a laptop integrated GFX

TomTomTom · 20 Mar 2008 at 23:43

Would anyone here be able to roughly estimate off the top of their head what the Mobile Intel® 915GM Express Chipset is equivilant to on ATI or Nvidia GFX card terms?

The GFX chipset overview:
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/915gm/index.htm

Thanks

muon · 20 Mar 2008 at 23:45

Isn't that gma 900. It is absolutely awful. Im sure there are some online reviews around if you look.

edit:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipsets/display/i915g.html

Steeps · 20 Mar 2008 at 23:47

you're not going to get much more graphically intense than bouncing solitaire I'm afraid, even that puts pressure on the cpu. Although quake3 works fine

-iceblade^ · 20 Mar 2008 at 23:49

This ought to answer at least some of your queries...

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

muon · 20 Mar 2008 at 23:53

Of course its perfectly fine for a laptop if you dont play games. I have gma 950 in mine and i get good battery life, s-video out and solid 2d performance. Nothing more needed.

TomTomTom · 20 Mar 2008 at 23:54

Ok thanks again guys. I know nothing about these mobile integrated chipsets. Was just trying to get an idea of where it stands on the low-end, high-end sprectrum. But I see that this is very low end.

Would you say that it's even more low-end than ATI 9200?

-iceblade^ · 20 Mar 2008 at 23:56

GMA X3100 hits 3.4 on the WEI... not so sure about GMA 950, but a reasonable guess would that it's on par with or better than the 9200...

muon · 21 Mar 2008 at 00:01

TomTomTom said:
Ok thanks again guys. I know nothing about these mobile integrated chipsets. Was just trying to get an idea of where it stands on the low-end, high-end sprectrum. But I see that this is very low end.

Would you say that it's even more low-end than ATI 9200?

According to the xbitlabs review i put up. Its slightly worse than a 9100 IGP. So yes it will be worse than a 9200. It does do well in quake 3 and halo though.

TomTomTom · 21 Mar 2008 at 00:02

-iceblade^ said:
GMA X3100 hits 3.4 on the WEI... not so sure about GMA 950, but a reasonable guess would that it's on par with or better than the 9200...

Ok that would pretty much hit the nail on the head then and gives me a good idea. So it's about a 9200 or 9200+.

Great. Thanks everyone. Just trying to determine what I could get away with graphically on a certain postential laptop.

Cheers

muon · 21 Mar 2008 at 00:04

TomTomTom said:
Ok that would pretty much hit the nail on the head then and gives me a good idea. So it's about a 9200 or 9200+.

Great. Thanks everyone. Just trying to determine what I could get away with graphically on a certain postential laptop.

Cheers

The x3100 is a fair bit better than the gma 900 chip. I dont think the chip would pass the vista aero test.

TomTomTom · 21 Mar 2008 at 00:04

ghost101 said:
According to the xbitlabs review i put up. Its slightly worse than a 9100 IGP. So yes it will be worse than a 9200. It does do well in quake 3 and halo though.

Was just looking at the first link and had not gotten to that one yet. So it could be even worse. That could be very limiting then. Good to know.

Monkeynut · 21 Mar 2008 at 00:11

The X3100 does hardware T&L too to be more compatible. Although Intel have monkeys making the drivers.

peetee · 21 Mar 2008 at 01:44

itll run old games but struggle with anything new really, think it may run WoW but barely, aswell as that i think its possible to get source engine running on it, but lets face it those are 2 very scalable engines. Maybes iv got confused and thats the 3100 tho.

-iceblade^ · 21 Mar 2008 at 02:03

the 3100 i know for a fact can run NFS carbon playable on a 1280x800 screen, with i think low settings...

steve258 · 21 Mar 2008 at 02:20

My X3100 is just powerful enough to play max payne smoothly with no anisotropy. Also tried the original CS1.6 and UT2004 both play very well. It won't handle any of the source based games, think I ran the CSS stress test just for a laugh and it scored about 10fps on lowest settings and resolution.

carrot1401 · 21 Mar 2008 at 16:50

steve258 said:
My X3100 is just powerful enough to play max payne smoothly with no anisotropy. Also tried the original CS1.6 and UT2004 both play very well. It won't handle any of the source based games, think I ran the CSS stress test just for a laugh and it scored about 10fps on lowest settings and resolution.

Ever thought about forcing it into a lower version of direct x? I ran HL2 on my laptop with ATi 200m graphics quite smoothly at 1280x800.....on direct x 7

On another note, is the ATi 200m about the same as the Intel x3100?

the39steps · 22 Mar 2008 at 01:22

Does anyone know how the 8600M GS copes? I'm not talking about the latest games but I'd be interested if it ran CS source and Day of Defeat and maybe FEAR at decent framerates. I'm asking as my current laptop (an 8 year old Acer travelmate 506) is finally giving up the ghost. Getting a laptop that could play games (and not just emulator games) would be a great bonus.

benjo plz. · 22 Mar 2008 at 01:28

Get the GT. It will run Source fine.

muon · 22 Mar 2008 at 02:38

the39steps said:
Does anyone know how the 8600M GS copes? I'm not talking about the latest games but I'd be interested if it ran CS source and Day of Defeat and maybe FEAR at decent framerates. I'm asking as my current laptop (an 8 year old Acer travelmate 506) is finally giving up the ghost. Getting a laptop that could play games (and not just emulator games) would be a great bonus.

With its 8600 moniker, id be surprised if it couldnt run some of those games at pretty high settings.

Blackhawk47 · 22 Mar 2008 at 11:42

yep my laptop runs cs 1.6 fine but anything else . even xiii