That's horrible. It's just crappy video built onto the motherboard's chipset. You won't be able to run anything remotely modern on it, although it'll run 2D stuff decently enough.
I've also heard that it can't scale resolutions-like if you lower the resolution on your screen, the image won't fill the whole screen. I'm not sure if that part is true or not though.
Anyone know exactly where it would stand compared with real graphics cards? I'm thinking it's probably worse than a TNT1 or Rage 128. Just to see how bad it was, I once switched to Intel video on a desktop system to run Max Payne. Even at minimum settings, at the lowest possible resolution, it still ran horribly (and it looked hideous too).
While I'm at it...I'm getting really ticked off with how many notebooks have horrible integrated video. Until recently EVERY Compaq/HP laptop, even ones costing $1700 had integrated video. All these notebooks that proudly proclaim "32/64MB video RAM!!!" when they actually have none at all. *GRRR*
EDIT: I should add that there's nothing WRONG with Intel's integrated graphics other than it being laughably underpowered. Their drivers are stable, and if all you wanted to do was browse the web and use Word, I can see buying a notebook with integrated graphics. I just wouldn?t pay more than $800-900 or so for it, because you can start getting notebooks with real GPUs for just a little bit more. And if you want to play games on it, forget it.
EDIT2: Personally I'd go for Dell's 1100 over the 500m. Basically the same hardware, same battery life, the 1100's slightly larger with a larger screen, and it's hundreds cheaper. But neither is remotely decent for games.
