Intel Modern IGP (X3000, X3100, X3500)

They are a bit faster, and that, plus the 800MHz FSB will give him a healthy performance increase.

engage16, you might also see a slight improvement in game performance, but don't expect much.

manjil, the 8500GT is an okay card for older games. Not so much for newer games. It's performance is about equal to a 6600GT/6800 vanilla(regular). It'll play Half Life 2 and Doom 3 maxed out. I'd say anything 2005 and older will be alright on that card.

 

Okay... I got a good issue for you guys to help me figure out... I can't run any GL Quakeworld client stabily... It will run at like 70 fps until I reach an open area or a door... Then it'll drop to 3fps and be completly horrible... Considering the GLQW could be ran on a 300mhz machine with a 16 mb Voodoo 3 card at 150 fps this is quite puzzling to me. I've been able to run it on other laptops of alot less quality... Any suggestions? I'm going to delete all my configs and start over. Maybe that may help, but your input is always appreciated...

 

Edit: Double Post

 

bug with the OpenGL render drivers perhaps?

 

go back to a previous driver version possibly? its just weird i can run HL2 no problem and not run QW... The game thats 12 years old and started it all... lol

 

It's alright, Return to Castle Wolfenstein isn't compatible with my graphics card...

 

i think its funny that intel keeps releasing bug fix drivers to address problems no one has ever heard of... yet the one thing that everyone complains about is game compatability (not performance), and they've done nearly nothing to fix that...

 

Let's just say Intel don't really design their hardware or software with gamers in mind.

 

well their claim is that the x3xxx series and beyond will get them into the 'gaming world'... yes, it has improved alot, even you can't ignore that fact... but until they dedicate a better more advanced team towards it, it won't go anywhere fast. the card works great for applications, i have multiple design software applications and they run like a charm on here, now if only they could actually work on the gaming side of things. any card can run design software, it takes true work and engineering to produce a decent gaming platform...

 

Wolfenstein doesn't work on an HD3870? Wow, it works fine on my 8800GTS last time I checked. I think there's a few levels where the reflections and fog don't render properly, but it works acceptably. You'd think basic stuff like Q3 engine would work fantastically given its lack of complex shaders and it's unbelievable performance.

The X1800XT plays it flawlessly. I wonder if classics like Call of Duty 1, Q3, and Wolfenstein will be forgotten. I love RTCW: Enemy Territory Some of these games still have HUGE fanbases as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some complaints as more people upgrade to DX10 hardware.

 

Indeed, but they removed 3DFXGlide support from the 3870s so they can't play it.

 

Haven't most cards lacked 3dfxglide support since the voodoo cards? I don't thing Q3 will ever die out, as it is a more 'recent' game and the change to dx10 hardware is going to take a few years. yes, the avid gamers are going to point out its issues but for the casual consumer, they're not going to notice...

 

im currently usin a gma x3000 and i get 40 fps on med details on crysis

 

At the lowest screen resolution perhaps.

 

Honestly, after some reading, the Intel X4500 IGP is not all that bad. It actually manages to play older games like Half-Life 2 and Far Cry just fine at high-ish settings at 1024 res.

It's still far from adequate for any newer games though; barely getting 20FPS in Company of Heroes at the lowest settings. It'll get you by if that's what you're stuck with. It's definitely a BIG leap from Extreme Graphics 1 & 2. But I wouldn't buy a motherboard with the X4500 expecting to play games. It's only fast enough for really old games.

I very highly doubt it at any resolution. The GMA can't even run it smoothly at the lowest in-game options.

Even the X1900XT only gets like 40FPS at medium settings. And that's only at 1024 res. The GeForce 6800 gets 9FPS at medium settings at lowest res.

The Intel GMA is no where near the performance of those cards. I call bullcrap.

 

Likewise. At all high settings on my X1900XT, I could only make 25fps average at 800x600, at the beginning of the game, let alone the more demanding second half. A card like the X850XT could probably only manage that at all medium settings, if that. How does an X4500 compare to the X850XT, let alone the X3000 series?

 

im running a quad q6600 2gb ram 500gb hdd and its npt bs i get 40 fps averge on med details on 1024 by 768 res and last time i check u get liek a 8fps bonu sfrom quad on crysis cuz it uses all 4 cores

 

Last time I checked, Crysis is actually a bit slower on Quads vs Duals. It only uses dual core.

And no, you're lying very badly. No, you can't argue in your favor. Crysis is a major resource hog and you can't run it at settings like that without at least an X1800XT/7900gt. What you're saying is that you're matching the speed of an X1900XT or similar with an Intel integrated solution. That is completely impossible no matter what kind of CPU/RAM/HDD you have. And no, even if Crysis used all four cores, it wouldn't make a difference.

Video cards render the graphics. Your game performance has very little to do with CPU speed, number of cores, or amount of RAM. Without a proper video card, you CAN NOT even run the game well enough to play.

Also consider that, at the settings you claim, my old 7600GT got about 20FPS. Then you mean to say your Intel IGP is twice as fast as a 7600GT/6800Ultra/X850XT/X1800GTO/X1650XT/8600GT and other like cards that perform similar to that group. And it's not... it's just not. Give up.

 

Me and Ray tested this - me with a 3.15Ghz E4300 and two HD3870s, and him with a 3.6Ghz Q6600, also with two 3870s. We got exactly the same frame rate, 35 at 1680x1050, all high.

I can envisage how Crysis can run on an X3100, that I have no problem with, and at 1024x768 medium detail, potentially it could beplayable, using all medium gives you 3x the frame rate of all high, but 35-40fps? perhaps 20-25 at the most. I don't think you're lying, but perhaps not testing the game as it should. Load up one of these sections:
'Core' 'Paradise lost' or 'Reckoning'
and then tell us your frame rate...

 

Well, I don't want to be the one who says integrated is unusable. But be realistic. You might be able to barely play with some minor settings on medium, but full medium settings is just not feasible with integrated.

Shaders, Shadows, Objects, and Post Processing are what truly change the look of the game and affect performance the most. I'll give you medium shadows, hell, I'll give you medium post processing. But shaders and objects quality is out of the question for any Integrated Graphics. Not to mention 1024 res. If playable, probably averaging 17-20FPS or close.

Also, try the end levels of the game. If, at any point in the game you get 40FPS, it sure won't be there.

Good news for us. The Crysis Warhead Expansion will add many performance fixes to the engine. These fixes will later be released for the original Crysis as well. Admit it folks, Crysis is an amazing looking game, but the graphics just don't match the performance. Hopefully this means I can see CryEngine 2 with some serious eye candy and a decent resolution.