Intel GMA 900

[Kenazo]

So, I order an Acer AS1690WLMI-XPH from my favorite supplier, their description said it had an x600 onboard, and heck it was a decent price, so I got it. Turns out it has a GMA 900. I complained and they're offering me the laptop for a further 5% off if I keep it. The problem is I wanted it to be able to do some reasonable gaming (BF Vietnam, CoD, etc). Will this thing fit the bill?

 

[fbrdphreak]

No way in hell. Here's an idea of GMA900 performance:
http://www.laptoplogic.com/reviews/sony/49/1/1/

 

[Kenazo]

Well, I'm obviously not expecting it to compete w/ an x600, but where would it rank on the scale of ATI and nVidia's cards? Compete w/ a R9200?

 

[fbrdphreak]

Something along the lines of a 9200, maybe a crippled one.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Something along the lines of a 9200, maybe a crippled one.

More like a Radeon 7500 crippled - it's TERRIBLE.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
So, I order an Acer AS1690WLMI-XPH from my favorite supplier, their description said it had an x600 onboard, and heck it was a decent price, so I got it. Turns out it has a GMA 900. I complained and they're offering me the laptop for a further 5% off if I keep it. The problem is I wanted it to be able to do some reasonable gaming (BF Vietnam, CoD, etc). Will this thing fit the bill?

I think you should return it or threaten to sue - the specs said x600 - an x600 would be decent for gaming, but the GMA 900 is WORTHLESS for gaming,

 

[unfalliblekrutch]

definately need something to happen here. the x600 is not a 5% improvement over the gma900, so 5% cash back isn't gona cut it. If they offer you 25% off or more, then maybe you could consider it, if you dont plan on playing any games. Otherwise, have them other send you a laptop that DOES have a X600, or get your money back(all of it, including shipping and stuff and keeping complaining if they tell you that you gotta pay restocking or whatever, its thier fault for lying).

 

[yezhou]

That's false advertising man. You're entitled to get what you are supposed to and paid for. 5% off is total BS.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

look for x700 laptop, x600 is like 9700 mobiel, u wont get over 15fps in latest game slike doom3 or farcry. with x700 u get around 30-40 fps. Not enough for hardcore game but enough for mobile gaming.

 

[stevty2889]

GMA 900 sucks big time, if they advertised as an x600, and gave you an GMA900, that would be like buying a porche and getting a row boat.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Okay people. Some forums like www.notebookforums.com runs Battlefield of Vietnam and CoD fine with the Extreme Graphics 2 k? That's the previous one from the GMA900. Unless you really care about the extra frames and will play really demanding games like Doom 3, you should look little more into the performance before deciding what to get.

Call of Duty gets 30.8 frames per second at 1024x768 on Pentium 4 3.6GHz 560 the link is here: http://www.it023.com/labs/hardware/mainboard/2004-09-17/1095391753d29972_6.html

I don't know Chinese, but at Page 10, you can see the benchmark numbers.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
Okay people. Some forums like www.notebookforums.com runs Battlefield of Vietnam and CoD fine with the Extreme Graphics 2 k? That's the previous one from the GMA900. Unless you really care about the extra frames and will play really demanding games like Doom 3, you should look little more into the performance before deciding what to get.

Call of Duty gets 30.8 frames per second at 1024x768 on Pentium 4 3.6GHz 560 the link is here: http://www.it023.com/labs/hardware/mainboard/2004-09-17/1095391753d29972_6.html

I don't know Chinese, but at Page 10, you can see the benchmark numbers.

Yeah, I took a brief look and that is on a desktop system; results will be a little off there. And while I could believe that CoD gets that many FPS on a desktop system @ low res w/GMA900, CoD is really old. Try running HL2 or D3: SLIDESHOW Albeit a pretty one

 

[cmp1223]

Here is a a review of desktop mobos- one with the new 915G with the GMA900, the old 865G with Intel Extreme Graphics 2, and a ATI Radeon x300 for comparison:

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-241-3.htm

needless to say, the conclusion:

You WILL be able to 'run' 3D applications (even DX9 applications in the case of the 915G), but even lowering quality settings ALL THE WAY and setting the resoltion to 800x600 will not yield anything close to being playable.

I too am thinking about a laptop with GMA900, but i wouldn't game on it. If you wanted an x600, and plan to do even minimal gaming, this will just not do.

 

[roguerower]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
GMA 900 sucks big time, if they advertised as an x600, and gave you an GMA900, that would be like buying a porche and getting a row boat.

A porsche and a rowboat eh? I would think more along the lines of a porsche and a festiva, but a porsche and a rowboat would work.

Oh, and by the way, give back the laptop and threaten to sue for false advertisement. That'll straighten em out nice and quicklike.

 

[niggles]

OK, that's it, I've had it... I have to speak up. I've been searching for a new laptop for my home use. Sure if I could afford it gaming would be a priority, but to be honest, I have a desktop I can game on perfectly well.
I picked up a Dell 6000 with an Intel GMA 900, and while waiting for delivery considered upgrading to either an x300 or the m200.... I decided the extra $350 Canadian was simply not worth it so I stuck with what I had. It was delivered today and I've been slowly loading it up with games from 5 years ago to more current stuff. Quake 3 runs fine along with Jedi Knight 2utcast (also using the Q3 engine). I then loaded up Command and Conqour Generals, it ran perfectly smooth. I just loaded up Unreal 2 and it chocked a little bit even with everything turned down. I'll have a look at what COD looks like, but I think it should run ok. BFV maybe pushing it, but I'll bet BF42 will run fine. I'm going to give it a whirl when I have more time and will post back. No it's not a 6800GT, but it's a pretty decent card for the bargain barrel price.
OK, I'm climbing off my soap box, don't flame me too much.

 

[cmp1223]

Yes, i agree its more than capable for the non gamer, and even maybe the casual gamer, but if he was looking ofr a gaming laptop, he WILL be dissapointed. I'm glad to hear niggles that it can even do that much. I'm going to pick one a lappy up next month with GMA900 and it nice it can at least do a little.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: niggles
OK, that's it, I've had it... I have to speak up. I've been searching for a new laptop for my home use. Sure if I could afford it gaming would be a priority, but to be honest, I have a desktop I can game on perfectly well.
I picked up a Dell 6000 with an Intel GMA 900, and while waiting for delivery considered upgrading to either an x300 or the m200.... I decided the extra $350 Canadian was simply not worth it so I stuck with what I had. It was delivered today and I've been slowly loading it up with games from 5 years ago to more current stuff. Quake 3 runs fine along with Jedi Knight 2utcast (also using the Q3 engine). I then loaded up Command and Conqour Generals, it ran perfectly smooth. I just loaded up Unreal 2 and it chocked a little bit even with everything turned down. I'll have a look at what COD looks like, but I think it should run ok. BFV maybe pushing it, but I'll bet BF42 will run fine. I'm going to give it a whirl when I have more time and will post back. No it's not a 6800GT, but it's a pretty decent card for the bargain barrel price.
OK, I'm climbing off my soap box, don't flame me too much.

Yeah, but this guy asked for and payed for an x600, and got a GMA900...I have seen the GMA900 in action, and it is very far inferior to an x600..or a 6600...If you paid for an superior product and got an inferior one, would you not be upset?

 

[ryanv12]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
Okay people. Some forums like www.notebookforums.com runs Battlefield of Vietnam and CoD fine with the Extreme Graphics 2 k? That's the previous one from the GMA900. Unless you really care about the extra frames and will play really demanding games like Doom 3, you should look little more into the performance before deciding what to get.

Call of Duty gets 30.8 frames per second at 1024x768 on Pentium 4 3.6GHz 560 the link is here: http://www.it023.com/labs/hardware/mainboard/2004-09-17/1095391753d29972_6.html

I don't know Chinese, but at Page 10, you can see the benchmark numbers.

I can tell you first hand that COD is only barely playable from an Intel Extreme Graphics 2. I decided to try it on my notebook (1.6 Dothan, 512MB RAM) and to get it running at framerates that are playable I had to run it down to 640x480 (which I had to force on my display because it's not even an option and sometimes it wouldn't correctly redisplay the desktop after playing) and every single option on the lowest possible.

Needless to say, I would give this back to them and get something with dedicated graphics. The 5% wouldn't be worth it to me if you're planning on even doing any gaming at all.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: niggles
OK, that's it, I've had it... I have to speak up. I've been searching for a new laptop for my home use. Sure if I could afford it gaming would be a priority, but to be honest, I have a desktop I can game on perfectly well.
I picked up a Dell 6000 with an Intel GMA 900, and while waiting for delivery considered upgrading to either an x300 or the m200.... I decided the extra $350 Canadian was simply not worth it so I stuck with what I had. It was delivered today and I've been slowly loading it up with games from 5 years ago to more current stuff. Quake 3 runs fine along with Jedi Knight 2utcast (also using the Q3 engine). I then loaded up Command and Conqour Generals, it ran perfectly smooth. I just loaded up Unreal 2 and it chocked a little bit even with everything turned down. I'll have a look at what COD looks like, but I think it should run ok. BFV maybe pushing it, but I'll bet BF42 will run fine. I'm going to give it a whirl when I have more time and will post back. No it's not a 6800GT, but it's a pretty decent card for the bargain barrel price.
OK, I'm climbing off my soap box, don't flame me too much.

Keep in mind that the Quake 3 engine is.......5-7 years old? That is ANCIENT in computer technology. Yes, there are a lot of fun Q3-based games out there and that makes GMA900 a viable gaming solution. But if you try to run a game made in the last 6-10 months, enjoy the slideshow

 

[niggles]

true, Q3 is a little more than 5 years old, but it was top of the line when it came out. Like I said I'm trying more games to see how they'll look and will post back. If someone is looking to game on a laptop for the current generation of games they're going to pay through the teeth for it. I'd suggest an XPS, or Ibuypower laptop. For those that want something affordable I think the 900 GMA is pretty decent. My Work laptop has an ATI 9000 on it and it's nothing special, but the price tag is insane... Anyway, I'll post back with further findings as I get them.

 

[niggles]

ok, I just loaded HL2, dropped all the settings to their lowest and it's playable. Not super smooth mind you, but completely playable. I'm guessing it's around 25 frames per second. This may have more to do with the fact that the Source engine is extremely efficient at being scalable that the 900 GMA being a good card. I just wanted to prove that it's not something to be ignored like the old intel extreme 2 cards that were pretty much straight up garbage.

 

[unfalliblekrutch]

what resolution are you playing HL2 at?
i have a igp320-m on my laptop, and like you, i was sorta tricked. When i bought it, they said it was a "mobility radeon 7500" or something, but i ended up with this igp320-m which is based off of the radeon VE/7000. I can play HL2 at 1024x768 at 20fps or so, or 800x600 at 25fps or so. I dont think the GMA900 is too much better. maybe 5 fps more than me? the X600 you were supposed to get should easily triple those numbers.

 

[niggles]

OK, just loaded up BF42 and it runs like a dream with everything set to med and 1024x768 32 bit... it's smooth and looks great. There you go... that's a 3 year old game.

As for what I am running HL2 at I had to drop everything to it's lowest values to even get it to play. Even at a playable level it's not the eye candy that my 9800 pro makes of it on my desktop.

So what have we learned here? the 900 GMA is not just a business card. it can do a half decent job of playing games. Agreed it's not going to run the new generation of Doom and HL2 games at an ejoyable level, but it's still a pretty peppy card for an integrated business solution.

 

[IntelUser2000]

According to some tests, Radeon 7500 based integrated is much slower than even Extreme Graphics 2 of Intel.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: niggles
ok, I just loaded HL2, dropped all the settings to their lowest and it's playable. Not super smooth mind you, but completely playable. I'm guessing it's around 25 frames per second. This may have more to do with the fact that the Source engine is extremely efficient at being scalable that the 900 GMA being a good card. I just wanted to prove that it's not something to be ignored like the old intel extreme 2 cards that were pretty much straight up garbage.

I'd imagine Halflife2 is detecting DX9 support and automatically setting it to DX9 mode, use a commandline shortcut and force dx8/8.1 or dx7 mode, I'd imagine you'd get better performance and visual quality. Or force dx6 mode and maybe get some decent framerates.

BTW, how is Intel in their driver support? Cause what seems more important than the low performance of the GMA900 is the fact that its drivers seem to suck, there are many games that won't play at all or display incorrectly, and maybe updated drivers could pick up performance a little too.