cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
It won't run alot of the newer stuff, and if it does run it, it won't run it well at all.
intel Media Accelerators are pretty mucht the worst laptop graphics for games out there.
Well, there's worse, but the idea is to get - at the very least - something that says 'geforce' or 'radeon'.
intel Media Accelerators are pretty mucht the worst laptop graphics for games out there.
Well, there's worse, but the idea is to get - at the very least - something that says 'geforce' or 'radeon'.
rodney_ws
Splendid
- Dec 29, 2005
- 3,819
- 0
- 22,810
According to this, you can expect 14 FPS in Doom 3 @ 800 X 600 High Quality / No AA/AF... not exactly a gaming chip you got there!
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=2
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=2
bourgeoisdude
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2005
- 1,240
- 25
- 19,320
It'll maybe play some games at low quality settings. Oblivion? NO! WoW? Yes. Star Wars: Empire at War? Yes. KOTOR 1 and 2? Yes. Half-Life 2? Barely...
...for a non enthusiast, the GMA 950 is a vast improvement over the previous intel video chipsets. Problem is that none of the guys in here has ever used one because they hate them so much...well, except possibly Cleeve...but I've used the GMA 900 and GMA 950, for DirectX 8.1 games they are more than sufficeint, and many DX9 games run well enough for non-gamers to live with, IMO.
Another reason these guys dislike and ditch the GMA's is that the benchmarks are only run when they come out and they stink--but the latest intel gma drivers VASTLY improve framerates. All the benchmarks are usually with 1280x1024 at "the lowest test settings", and cleeve and gang are right on that--at 1280x1024, Intel GMA is horrible. Too bad THG can't run a brand new test on them today using 1024x768 w/ no aa/as filtering to prove my point--
My old motherboard for my computer had that accelerator and I had found it almost decent (incerdible by Intel's standards) before installing a video card. I could play half-life 2 on high settings at 1024x768 at about 25fps ave, but went down to about 5 at slowest... but at 800x600 it runs quite well, I got about 45fps at best and only went down to about 15-20 still somewhat playable (remember this on high settings).
bourgeoisdude
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2005
- 1,240
- 25
- 19,320
I am sorry, Cleeve, but having been without a video card for a week and a half and forced to use the GMA 900 video in my dad's Dimension 4700 desktop PC, I must disagree with you. Oblivion is one of the only games that will not run at all with the intel 900 and 950 GMA graphics--ASSUMING THE DRIVERS ARE UPDATED. Also some games simply refuse to even support Intel altogether, but even those have recently changed their minds. Are the Intel GMAs gamer chipsets? GAWD no! Are they good quality? Not at all. But, do they run (or walk) the latest games? Yes, they do.
The trick: Run at 800x600, or if 1024x768 is the lowest, that'll work too. Anything higher and they are unplayable. So...with lowest resolution, no aa/as filtering, and low to medium detail, games are quite playable with the Intel GMA 900/950 chipsets.
TheMaster
Distinguished
- Jul 4, 2004
- 488
- 0
- 18,780
Why do you defend this total POS?
It can barely run CS:source on everything low at 1024, and even then it's almost a slideshow.
Right on.
Any ati or nvidia mobile alternative would work much better for current directx 9 games.
Yes at 800x600 it would probably work ok but i can't call the game "enjoyable".
At that resolution you can barely tell if your playing hl or hl2.
As for using intel accelerator in your desktop... (i die a little everytime i hear that)
A radeon 9000 series kicks the crap out of the "graphics accelerator".
As much as i am an intel fan boy,
i would never recommend an intel graphics solution to anyone who wants to play games on their laptop.
Intel + Graphics = Failure.
It can barely run CS:source on everything low at 1024, and even then it's almost a slideshow.
Right on.
Any ati or nvidia mobile alternative would work much better for current directx 9 games.
Yes at 800x600 it would probably work ok but i can't call the game "enjoyable".
At that resolution you can barely tell if your playing hl or hl2.
As for using intel accelerator in your desktop... (i die a little everytime i hear that)
A radeon 9000 series kicks the crap out of the "graphics accelerator".
As much as i am an intel fan boy,
i would never recommend an intel graphics solution to anyone who wants to play games on their laptop.
Intel + Graphics = Failure.
bourgeoisdude
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2005
- 1,240
- 25
- 19,320
Right on.
Any ati or nvidia mobile alternative would work much better for current directx 9 games.
Yes at 800x600 it would probably work ok but i can't call the game "enjoyable".
At that resolution you can barely tell if your playing hl or hl2.
As for using intel accelerator in your desktop... (i die a little everytime i hear that)
A radeon 9000 series kicks the crap out of the "graphics accelerator".
As much as i am an intel fan boy,
i would never recommend an intel graphics solution to anyone who wants to play games on their laptop.
Intel + Graphics = Failure.
You miss the point. ALL HE ASKED IS IF IT WOULD RUN THE GAMES, and I answered the question. Again, I did not recommend this, but for someone who is not a gamer, it works. That is all he asked, quit putting words in my mouth that I didn't say!
bourgeoisdude
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2005
- 1,240
- 25
- 19,320
ltcommander_data
Distinguished
- Dec 16, 2004
- 997
- 0
- 18,980
I'll have to agree with bourgeoisdude. I've used the DMA950 before and it's pretty decent compared to previous Intel offerings and it's even noticably faster than the DMA900 due to better drivers and faster clock speed. It's obviously not for heavy gaming, but for light use and 800x600 or 1024x768 resolutions its fine in most games.
It'd be helpful if you could tell us what processor you're using. Most of the reviews of the DMA950 were done on desktop with single core processors. The advantage of the laptop DMA950 is that the i945G chipset is designed for the Core Duo. People critize the DMA950 because it steals CPU power, but since most games are single-threaded and if you have a Core Duo, the game will run on one core while the other core can be dedicated to graphics processing. This should theoretically increase performance especially combined with dual channel DDR2 667.
It'd be helpful if you could tell us what processor you're using. Most of the reviews of the DMA950 were done on desktop with single core processors. The advantage of the laptop DMA950 is that the i945G chipset is designed for the Core Duo. People critize the DMA950 because it steals CPU power, but since most games are single-threaded and if you have a Core Duo, the game will run on one core while the other core can be dedicated to graphics processing. This should theoretically increase performance especially combined with dual channel DDR2 667.
If your not expecting high resolutions and quality, the DMA950 will definitely run most games even newer ones.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question User RX 580 8gb red devil powercolor, asking original BIOS- Started by PizzaInGame
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram