NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › how bad is Intel Extreme Graphics 2 Technology really?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

how bad is Intel Extreme Graphics 2 Technology really?

post #1 of 22
9/2/04 at 9:40pm
Thread Starter 
So,
i know everyone here hates the shared graphics, and avoids them at all costs, but are they really that bad? is it impossible to play any game on them? or just the newer 3d games. i'm looking at a 12.1" notebook, and very few of them (if any really) have dedicated graphics cards. but as long as i'm not trying to play doom3 on them can they still handle older games? would i be able to play SimCity4 on it or Civilization? does anyone have any benchmarks or reviews that might help put things into perspective? the only thing i've heard about anyone testing games on the intel extreme 2 system was someone said something along the lines of: if i rubbed my own crap on the screen it would look better than this (in reference to doom 3). that was paraphrased, i don't remember the exact quote, but if i do get a notebook with shared graphics, am i not going to be able to play any games on it, or can i sneak by on some of them with just low quality?

any input is always greatly appreciated.

thanks guys.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 22
9/2/04 at 9:59pm
they're not that bad. i bet it beats the geforce4 go on my friend's laptop.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 22
9/2/04 at 10:00pm
I'll tell one thing that may help:

I had an Athlon XP 1700+, and a MSI's GeForce 4 MX 420 64mb DDR (or 440, don't remember), 256mb PC2700. I was used to play UT on 800x600 (or 700-something X 512) with very good settings. The quality was perfect, but I don't remember the framerate.

I have now a Toshiba 1135-S1553 Celeron 2.4Ghz, 512mb pc2100 (don't remember now , used to remember, but i bought a new one), intel extreme graphics (which seems to be version 1) and this notebook plays it like a completely crap. Crap, did you hear it loud? Crap. 400xsomething with medium-to-low quality and it's still crap, low framerate, incredibly low.

However, CS on OpenGL plays very good, smooth. (800x600 OpenGL fullscreen, good quality settings, even the smoke is medium quality!). If I try Direct3D CS, it's completely unplayable.

Got the idea?

edit: I hope you noticed that this one was a desktopxlaptop comparision. Anyway, Age of Empires 2 played acceptable on both computers (but I still limited the game to ~ 3-4 players using 75-100 units at most!). On Age2, the difference between the 2 wasn't big. almost the same. With Unreal 1, same thing as UT. Diablo 2 is ***much better*** on the Athlon. I could use ALL the 3D and light effects on high and it was very very smooth. On my lappy, if i put 3d and light effects on high, it's a slow. and the 3d and light effects are what make this game so great. can't wait to use 800x600 on my new notebook.

At that time i didn't have Lord of destruction, but I do now. the new 800x600 mode is unplayable on this notebook.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 22
9/2/04 at 10:13pm
See this review of integrated graphics solutions:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...aphics-02.html
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 22
9/2/04 at 10:34pm
I play Quake III @ 1024x768 32bit default everything else
and it is perfectly accpetable play.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 22
9/2/04 at 10:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesoprock_00
So,
i know everyone here hates the shared graphics, and avoids them at all costs, but are they really that bad? is it impossible to play any game on them? or just the newer 3d games. i'm looking at a 12.1" notebook, and very few of them (if any really) have dedicated graphics cards. but as long as i'm not trying to play doom3 on them can they still handle older games? would i be able to play SimCity4 on it or Civilization? does anyone have any benchmarks or reviews that might help put things into perspective? the only thing i've heard about anyone testing games on the intel extreme 2 system was someone said something along the lines of: if i rubbed my own crap on the screen it would look better than this (in reference to doom 3). that was paraphrased, i don't remember the exact quote, but if i do get a notebook with shared graphics, am i not going to be able to play any games on it, or can i sneak by on some of them with just low quality?

any input is always greatly appreciated.

thanks guys.
I benched a Toshiba with a shared graphics and a Celery. It got about 1900 in 3dMark 2001.

Piss poor.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 22
9/2/04 at 10:49pm
I just think "acceptable" is a very personal opinion....

I called Age 2 "acceptable", but I posted some clues about what is "acceptable" to me (above 4 players and > 75 or 100 units is started to get slow always, not just when the screen was crowded.

I believe an "acceptable" 3D-Shooter is a 25fps w/ some "not-too-low" slow downs, right?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 22
9/2/04 at 10:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superguy
I benched a Toshiba with a shared graphics and a Celery. It got about 1900 in 3dMark 2001.

Piss poor.
If compared to today's notebooks, sure it's even uncomparable.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 22
9/3/04 at 12:41am
Thread Starter 
i'm thinking about a dothan 735 processor, but i know that really can only do so much. but i'm sure that would be a little better than a celery.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 22
9/3/04 at 4:49am
It's pretty damn bad.

Plus you get about a 400 ms delay on right clicking on the desktop - drove me mad - I had to unregister the COM component that was loading into explorer adding it's menus to the drivers.

It's probably about as fast as a GF4 440.. My uniwill 2II330 or whatever (12.1) with the Intel Extreme 2 and a 1.7 Dothan can play UT2004 at 800x600 alright, but no better. I really hate the drivers more than just the chip performance. The drivers are really poor.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 22
9/3/04 at 5:33am
As Haz says, it's not the gaming performance that is the major issue, it's the fact that the shared video memory makes the rest of the system run like shjt.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 22
9/3/04 at 5:50am
i think intergrated graphics like intel extreme graphics 2 will be about comparable to the old geforce2 cards. sounds like about right. i see motherboard manufacters mainly for amd chips that use gf2 chips intergrated on the mb so im assuming its about the same as intel
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 22
9/3/04 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterhoang1988
i think intergrated graphics like intel extreme graphics 2 will be about comparable to the old geforce2 cards. sounds like about right. i see motherboard manufacters mainly for amd chips that use gf2 chips intergrated on the mb so im assuming its about the same as intel
probably, for my own experience, you're right.

I had a GeForce 4 420 (or 440, don't remember) for desktop, and for my gaming experience with it and w/ my nb Celeron 2.4 Ghz, twice the RAM, intel extreme - still don't know what is "extreme" for them - graphics 1 and it performs worse than GeForce 4s for sure. No, no doubt about it. I never had experience w/ GF2s (only other Matrox(es) and Voodoos), but It seems peterhoang1988's opinion is quite reasonable.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 22
9/3/04 at 3:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
My uniwill 2II330 or whatever (12.1) with the Intel Extreme 2 and a 1.7 Dothan can play UT2004 at 800x600 alright
same model i'm looking at.

by "alright" i'm guessing that means, enough to tolerate, but not good gaming by any means. however, i figure UT2004 is probably alot more advanced than most games i'd be playing on the laptop. i can use my easily upgradable desktop for playing the serious games, but the laptop will come in use for long periods away from my desktop, where i'll need to pass some time. i'm perfectly happy playing strategy and turn based games, instead of FPSs on the laptop. someone put some benchmarks up earlier and it looked pretty bad, so i'm really not expecting too much anymore. maybe i should scrap this whole project and start looking for a bigger laptop with dedicated RAM.

thanks for the help everyone, but if you've still got something to say about it, please feel free!! more help is always more useful!!!
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 22
9/3/04 at 3:27pm
to paraphrase the title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aesoprock_00
how bad is it really?
It is unbelievbly <insert worst known Engligh adj here>.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 22
9/3/04 at 3:59pm
My question is if there were any intentions on gaming, why would you even look into integrated graphics? Get a dedicated GPU.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 22
9/3/04 at 7:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDDa
If compared to today's notebooks, sure it's even uncomparable.
It was bought Memorial Day weekend it. It's one of "today's" notebooks.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 22
9/3/04 at 8:53pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
My question is if there were any intentions on gaming, why would you even look into integrated graphics? Get a dedicated GPU.
because i like the small size factor of a 12.1", i like the fact that its got a 4hour(+) battery, weighs so very little, and its powerful and portable. i'd like to have the option of playing games if it comes down to it, but that will not be what i'm purchasing it for primarily. and like i said, i've got a nice desktop for playing the newer 3d games on, but i'd like to be able to pass a couple of hours playing sim city or something on the laptop. i'll play doom3 on my desktop with the 19" screen, instead of the notebook with a 12". i just want to know if i'll even have the option of playing older, less graphics intensive games, and maybe some more slighty graphics intense games at lower quality or if it's not at all with the integrated graphics.

thanks again to everyone who has responded, every suggestion and comment you guys give, leads me to look at things differently.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 22
9/3/04 at 10:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superguy
It was bought Memorial Day weekend it. It's one of "today's" notebooks.
ok. I was talking about mine. it was bought quite a time ago (more than a year, maybe 2).
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 22
9/3/04 at 11:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesoprock_00
because i like the small size factor of a 12.1", i like the fact that its got a 4hour(+) battery, weighs so very little, and its powerful and portable. i'd like to have the option of playing games if it comes down to it, but that will not be what i'm purchasing it for primarily. and like i said, i've got a nice desktop for playing the newer 3d games on, but i'd like to be able to pass a couple of hours playing sim city or something on the laptop. i'll play doom3 on my desktop with the 19" screen, instead of the notebook with a 12". i just want to know if i'll even have the option of playing older, less graphics intensive games, and maybe some more slighty graphics intense games at lower quality or if it's not at all with the integrated graphics.

thanks again to everyone who has responded, every suggestion and comment you guys give, leads me to look at things differently.
Have you consdiered the Sony S series? It uses a 13.3" screen...pretty close to the 12" u're looking for and is the only "ultra-portable" with dedicated graphics. It's quite pricey though.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › how bad is Intel Extreme Graphics 2 Technology really?