intel graphics becoming worse and worse!!!

does anyone agree? i mean that 6-7 years ago the integrated cards they had were fairly decent...i got a computer 2000 it was a Pentium3 800MHZ with 256 RAM and and intel 815 graphics...i was 10 years at that time and my Dad bought it for me....anyways when games like Max Payne 1 came out i think in 2002 i played it and it used to run magnificently at maximum settings and mind u it was supposed to be the best graphically at that time....i even played soldier of fortune...Project IGI 1 and 2, hte early Harry Potter games 1 and 2 and they all ran at maximum setings without a problem....
SO my point is that integrated intel graphics at that time culd easily run the best games of the day..but now intel graphics they struggle with even the CRAP games of today...
PS: in case anyone is wondering I was in Pakistan and there we didn't hava game ratings so i played all these games even though i was 11 or 12 and they were supposed to be not for me

 

Actually, the way I see it... games are advancing with a more rapid pace... Sure, Intel still sucks at graphics, but take Crysis for example. Some of the best dedicated GPUs can't max it out

 

yeah but i meant that back in the days intel graphics culd play every game released..now the almost cnat play ANY game released!!

 

It's more a case of games requiring far more graphical power than the case a few years ago. The notebook market is also changing with dedicated graphics becoming more mainstream making IGPs less attractive to consumers with larger budgets.

Games for PCs are still primarily designed for desktops in mind, and last I remembered IGPs in desktops aren't quite as prevalent compared to notebooks.

 

Not to mention that mfgrs have been racing to provide battery savings and cooler designs in notebook IGPs, something they can't do if HD2900 performance is stuffed under the hood.

 

The x3100 is a major leap over the old gma945 and older. If they would focus on making the drivers for its dx10 capabilities, and such, its not that bad. And soon, they'll be coming out with graphics integrated with the processor. There was a video on thread on here somewhere, about the nehelam video. The intel card ran a simulation of a meteor strike, and everything was burning. It was pretty cool to see that on "integrated graphics", so just wait and see.

Edit: Here's the link - http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=3193606#post3193606

 

It's not all Intel's fault, game developers are becoming more lazy and their applications are becoming less and less efficient. I visited a UK Games Studio a while back, and the developers there were using highly inefficient sorting algorithms because they couldn't be bothered to write a highly efficient quicksort algorithm.

Valve is a good example of a good development studio. Their Half Life series have always been very compatible with weaker GPUs.

 

I absolutely agree!! Half-Life 2 must have been the most hardware friendly, and yet very advanced game (especially in physics), during it's time!

 

As far as technology goes, Intel GPUs have actually been getting better. The X3100 has hardware T&L, which none of its predecessors including the GMA 950 had. A big leap, no doubt. I have yet to see any benchmarks for the upcoming X4500, but it looks to be even faster.

 

What's the use of Intel bringing out newer (supposedly) more advanced IGPs when it can't even produce mature drivers for its current IGPs, to utilize their full potential and power ?? Actually, come to think about it, the same applies to nVidia as far as the geforce 8800M GTX goes....

 

the main problem with intel graphics i think is thier clock speeds and not their features...they have all the features the dedicated cards have but their clock speeds are way too less which leads to them sucking big time

 

And don't forget the lack of dedicated Video memory also played a role on why Intel's IGP can't compete with even the weakest dedicated. I am sure if x3100 were to have it's own dedicated Memory and vertex shaders it can easily compete with 8400m GS.

 

What`s the point in talking about gaming on a IGP? they`re never going to be able to play games as old as the IGP is(meaning new ones for the X4500 for example) and they`re never going to compete with a dedicated GPU.
Sure , there`s AMD`s Puma platform but I have yet to see it in action.
Intel`s choice ...hmm, they plan to obliterate dedicated GPUs by entering this market and adding the gpu to the cpu...It`s be something...though nowhere near today`s expectations.

 

The clock speeds are no way low on Intel IGPs. GM965=500Mhz, GL960=400MHz, G965/G35=667MHz. That is actually higher than most discrete graphics.

It's not just fillrate alone. There are multiple factors that contribute to the performance(or lack thereof).

You are WRONG about not having Vertex Shaders. It's just that the Vertex Shaders are weak. Somehow people must have got the impression when Intel said X3100 will support hardware T&L, it'll not have hardware VS or something. It does have a Vertex Shader pipeline and it sends the instructions to the Execution Units to process them. Just that sometimes the X3100 doesn't run on hardware because software is faster.

Vertex Shaders=Basically newer version of hardware T&L. Technically, X3100 only has Vertex Shaders and no hardware T&L since its a old non programmable feature. They really do the same thing, one is old and the other is new!

(The 815 IGP was horrible in its own way. It's just that the games weren't as demanding)