Dell 700m for gaming

Cos it doesn't have a graphics card, it just has integrated graphics, so it can't play anything graphically intensive that is going to come out in the future or currently out (i.e. half life 2, doom 3, etc.)

It's not a gamer's pc, but it's a snazzy little pc that I highly considered getting.

Crank the in game resolutions up to 1024x768 and watch it fall on its face. This is what people mean. Of course for the casual gamer such as yourself you might be quite content with it as it is.

For the hard core gamer it wont cut it.

I love my 700m for gaming, granted I only really play Call of Duty but I can crank the settings and still have it very playable.

isn't the graphics card a intel integrated graphics (up to 64mb shared)? i read in dell.com

but i heard some people had the intel integrated graphics 2 with their 700m, which graphics card does this machine really have?

it just "shares" the system memory with the graphics chip thats built into the motherboard...there no external cooling, etc. its a motherboard graphics card, not even powerful at all. I wouldn't buy a 700m and start gaming heavy on it.

what about cs:source???
cuz i def wanna play that game but not with the highest details or anything

If it was able to play it, you might get 10-15 fps.

I hate when people say this, ugh.

I play HL2 ALL THE TIME on this machine. CS:S, HL2DM, and HL2 ALL WORK FINE at 640x480. Sure its a crappy resolution but the game still looks great and runs great (I get around 50 fps most of the time).

lol yeah with lowest resolution, hint 640 * 480, and probably lowest texture, reflections ect...if you want anything thats resonable get at least 32mb or 64mb GPU...personally i have 64, its starting to look like crap now when comparing to my friends 256 mb GPU on alienware...just compare :-) you will see what i mean

its still the same game.....thats what you are playing, not the graphics....as long as it plays smoothly it will be fun

I beg to differ, and I think that the game developers will too. I personally would not play a game like HL2 at DirectX 7.0 or DirectX 8.0 (which is what the game is with the lowest settings) on a new machine. Here is a comparison of what the game looks like on different hardware:
IGN comparison

If you choose to play it as it would have looked at the time of the original Half-life, then it's your choice, but it clearly is not the same as playing it on a graphics capable machine of today. The game looks awesome even with medium settings and there is a huge difference in gaming experience between playing on 700m and on a machine with a graphics card - like the XPS, 9200 or a 8600.

EDIT: Just so you know, I have both the 700m and the i8600 and there is no comparison of the gaming capabilities. Not even close.

...for some, my A64 OC'd to 2.5ghz, and the 6800GT OC'd to 400/1200 won't cut it either!

Good for you. But tell me....on my 700m did I still get to launch rockets and guide them to a strider? Yes. Did I still get to play with the sweet physics? Yes.

For ME (and many others) the game is the same. It might not LOOK the same but it is the same story and same action....which is what a lot of people care about.

I'm sorry that you are "too good" for DX7

Look, how can I have any problem with your playing the game the way that you like it? You paid for the computer & the game - do what you want with it. My problem is with the claim that the game is the same on a 700m. As long as a new buyer knows that they are playing it at DX7 and are okay with it, that's cool. But it is important that they are appraised of the facts because many, like me, believe that the nice graphics are an integral part of the game experience. I would want to know before buying the 700m that if someone is telling me HL2 runs fine on it, it means "runs fine looking like Half-life the original game." There is a reason that Valve has made the original Half-life now available on the Source game engine.


I'm not sorry at all, so don't feel too bad.


I don't think that there is anything wrong with not being able to game much on the 700m. My i8600 is not able to play games like an XPS does but I chose its portability and lower price over some additional gaming capabilities of the XPS. I won't get defensive when someone tells me that its gaming capabilities are worse than some other machine. The 700m is the most portable machine in the Inspiron line and there are compromises associated with the portability. All I am trying to say is that people should be accurately informed about the compromises so that they can make informed decisions.

This post was asking why people said the 700 wasnt good for gaming. The answer was given. Its possible to skimp by and lose the quality and textures that make the latest games what they are, this has been brought up several times and many have stated they can "play" games but the real question is "at what costs". It's great that 700 owners can still enjoy playing and the onboard video has come a long way. Has people taken this as a bash against 700s?

But keeping the original question in perspective, it was asked why people say the 700 is not good for gaming. And the answer is because the built in video card has limitations that allow the latest games to be run in any sort of glory that they were meant to.


He asked, I told, he looked, I leave

ive never found a 'good game' made good by the textures.. sure it might be visually stunning, but if its a crappy game that wont matter for long..

then again im still hooked on q-bert.

Obviously. And that was not point I was making. No amount of eye candy can save a bad game. But I also like to enjoy the graphics advances of the decade.

Read my original post. It says I played at 640x480...and actually everything else (except water quality) is set to medium. So it was said long long long ago.....(side note...it definitely looks way better than HL1....its still HL2, just without the shaders and without an amazing resolution)