integrated video

[arciced]

im going build a new pc, i heard new integrated video chips are getting better. i want to buy a mobo/cpu for the same price as a video card that can play a game like farcry in high settings. i search google but can't find any reviews of todays integrated video chips. if anyone can link me to any or suggest a good integrated video chipset to look for in a mobo i'd appreciate it. thanks.

 

[themisfit610]

Not gonna happen... Far Cry on high is still no slouch even by today's standards.

Integrated graphics are fine for OLD stuff (like Quake 3), but they really can't keep up with newer games.

About the best you can hope for is a GeForce 7050, which is pretty damn slow

Just get a video card. Something in the $100 price range would be a lot better than any integrated solution (and it has its own dedicated ram to boot!)

 

[Syntax Error]

Today's integrated chips (Geforce Go 6150, Radeon 1150 and Intel X3100) aren't that good. They're designed to be, essentially, the bare minimum for graphics requirement. You'll be able to run CS 1.6, I suppose, and MAYBE Half-Life 2 at high, but it won't run current games at all. It's best for people who just want to use their computers for web surfing or document editing, and is good for laptops with its low power requirements, boosting battery life.

 

[betasub]

Compared to the add-in cards of the time: integrated sucked then, and it sucks now.

 

[daveybrat]

When i bought my AM2 motherboard, i purposely bought it with onboard 6100 graphics but use my 8800GTS card. This way if i sell my video card or it goes bad, at least i have a backup to use in the meantime. Before i got my 8800GTS card i tried playing COD2 on the integrated Nvidia 6100 graphics and it played but only at the lowest rez and lowest graphical settings and still wasn't super smooth.

Integrated graphics should not be used for newer games at all, just as a backup or for those not playing games.

 

[taltamir]

integrated isn't for running games, its for a web browsing machine.

 

[bryanW1995]

don't listen to them, I use integrated video to get 1,000 fps on crysis at 2560x1600... ok, just kidding. integrated video sucks, if you're playing any games from the past couple of years then get a dedicated video card. daveybrat has the right way to go, however, since you can still try out your games first on the integrated solution and then upgrade if necessary.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Just got a lappy from BB with integrated X3100. Anyone know how this puppy behaves? All I need it to do is decently help out with HD video (backed by a Merom-core T2310).

 

[neothe0ne]

Originally posted by: Syntax Error
Today's integrated chips (Geforce Go 6150, Radeon 1150 and Intel X3100) aren't that good. They're designed to be, essentially, the bare minimum for graphics requirement. You'll be able to run CS 1.6, I suppose, and MAYBE Half-Life 2 at high, but it won't run current games at all. It's best for people who just want to use their computers for web surfing or document editing, and is good for laptops with its low power requirements, boosting battery life.

Are we living in the same world? Integrated can run CS 1.6, maybe, and Half-Life 2 at HIGH, maybe?


Speaking from experience:
The real problem with integrated chips, at least for laptops, is drivers. HP's official drivers for the GeForce Go 6150, for example, are horrible. Using a custom driver from laptopvideo2go.com, for example, can boost your Vista Experience Index for 3D Gaming by over 0.4 and real-world FPS in CSS by at least 10 (probably a 30%+ performance increase). CSS was not playable as a smooth experience with lowest settings with HP's drivers. Then I installed the custom drivers, and it was playable comfortably above 35fps at a mix of low/medium settings.

CS 1.6 I never bothered to install, because if you can run CSS and others want to play it, why would you install CS 1.6? But I guarantee you it runs CS 1.6 flawlessly at high settings.


Also, just to refute "but it won't run current games at all": My GeForce Go 6150 HP laptop with custom ForceWare X 165.01 drivers (because HP's official NVIDIA drivers suck) can run Unreal Tournament 3 at just playable settings of ~20-35 FPS on lowest graphics settings. Ugly as hell since the game is all brown to begin with, and dumbing it down to blocky-graphics just makes it worse, but fully playable with an average of 30fps.




In conclusion:
-Integrated blows CS 1.6 away
-Integrated won't run Half-Life 2 at high, or medium, but will run it playably if you go low
-Get a real graphics card if you're building a desktop, because even an FX5200 will blow integrated away

 

[Cellulose]

http://64.233.179.104/translat...ls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GBfficial%26hs%3DOBd%26sa%3DX

Some benches...

BTW: I recently got an Advent 8112 claiming it has DX10 shared UMA graphics...it however seems to have an x3100. Anyone knows what they mean in this case?

Thanks,
Joe