NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Audio & Video  › Intel Extreme Graphics 2 -- How bad do they suck?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel Extreme Graphics 2 -- How bad do they suck?

post #1 of 14
7/23/04 at 1:44pm
Thread Starter 
I'm getting a laptop from a college that I'm going to this fall and it comes with Intel Extreme Graphics 2. My questions...

1) How much can I get away with? (As in, what games could I play?)

2) What 3d AGP graphics is IEG2 equivalent to? (16mb, 32mb etc.)

3) Anyone know of any games that will work with IEG2 even though they require a graphics card? (I know of one, BF1942).

Thanks for helping me out.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 14
7/23/04 at 3:03pm

They REALLY suck

You could play halo on it but it would have to be in the lowest setting and it looks like s***. I think it is either 32MB or 64MB or shared system memory that it uses. You could play UT2004 but it wouldn't look good.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 14
7/23/04 at 3:12pm
In benchmarks (unreal tournament 2003)... even an old 32mb ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 beats the integrated graphics 2.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 14
7/23/04 at 4:15pm
Thread Starter 
Since IEG2 is integrated graphics, increasing the ram wouldn't speed up performance would it?
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 14
7/23/04 at 5:18pm
I think increasing the ram may improve the performance, I have integrated graphics on my old laptop and I increased the ram from 256 to 768 and I noticed a pretty big improvement.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 14
7/23/04 at 7:40pm

Ram

The upgrade in RAM will improve your whole systems performance, which will make it go a little faster but it won't help very much with the graphics part of it.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 14
8/3/04 at 8:10am
no, increasing ram will not make your game go faster, the ****ty intel IGP can only render those frames so fast, if anything could possible give you 1-2 more frames is if you overclock your video cards RAM (this would probably be system ram) the intel IGP is bad and crappy, but the SiS M650 IGP is worse (if thats even possible)

oh yeah forgot to add

the intel IGP is probably the equiv of a GeForce2 MX400 16MB or slower, most likely slower

believe it or not i ran Halo with a Geforce2 32MB and it started up and played, looked okay but it was slower than crap
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 14
8/5/04 at 12:07am
Thread Starter 

Re: Replies

Thanks for the info guys. My desktop had Intel Extreme Graphics (not IEG "2") and I ran Battlefield 1942 on it just fine. Yeah, I had to tone it down a little bit, but it wasn't enough to make any difference. Microsoft Flight Sim 2002 Prof. ran great as well. The reason I got a video card was because the IEG didn't support T&L.

Anyone know how much dynamic video memory the IEG2 has? IEG1 had 64mb. Thanks for your help.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 14
8/5/04 at 4:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by erichisey3
Anyone know how much dynamic video memory the IEG2 has? IEG1 had 64mb. Thanks for your help.
I think the standard config of Intel integrated graphics uses up to 64MB of system memory.

Benchmarks I've seen show Intel integrated graphics scoring around 2,400 in 3DMark 2001 and 45-50 fps in Q3 engine games, maybe 25-30 fps in UT2003.

Here's a thread about gaming on Intel integrated graphics

Quote:
Games That Work

GTA 3 - 640x480x16 800x600x16
GTA Vice City - 640x480 and 800x600
Medal of Honor:Allied Assult - 800x600x16 with high texture quality
Battlefield: 1942 - 800x600 medium quality
Unreal Tourneyment 2003 - 640x480 with low quality
WarCraft 3 - ???
Neverwinter Nights - 12xxX7xx with no detail, 800x600 with full deail
Madden 2003 - 1024x768 full detail
Civilization 3 - runs fine until lots of units are played with
America's Army - 800x600 slightly choppy (playable)
Freelancer - 800x600 default detail
Rouge Spear:BlackThorn - 640x480 default levels
BZFlaf - 1024x768 default levels
Star Trek Elite Forces
Soldior of Fortune 2 - works with newest patch only
The Sims
Tiger Woods 2003
Quake 3 - high detail
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 14
8/5/04 at 8:51pm
Thread Starter 
That's a great list. America's Army, yes! I was afraid it wouldn't work cause I love that game.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 14
8/6/04 at 4:07am
They suck, but then again, the laptops with intel extreme graphics aren't really deigned as gaming machines... I'm waiting for my Sony TR3a to show up tomorrow, it's far from a gaming machine, but it wil handle most RTS and simple games just fine
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 14
8/6/04 at 4:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Al
They suck, but then again, the laptops with intel extreme graphics aren't really deigned as gaming machines... I'm waiting for my Sony TR3a to show up tomorrow, it's far from a gaming machine, but it wil handle most RTS and simple games just fine
Why did you decide to go with the Sony and not the fujitsu p5000, or p7000?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 14
8/6/04 at 12:25pm
Look, Design, Resale Value, Got one hell of a Deal on a Mint TR3a that I just couldn't pass up!

All in all I just got the system, and I will do a full review on it later today... I'm very very impressed with it.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 14
8/21/04 at 1:50pm
Good day Everyone....
I owned an Intel Extreme 2 previously on an Emachines M5105 I had. I sold it because although it played all directx 7 & 8 games. It felt extremely short when playing todays games(directx9). It scored 1,300 on 3Dmark2001 which can tell you about it's performance. But if you are not a gamer but enjoy RPG's and non intensive games....the intel will be just fine....

Regards,
U.N.inspector
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Audio & Video
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Audio & Video  › Intel Extreme Graphics 2 -- How bad do they suck?