Are Game Graphic Cards overhyped?

Are the Game Graphic Cards overhyped?

I'm thinking that it is all about money.

Mobile Intel® 915GM/GMS, 910GML is not suppose to play many games, but this chart says otherwise:

Game Compatibility List
http://support.intel.com/support/graphics/intel915gm/sb/CS-020153.htm

 

If you are just talking about that particular integrated solution, then yes. Intel wants to promote its solution, so it will say that it can run this and that game. However, it certainly cannot run the mojority of games at good frame rates, and with the eye candy on.

 

In a word, no. If you want to game at all at playable framerates, dont get integrated graphics. Graphics cards offer significant improvements even in when comparing lower end cards to integrated graphics.

 

I speak from experience...Intel overestimates on their charts...severely. At least look into a X1300 or 7300 for games, and maybe more depending on how new the game is.

 

The list only shows whether you can play those games ro not but it doesnt tell us anything about the actual gameplay, what settings, framerates etc... So I wouldnt take that list to be accurate representation of the gaming abilities of the GPU. Sure the GMA950 will do fine in some old/not so demanding games but when it comes to most of the modern FPS games it is going to struggle no matter what.

 

You definitely get what you pay for. Integrated graphics may be "compatible" with a ton of games, but if you want to see more than a slideshow, you'll be out of luck. Of course, it depends on the kinds of games you want to play too, but dedicated graphics cards are (save for the extreme high-end) not ripoffs at all.

If you look at the chips involved, they're often larger than your processor, even... it stands to reason they'd cost as much. For proper gaming machines, people often spend as much, if not more, on the graphics card as the CPU.

 

Well, fortunately, I don't play games. Mostly build websites and do stuff online. I do use Adobe photoshop and corelDRAW paint a lot and this works fine for that, especially with 1GB of memory.

I didn't buy the notebook to play games.

Question is, will it play the Microsoft Flight Simulator?
I haven't had time yet, but I would like to run that program... but I won't buy it if it won't run on Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900.
No biggy if it won't.

Here are the versions:

1982 – Flight Simulator 1.0
1984 – Flight Simulator 2.0
1988 – Flight Simulator 3.0
1989 – Flight Simulator 4.0
1993 – Flight Simulator 5.0
1995 – Flight Simulator 5.1
1996 – Flight Simulator 95
1997 – Flight Simulator 98
1999 – Flight Simulator 2000
2001 – Flight Simulator 2002
2003 – Flight Simulator 2004
2006 – Flight Simulator X

 

The latest version, Flight Sim X should run on an Intel GMA 900. Won't be exceptional, but it will run. You can download the trial from Microsoft if you want to see how it will look.

But in response to your poll, MS Flight Sim is not exactly a graphics-hungry game. When Crysis comes out (or other graphics punishing games), don't expect to be able to run it. High end (and even midrange) graphics cards exist because some people want a total-immersion experience in games they play. That means rediculously high resolutions with all settings maxed out, not just whether a game can run or not. A well-written PC game, with a great graphics card, can look amazingly better than anything the PS3 or XBOX 360 can put out. That's the reason people buy them, and the reason the cost can be so high.

 

I have the ati 200m, I decided I would try hitman 3 on it....oh crap it was horrible! With my zv5160, it has a ati 9000 I was told doom3 would be s**t on it, I thought it played just fine. is hitman 3 just damaged some how? it seemed to render just fine JUST SLOW

 

Compatible != Playable