Why all the hate for the integrated graphics? - Page 2

Yes, it does!! and no, there is not!!!

Personally, integrated graphics is great for people that just use thier laptops for buisness and occasional dvd or two. I like having an actual vga card in my laptop tough because it offers the potential to upgrade and the ability to run games smoothly. I use my I9200 cfor class, work, and gaming and I love it to death. Dad uses his sony (although it does have a MR9200 in it) for work and travel (dvd's, presentations and such).

Hmm

I don't entirely agree with the recommendations but I think I know what the people giving them mean. Yes, the integrated graphics is not bred for gaming performance, however it will handle a wide range of games that are available on the market. I own a 700m and am a big gamer. Now, I was forced to get a 700m due to the fact that I was leaving overseas and didn't have time to wait for the i9300 which is what I truly would rather have and will be looking into getting one this coming summer. However, the 700m plays plenty of games for me just fine. World of warcraft, call of duty, halo, neverwinter nights, icewind dale 2, and hitman 2 all run pretty well to extremely good on this laptop with it's woefully underpowered intel extreme integrated graphics if you would believe all the hype. Can I play Far Cry or Half-life 2 or Doom 3 at max settings? Absolutely not. Therefore, it is definitely limited in scope as far as what games it will natively support and support well. However, don't for a second think that the integrated graphics means that you won't be able to play games on your laptop because that's simply not true. Just don't purchase the laptop if gaming is an extremely high priority on your list of needed functionalities. Portability and form factor should be at the top.

someone needs to invent a USB 2.0 or PCMCIA gaming video card, that would be the perfect solution!

get a integrated when you are just working ,want a game, put in you x300 PCMCIA card and get rocking and rolling!

The thing is, they make you seem as though you are getting great gaming graphics with their integrated solution by calling it stuff like Extreme Graphics. Perhaps if Intel was more honest and called it onboard basic graphics, not for use with games, the hate would be gone. Intel is not alone. Savage Pro 8 sucks too.

Here is one reason why the hate:

from site http://www.gamepyre.com/reviewsd.html?aid=435&p=6

"It’s been a bit of a running joke around here that Intel’s integrated “Extreme Edition” graphics on their 865G boards couldn’t play a game if its life depended on it. For the most part that chipset and its successor the Extreme Edition 2 couldn’t play the most modern games available as the graphics on the boards didn’t support the basic function of Hardware Transformation and Lighting that every other card today can support. That changes with Intel’s GMA900 platform."

Or this from: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...n_9100-16.html

"In the end, we can only recommend PCs with integrated graphics with a clear conscience to users who are sure they will never play a 3D game on their PC......(snip, see original in link).....The 3D performance of Intel's and SiS's solutions are simply too low to merit a recommendation."

Or directly from the horses mouth, Intel!

Cause:
The game requires a graphics adapter with hardware T&L (Transform and Lighting) support to run. Intel® graphics controllers do not support hardware T&L.

Solution:
This game requires features that are not currently implemented by the referenced graphics hardware.

This is not simply run at reduced quality like above post states. You can not run game period. Not at Max settings. Not even at 640x480x16 bit and minimum settings.

Faster CPU's are helping, and is the reason why the 700M can play some games, (2 GHz PM = P4 3.2 GHz gaming performance). The onboard graphics is not helping it much.

edited so it would not cause this thread to be bumped back to top:
Real life 3dm2k1se default numbers to chew on:
I9200 with PM 1.8GHz and mr9700 = 14200
One year old Dell i1100 with 2GHz P4 and Intel 845G internal video = 1170
Brand NEW Dell i1150 with 2.6GHz P4 and Intel 855G internal = 1222
HP Pavillion ZE5375 with 2.4GHz P4 and ATi 7000 internal = 1927
And for reference, desktop tested in August 2001 with AMD 1.4GHz, and $20 GeForce 2 addon card scored 4130
A 1GHz Duron desktop even scored 3539 using above GF2 crap addon card.
All above personally tested by me using same conditions.
Why?
Because I had to find video good enough to build cheap systems that would be able to handle Nascar Racing 2003 season lan parties.

So yep, onboard will game, as long as you go back to the year 1999.
(nVidia nForce 2 is the exception, as it scores around 4400, so can play games from 2002 fine, and many newer games at reduced resolutions and quality).

With current pricing, there is no reason NOT to get upgradeable video on a laptop. It will cost around the same price either way, but if you go integrated, you will lose all the value within a few years, while the better video will maintain value at least 3 times as long. In the end, it will cost much more if you choose integrated, even if you are NOT a gamer. It is like buying a new car without A/C because you live up north, or an Escalade with a 4 speed manual only transmission.

for the vast majority of people integrated graphics is just fine. But if you are a gamer you need a 9600 and up at least. But notebooks with integrated graphics are built for different people then an Sager/Alienware/XPS/9200. The 700M was not built as a lightweight gamer machine to bring to your LAN parties.

with that being said I do love the graphics of my 9700 card on the i9200. Pretty sweet for a laptop.

I for one am willing to sacrifice a half an hour of battery life for AmAzInGlY smoother graphics, and the option to upgrade when it's obsolete. When I have 17 inchs of WUXGA bliss I expect to have at least 128MB of non integrated power behind it. For someone who values the quality and life of their notebook will choose non integrated graphics. For the rest they can love life using only Word, and excel.

Hey LeafsBlow 29 I too think this thread is worthless. There is nothing interesting that could possibly spawn from a thread devoted to the obvious.

youve got a wonderful way with words my dear friend

what vast majority? Numbers? Where from? Don't step up if you won't spit it.

hey guess what, the vast majority of computing isnt gaming, so therefor anything more then integrated craprics arent need for the vast majority

I concur, The vast majority of computing isn't gaming, but that is not the video card's sole purpose. The card can double as a backup processor if need be, and speeds up everything from boot speed, to pasting pictures of Osama's face on Jabba the hut's body, it is sad to say that those with integration may be ok for now but when Jabba gets pushing you will be sitting there with your cushin, a lot longer than those without. I know what you integrated folks are trying to do, you are trying to reach some sort of closure, you want to feel good, somewhat satisfied that you...yes you what with your integrated graphics, and overworked motherboard may have somehting of value in that 1 lb JcPenny's box of a computer. Well I am sorry to say the only closure you will recieve will be knowing your graphics will always be inferior and obsolete. Integrated graphics. Theyre like seniors in a nursing home. The end is coming, sometimes quicker than others, but it is coming. And until the end you are going to suffer. Urinary tract infections, Blood bursting boils, and such. And thats the end of that.

LMAO. its so hilarious that you use Liesure Suit Larry as your example game. I just got THe Magna Cum Lada one where he is in college and installed it on my main comp. Here are its stats

Dell 400sc
2.8Ghz HT
1 GIG PC3200 Dual Channel
32mb ATI Rage Fury AGP Card (old, bought for $15 used)

I installed the game, went to play and got 2 prompt boxes telling me yada yada won't run on my system and the game shut down. All because of my graphics card. I then pulled my ATI 9600XT out of the closet (got it for $100 AR from BB, never got around to installing it) and put it in my rig and Bam, game runs flawlessly and looks great. I never had a problem with the 32mb card before, played Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft just fine (same games my 700m can play). But Liesure Suit Larry was just to much for it and I wouldn't doubt its to much for internal graphics.

For the internal graphics defense, we may not be able to play the latest game, but at least our laptops are truly mobile and won't break your back when carrying them around. I knew my 700m was going to be horrible at playing games, but I made the choice of mobility over gaming. The latter is what my desktop is for.

youd know all about nursing homes wouldnt you?

and please refer to "integrated graphics" as "integrated craprics"

Once again, put up some numbers or **** off. Just saying that a "vast majority" does not use it for games means nothing unless you can back it up.

PS. I am not doubting you, I believe that there are MORE people who do not game than game, nevertheless "vast majority" could mean anything between 50 % to 99.9 % depending on who's calculating. That's why you should put up some numbers.

Weight has nothing to do with graphic choice (unless extra cooling and heatsinks are needed). Just take a look at other offerings from Dell. The i1150 with crap onboard Intel graphics weighs the same as the i9200 and it's higher end mr9700 graphics, even though the i1150 has a much smaller 14" screen. Maybe the graphics card actually results in less weight

Thats pretty obvious, since all those fans gotta push the air out somewhere. When I activate all 3 fans to max (can't be done without 1337 hacksor) on my i9100, I have to nail it to the table so it does not fly away.

</irony>

I agree, the vast majority of laptop users don't use their lappys to play games. Even so the Integrated Extreme Graphics 2 can handle everything shy of Doom III, Far Cry, MoH: PA, etc. I wish people would get their facts straight.

...

I was refering to weight as in size. The larger the laptop, the more it will weigh and the more difficult it will be to carry around. Currently there are no small laptops (700m size) with the option of a 3d graphics card due to size limitations. From that standpoint, mobility and 3d ability are inversely related. Some choose 3d ability, others choose mobilty.