloading in another area and crashing because of that. 12 FPS isn't exactly what I call stable when the game is meant to run at 30 FPS.

If you are sure it's the GMA, then maybe it's a bug in the game that causes the crash or maybe the introduction piece was done before the other parts.

I own the 360 version, and if I am understanding you right, it sounds like it is dying when you get to the part where the quite a bit more is happening on the screen. (yea, after you flip that switch, a lot of stuff happens and it might just not be capable of rendering all that is going on in the world).

 

Could it be that the early part of the game doesn't use any hardware SM3.0 effects? (unlikely considering the water and fire interaction, but possible?)

Or at least doesn't demand a specific hardware effect (that the x3100 only does in software) up to this point in the game?

 

Well I've heard others say they've run BioShock on the GMA X3100, but you're the first I've seen with screenshots. Anyways, it's probably a driver issue. nVidia and ATI had to release hotfixes as soon as Bioshock was out to bring their drivers up to speed with the game. Intel has it even worse, since while BioShock was developed and tested on a variety of ATI and nVidia hardware, I doubt they bothered to even test on the GMA X3100 since decent drivers have only come out recently. This means that with no optimization in the engine, Intel will have to do all the work in the drivers to optimize things. Intel's driver development is still catching up to bug fixing and optimizing medium new games like BF2 and BF2142 and even older games like Far Cry. It may be a while before they get to BioShock.

The thing with the GMA X3100 and Intel graphics in general is that everyone assumes that it's worthless and couldn't possibly run a modern game like BioShock or even get to the menu. And so they don't bother designing or optimizing for it so when a game is released and it doesn't run, it's no wonder. And when it doesn't run, the reputation is justified so no one develops for it. Now admittedly GMAs aren't fast chips inheirently, but more support from developers could help, especially now that Intel starting to devote more effort toward their drivers.

 

I know we are, but I believe you mentionned it was playable, so I was pointing out that 12 fps isn't playable. You shouldn't be surprised that with such a graphic you are going to have huge problems.

 

Does Bioshock with the x3100 work in Vista or just XP?

 

I just looked through my threads and never once did I mention the word playable. All I was wondering was if the game would start at all with the x3100.

 

OK, as OP let me summarize this so we can end this topic, while the game does load and run with the
x3100 as it should in theory the FPS makes it impractical to play it in practice
case closed =)

PS.: i cant comment on vista, i only ran it on xp, but yea the fps is too low to play it...even if it worked
dont worry its way overhyped anyway, i played it on my desktop
http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/review/R117542.html
that review sums it up better than any other ive read

 

On my laptop (MSI PR200 with X3100 with latest drivers 15.6, C2D T7100, 2Gb RAM, Vista) Bioshock runs menus but when loading the game it freazes.

I just don´t understand why newer games don´t support most cards out there and only newer. SM2.0 are not that different of SM3.0 and difference of work it´s minimal.

X3100 still has a lot of power to be unleashed but drivers are on a kind of "compatibility mode" and still 4 months away of finished. Nvidia/ATI with drivers written for a hardware, just with optimizations can give you 5-15% of fps improvement. Imagine X3100 and X3500 after drivers get everything done, of course all depends on Intel.

X3100 if everything goes well can get at NV 7300 level of performance but with DX10 support. It doesn´t matter to talk about DX10 speed as even NV8600-8900 (or ATI 2xxx) can´t deal well with DX10 demandings.

 

The X3100 has a lot of power to be unleashed? You must be joking right. Newer games support most cards out there, just not cards which are not meant for any gaming and just office work. You shouldn't be surprised game developers don't want to support the X3100, a gamer in his right mind would not buy a computer which such a card for gaming, it's not powerful enough for new games.

 

The X3100 does indeed have alot of power to be unleashed, it's basically just the 8400M-G with integrated memory. No one has said it's a gaming card, but with good drivers it could easily be a decent entry level solution for those who want to play some games, just not the newest ones.

If the x3100 was meant for "just office work", then it would never have been made in the first place, as the GMA950 was great for that. There's a reason why full hardware DX9.0c support was added to the x3100, and it's not for "just office work".

 

8400m?? LOLOLOLOLOL.

 

Not sure if this is directed at my reply, but yes, both the x3100 and the 8400M-G have the same amount of shading power with 8 unified stream processors.

 

Wait... WAIT! A X3100 for Bioshock? Are you insane?!

 

Well, the GMA 950 had 4 pixel shaders, too, same as the GeForce 7200. But you'd have to be bat**** insane to say the two were even close in performance. And the RADEON HD 2900XT has twice as many stream processors as the 8800GTX, but doesn't even come close to matching it for performance. There are a lot of other factors, such as efficiency of the architecture, driver efficiency, clock speeds, memory bandwidth, etc. It's safe to say that the X3100 will never even approach any 8400M in terms of performance.

 

Yes it was directed at you. The x3100 is NEVER EVER EVER EVER going to approach the power of an 8400m-G. NOT EVER EVER. Currently the 8400 gets 2000+ in 3dmark05, while the x3100 gets about 875? You really believe that some kind of driver is going to put x3100 in the same class as 8400? you belong in an asylum.

 

The GMA950 did not have the hardware shading support that the Go7200 did, so that comparison is flawed. And the 2900XT comparison is also a bad one because the difference there is due to the manner in which ATI counts it's stream processors. The factor that limits the x3100 from approaching the 8400M-G is the shared memory, plain and simple. It might be a less efficient design, but that's not the major performance limiter.

I never said they would be in the same class, I merely said "it's basically just the 8400M-G with integrated memory", which is true.