Memory usage by Intel HD3000

[shtomp]

I have an Inspiron 15R core i3 with 6GB of RAM and integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics, W7, 1366x768 resolution, 32bit color.

I have been surprised at the poor performance of the computer on certain graphics tasks. For instance, the machine has a very difficult time with 3D screen savers, such as fireflies, and most of the 'really sick' screen savers, producing very sluggish and jerking motion. In some cases, the motion begins slow, but fluid, and then almost comes to a halt when the

I am trying do diagnose whether there is a problem. The Intel graphics control panel shows minimum graphics memory is 64MB, and maximum is 1.6GB, yet it typically shows less than 64MB of graphics memory in actual use, and even when I run the Dell graphics stress test, the memory in use only rises to 108MB, though the computer fans are running hard.

So, my questions are:
- is the information provided by the graphics control panel useful for diagnosis, and how?
- why does it show so little graphics memory actually in use, even during a stress test?
- what tasks, if any, would push the memory use up to its limit?

I know the machine isn't a gamer, but like to understand what's going on. Thanks in advance, you crazy gurus!

 

[hang-the-9]

If you want to check the video RAM being used, run 3DMark, that should get it over 100mb. The amount of RAM used is based on how much texture and some other info being loaded to the card at one time. I'm sure the Dell stress test is not very "stressful", although I don't know exactly what it does. 3DMark would be a good one to run though if you want to see how much RAM the card uses during actuall gaming.

Don't equate video RAM amounts to speed, a 256 MB card made for gaming will be way better than a 1gig low-end card.

The main issue with the laptop and graphics is the design of the video system, not the RAM it uses.

 

[shtomp]

Gotcha. Thanks for your response. I'm still surprise that the performance is so poor on relatively simple 3D screen savers, but I won't suffer much over that!

 

[hang-the-9]

Gotcha. Thanks for your response. I'm still surprise that the performance is so poor on relatively simple 3D screen savers, but I won't suffer much over that!

I have not run the Win 7 screensavers, but it could very well be that they are not as simple as you think. Also how they were coded will have an effect of how well they will run. If the display has lots of particles, shadows, things like that, it will eat up a lot of video processing.