Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

14 of the top 30 PC Games Fail on Intel G45 based Motherboards

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 18, 2008 3:14:20 AM

14 of the top 30 PC Games Fail on Intel "G45" Motherboards

During a recent discussion with NVIDIA we were told that 14 of the top 30 PC games fail or have graphics issues when running on Intel G45 based motherboards. For many months now AMD and NVIDIA have been showing off the flaws of Intel's on-board graphics on the most current platform available today. The last time we talked about Intel integrated graphics issues was with AMD's Pat Moorhead when we wrote up this article on the issue. The take home message here is that NVIDIA and AMD offer a better gaming experience as the game is rendered correctly.

Many of those titles are games that we all know and love since they are in the top 30 games sold for what I believe is the month of July based off NPD data. Some of the the games listed having issues are:

[Graphic]

Age of Conan
Sims 2
Assassins Creed
Crysis
World in Conflict
Star Wars Knights
Mass Efect
BioShock
Half-Life Episode 2
World in Conflict
Microsoft Flight Simulator X

September 18, 2008 3:20:49 AM

The title of this topic has been edited by Jake_Barnes
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2008 3:25:18 AM

who games on integrated graphics? Not to mention in the intel product sheet this chipset is designed for HD video playback.
Related resources
September 18, 2008 3:34:30 AM

This looks like borderline trolling, in a crazy way. As BadTrip said, who the hell plays games on integrated graphics?

Whoever does, deserves what they get. Integrated graphics are for office machines not gaming rigs.
September 18, 2008 3:38:37 AM

LOL, whilst Intel has piss poor IGP gaming performance (anyone surprised? :p ), I'd like to see what kind of frame rates a 790GX IGP (the best currently available) can churn out in these games at anything above 800 x 600 minimum details. I bet it'd struggle to even get into double digits; whilst not technically a 'fail', it is definitely a 'fail' in the playability stakes.

Moral of the story? Get a GPU if you wanna game, a HD4670 costs $70 and performs 10x better than the best IGP.
September 18, 2008 3:39:45 AM

Maybe the OP should have included "G45" in the thread title ... and not waited on a Moderator to edit it in ...
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2008 3:48:49 AM

well if you have read any of enigma067's post, they are very similar to thunderman's hit and run style of posting, but usually more negative of Intel
September 18, 2008 3:53:22 AM

Fanbois ... so what's new ... :??: 
September 18, 2008 3:54:23 AM

So it was trolling, I just thought he was an idiot.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 18, 2008 6:41:25 AM

I love his posts. Such, well just nothing really.

Lets go through the games shall we:

Age of Conan

New game that even has trouble running on high end systems due to a poorly optimized engine.

Sims 2

Im not sure but now that Spore is out who wants to play the sims?

Assassins Creed

Another high end game that tests even high end systesm performance

Crysis

Do I even need to say it?

Quote:
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better


No IGP is even listed as acceptable for MINIMUM on Crysis.

World in Conflict

Also pushes high end systems, very CPU bound

Star Wars Knights

Older games sometimes have problems with newer hardware. I wouldn't be suprised if this game does since its almost 6 years old.

Mass Efect

Pushes high end systems as well.

BioShock

Pushes high end systems as well.

Half-Life Episode 2

Although a older game Source does scale very well but still EP 2 had a updated engine that takes a bit more power than before and only supports DX8 now.

World in Conflict
Microsoft Flight Simulatorflight simulator X


The last two same. They are games that push high end systems and are still very CPU bound.


I love how most of the games they tested are either known to have poor optimization and need a GPU to actually be playable or are just old and as most older games can have issues with newer hardware.

Bleh this troll is just annoying sometimes.

And just to point out the obvious, its nVidia. They will always talk trash about Intels IGPs and AMDs products. Thats marketing.
September 18, 2008 7:19:08 AM

reminds me of another hit and run troller ei Thunderman aka Thunderdud
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 117 å Intel
a b V Motherboard
a b Î Nvidia
September 22, 2008 5:03:17 AM

You mean I can't max out the graphics settings in Age of Conan on a $10 Intel G45 chipset!?!?!?!?

[Sarcasm]What a ripoff!!![/Sarcasm]
April 6, 2009 2:27:22 PM

Intel G45 on asus p5q em is totally bogus. i will return that freaky mobo tomorrow. loss of 150$
a c 83 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 6, 2009 4:30:05 PM

epsilon84 said:
LOL, whilst Intel has piss poor IGP gaming performance (anyone surprised? :p ), I'd like to see what kind of frame rates a 790GX IGP (the best currently available) can churn out in these games at anything above 800 x 600 minimum details. I bet it'd struggle to even get into double digits; whilst not technically a 'fail', it is definitely a 'fail' in the playability stakes.

Moral of the story? Get a GPU if you wanna game, a HD4670 costs $70 and performs 10x better than the best IGP.


My HD4670 only performs about 4X as good as my HD3300, I've got a 790GX board and yes I've played around with the on board graphics because I was curious. With my Athlon X2 in 3dmark06 the 3300 scored about 1800 and the 4670 scored about 7700. Games like left4dead are playable at 1280x1024 no AA and mid settings otherwise while maintaining over 30fps constantly with the 3300. It's eve more powerful than my old 7300GT and 6600GT were, I actually wonder what kind of performance I'd get if I overclocked the 3300.

But you are right, if you expect to be able to play all the latest games, you'll need a dedicated card. Although I am impressed with how powerful the 3300 actually is, I would never attempt to run games like Crysis on it.
a c 102 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 6, 2009 5:41:59 PM

enigma067 said:
14 of the top 30 PC Games Fail on Intel "G45" Motherboards

During a recent discussion with NVIDIA we were told that 14 of the top 30 PC games fail or have graphics issues when running on Intel G45 based motherboards. For many months now AMD and NVIDIA have been showing off the flaws of Intel's on-board graphics on the most current platform available today. The last time we talked about Intel integrated graphics issues was with AMD's Pat Moorhead when we wrote up this article on the issue. The take home message here is that NVIDIA and AMD offer a better gaming experience as the game is rendered correctly.

<snip>



I have a laptop with the mobile variant of the G45 chipset (aka GM45) that is identical to the G45 except being clocked a little lower. I run Linux on the machine with the latest stable drivers (xorg-video-intel-2.6.1, Xorg 7.5, kernel 2.6.28) and generally have found the IGP to perform pretty decently. The machine has a 1440x900 screen and is primarily used for office-type work so the better battery life and cheaper cost of an IGP is preferable to a more expensive and harder-on-the-battery discrete GPU. I do occasionally fire up a game on it to kill time from home (which answers the question of "who would try to play games on an IGP?") and here are my experiences:

- 3D desktop effects (Compiz): work pretty well
- Video playback: slight issues with occasional tearing but otherwise works well.
- Sauerbraten (open-source Cube engine game): massive problems with rendering
- OpenArena (open-source Quake engine game): plays well at 1440x900
- Nexuiz (open-source Quake engine game): plays well at 1440x900
- Blob Wars: Blob and Conquer (open-source, unknown engine): plays well at 1440x900

Admittedly it's a small sample, but the only game I have tried to play that has flopped on the GM45 is Sauerbraten. Sauerbraten is a bit picky about its GPUs as it likes NVIDIA cards above all else and the devs got rid of the bugs that cropped up with ATi cards not all that long ago.
April 6, 2009 6:02:12 PM

This has been an ongoing problem with Intel, as their igps just dont keep up
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
Ive been saying for awhile now, whether its important to have full gaming is one thing, to have access to any decent gaming is something else. People do game on their igps, and maybe Intel will eventually see the light. Understand, Im not talking major gaming, but those in between scenarios to kill some time, or to offer a distraction, where maybe you cant be at your main gaming rig. More and more people are gaming, so theres simply no excuse for igps not to be able to do gaming
August 27, 2009 7:48:49 AM

Just a quick message on behalf of the rest of the human race here, every time you make a sweeping statement like that, you lose sight of one simple truth, not everybody would even know 5% of the stuff posters on this site are talking about. I would never of even heard of an integrated graphics card when i bought this my first laptop.

It would be a better attitude for you guys to endeavour to be of help to people like myself who, when they log on to sites like this are looking for help from people who know, in the form of an idiots guide or something. You guys might as well be talking Cantonese for all that I understand of it, never mind slagging us for decisions we made during purchase ON LIMITED FUNDS of our PC hardware.

Hind Regards

Eagle 6764
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 8:00:09 AM

This is an enthusiast forum (ok, I hesitate to use that term nowadays but that is what we like to think), not a "Halp me pl0x my mouse won't move!" forum, so using "jargon" is what you have to expect. If you need help, post a thread for help. You can't expect all discussion to be at Joe Bloggs level in every thread.

Also, I don't see how this thread has anything to do with slagging peoples' decisions. All I see is multiple resurrections of a fanboi thread (which I am now closing to prevent it being bumped any more) which needs only a single image posted in response to the first post:

!