• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intel Grafix

INTEL GRAPHICS = TEH LOSE!!!!!!!!

it's sad but funny at the same time how many people they get with their names.

i was looking through a compaq catalog that they mailed me, and even on some of their high-end machines, they have the
INTEL "EXTREME" GRAPHICS!!

who the hell pairs a 3.06ghz, 1gb rd ram, 200gb hd, and 19" lcd with onboard video?!

if you look through newbie sites such as the gamespot.com forums, they always ask

"why doesnt my game run!?!? i have a 3ghz computar and 32mb video ram!! OMGOMGOMG!!"
 
Originally posted by: FearoftheNight
I read alot of people have integrated Intel Graphics. How good is this compared to dedicated AGP card? Anyone know?
Click to expand...

comparing it to a AGP card, i'd say the AGP card is much better(assuming it's at least a GF2)
 
Originally posted by: Batman5177
INTEL GRAPHICS = TEH LOSE!!!!!!!!

it's sad but funny at the same time how many people they get with their names.

i was looking through a compaq catalog that they mailed me, and even on some of their high-end machines, they have the
INTEL "EXTREME" GRAPHICS!!

who the hell pairs a 3.06ghz, 1gb rd ram, 200gb hd, and 19" lcd with onboard video?!

if you look through newbie sites such as the gamespot.com forums, they always ask

"why doesnt my game run!?!? i have a 3ghz computar and 32mb video ram!! OMGOMGOMG!!"
Click to expand...

Silly newbies ;O. But oh I meant like what lvl AGP do you think? I estimate it to be about the same level as a GF2 MX. Do you think I'm right? I read that the INtel has 1 pipeline that processes 4 textures in 1 pass. Not sure though. And I'm going to gamespot right now btw 😉>.
 
I dunno, just about all onboard video is complete garbage when it comes to games. nForce with the GF2 MX based IGP and the nForce 2 with the GF4 MX (which is basically a super GF2 MX) IGP by far offer some of the best gaming performance as far as integrated video goes. Even then such performance is nothing to brag about at all either.

Integrated video is usually meant for workstations where video processing power is far from a priority. Your web and text stuff basically...
 
Originally posted by: FearoftheNight
I read alot of people have integrated Intel Graphics. How good is this compared to dedicated AGP card? Anyone know?
Click to expand...

Man, now I got vomit all over the monitor! Darn you!

The only Intel graphics I saw anything good about was their i740 AGP card a few years ago. It didn't really get a whole lot of praise either, that I can remember anyway. I did go ahead and buy one; I don't remember if it was 8MB or 16MB, but it was $50 - it performed pretty well actually. There didn't seem to be any way of overclocking it though.
 
Originally posted by: Batman5177
INTEL GRAPHICS = TEH LOSE!!!!!!!!

it's sad but funny at the same time how many people they get with their names.

i was looking through a compaq catalog that they mailed me, and even on some of their high-end machines, they have the
INTEL "EXTREME" GRAPHICS!!

who the hell pairs a 3.06ghz, 1gb rd ram, 200gb hd, and 19" lcd with onboard video?!

if you look through newbie sites such as the gamespot.com forums, they always ask

"why doesnt my game run!?!? i have a 3ghz computar and 32mb video ram!! OMGOMGOMG!!"
Click to expand...

A computational biologist.... Not all of life is games you know.

 
Integrated video is usually meant for workstations where video processing power is far from a priority. Your web and text stuff basically...
Click to expand...
Integrated video is meant for newbies with crappy monitors et. al. Except for nvidia's nforce-integrated video, none of them have enough 3D performance to do anything, and the text quality with an analog connection at high resolutions isn't anything to write home about either. For the computing enthusiast, there is nothing of use in integrated video, except for a cluster, where each system is hooked to a KVM and only viewed occasionally.

IMHO, for text, use Matrox; and for 3D, use nvidia or ATI (generally, the former if maximum game compatibility is needed, and the latter if better 2D IQ is needed).
 
Originally posted by: jliechty
Integrated video is usually meant for workstations where video processing power is far from a priority. Your web and text stuff basically...
Click to expand...
Integrated video is meant for newbies with crappy monitors et. al. Except for nvidia's nforce-integrated video, none of them have enough 3D performance to do anything, and the text quality with an analog connection at high resolutions isn't anything to write home about either. For the computing enthusiast, there is nothing of use in integrated video, except for a cluster, where each system is hooked to a KVM and only viewed occasionally.

IMHO, for text, use Matrox; and for 3D, use nvidia or ATI (generally, the former if maximum game compatibility is needed, and the latter if better 2D IQ is needed).
Click to expand...

So my friend wants a cheap rig to play his games on sometimes would nforce 2 video cut it? I like warcraft, counterstrike, soldier of fortune. His monitors seems pretty crappy too.

Also: Ati and Nvidia really have 2d quality difference? I went from GF2 mX to R9700 pro....its looks pretty much the same to me.
 
Originally posted by: FearoftheNight
I read alot of people have integrated Intel Graphics. How good is this compared to dedicated AGP card? Anyone know?
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, I've recently benchmarked the Intel "Extreme" graphics on my laptop.

Dell C400 laptop
P3 1.2GHz
512MB PC133
Windows 2000
Intel 830M "Extreme" integrated graphics, driver version 12.1

Quake3Arena demo

Demo001 - Set to "high quality" then resolution/color depth changed
640x480x16/32bpp = 72/62FPS
1024x768x16/32bpp = 32/27FPS

Mad Onion

3DMark2001SE
640x480x16/32bpp = 1875/1714
1024x768x16/32bpp = 1017/985

Unreal Tournament

No timedemo available, but I've recently used this laptop at a Lan Party and the timedemo statistics showed about 30/60/70 min/ave/max in Unreal Tournament at 640x480x16 during 4vs4 CTF with all the details turned down a notch from default.

Summary

Basically, you can play some older games at 640x480. Anything newer, or higher resolution and it works poorly.

I believe this performance is similar to a nVidia TnT2 16MB type AGP card.
 
performance wise, a geforce 2 mx will run circles around intel video chipsets. thats pretty sad, and i would probably bet a geforce 256 would beat it as well. get any card over the intel stuff, i dont think stores sell a card that would be out performed by intel video. if they did, they may get away with selling it for $4.99
 
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: Batman5177
INTEL GRAPHICS = TEH LOSE!!!!!!!!

it's sad but funny at the same time how many people they get with their names.

i was looking through a compaq catalog that they mailed me, and even on some of their high-end machines, they have the
INTEL "EXTREME" GRAPHICS!!

who the hell pairs a 3.06ghz, 1gb rd ram, 200gb hd, and 19" lcd with onboard video?!

if you look through newbie sites such as the gamespot.com forums, they always ask

"why doesnt my game run!?!? i have a 3ghz computar and 32mb video ram!! OMGOMGOMG!!"
Click to expand...

A computational biologist.... Not all of life is games you know.
Click to expand...

i agree that games arent the only use of computers, but for the price that you pay for their high-end machines, you'd expect them to give you something better than that. what about trying to use 3dStudioMax?

the only reason they can get away with these cards is that 99% of consumers out there only see the "3.06ghz" part
 
Originally posted by: Batman5177
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: Batman5177
INTEL GRAPHICS = TEH LOSE!!!!!!!!

it's sad but funny at the same time how many people they get with their names.

i was looking through a compaq catalog that they mailed me, and even on some of their high-end machines, they have the
INTEL "EXTREME" GRAPHICS!!

who the hell pairs a 3.06ghz, 1gb rd ram, 200gb hd, and 19" lcd with onboard video?!

if you look through newbie sites such as the gamespot.com forums, they always ask

"why doesnt my game run!?!? i have a 3ghz computar and 32mb video ram!! OMGOMGOMG!!"
Click to expand...

A computational biologist.... Not all of life is games you know.
Click to expand...

i agree that games arent the only use of computers, but for the price that you pay for their high-end machines, you'd expect them to give you something better than that. what about trying to use 3dStudioMax?

the only reason they can get away with these cards is that 99% of consumers out there only see the "3.06ghz" part
Click to expand...

Home Users are mainly dumb, and are not educated about the differences. For all that most people know, Intel Extreme Graphics is just as good as nVidia Geforce graphics. More people know that "Intel = good" so your average Best Buy pc customer won't mind it (until they use it, but that's a different story).

IT departments don't care, since integrated graphics do everything that they need them to do and are cheaper.

So assuming 50% of destops are enterprise, and 50% are retail/home users... and let's say 25% of home users actually understand the difference between Intel graphics and nVidia or Ati... that's about 80% of all PC sold where integrated graphics would be just fine.

That's why intel get's away with it.
 
What bothers me. Is so much potential in a 3.06 and bottlenecked by a weak gpu. THats like having....uhh...damn can't think one....but it just sucks that these fools spend major $$$ and get scammed like that. I'd be real angry if that were me.
 
Isn't the Intel Extreme graphics really just the i740 core with a few tweaks? It was at one point, but the latest chipsets may have moved beyond that, dunno.

If it's i740 based, it's slower than a TNT2. More around TNT level, and really slower than that. The i740 was state-of-the-art clear back in 1998, when it's competition was the Riva 128.

The i740 is a big, steaming pile. It's more of an insult than the Radeon 7000, which is not a Radeon as it lacks T&L of any sort and only has one rendering pipeline. Damn my POS laptop!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top