|
Intel Modern IGP (X3000, X3100, X3500)
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. August 2008 @ 06:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Likewise. At all high settings on my X1900XT, I could only make 25fps average at 800x600, at the beginning of the game, let alone the more demanding second half. A card like the X850XT could probably only manage that at all medium settings, if that. How does an X4500 compare to the X850XT, let alone the X3000 series?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
stephoon
Account closed as per user's own request
|
12. August 2008 @ 11:30 |
Link to this message
|
im running a quad q6600 2gb ram 500gb hdd and its npt bs i get 40 fps averge on med details on 1024 by 768 res and last time i check u get liek a 8fps bonu sfrom quad on crysis cuz it uses all 4 cores
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. August 2008 @ 13:03 |
Link to this message
|
Last time I checked, Crysis is actually a bit slower on Quads vs Duals. It only uses dual core.
And no, you're lying very badly. No, you can't argue in your favor. Crysis is a major resource hog and you can't run it at settings like that without at least an X1800XT/7900gt. What you're saying is that you're matching the speed of an X1900XT or similar with an Intel integrated solution. That is completely impossible no matter what kind of CPU/RAM/HDD you have. And no, even if Crysis used all four cores, it wouldn't make a difference.
Video cards render the graphics. Your game performance has very little to do with CPU speed, number of cores, or amount of RAM. Without a proper video card, you CAN NOT even run the game well enough to play.
Also consider that, at the settings you claim, my old 7600GT got about 20FPS. Then you mean to say your Intel IGP is twice as fast as a 7600GT/6800Ultra/X850XT/X1800GTO/X1650XT/8600GT and other like cards that perform similar to that group. And it's not... it's just not. Give up.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. August 2008 @ 13:08
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. August 2008 @ 13:19 |
Link to this message
|
Me and Ray tested this - me with a 3.15Ghz E4300 and two HD3870s, and him with a 3.6Ghz Q6600, also with two 3870s. We got exactly the same frame rate, 35 at 1680x1050, all high.
I can envisage how Crysis can run on an X3100, that I have no problem with, and at 1024x768 medium detail, potentially it could beplayable, using all medium gives you 3x the frame rate of all high, but 35-40fps? perhaps 20-25 at the most. I don't think you're lying, but perhaps not testing the game as it should. Load up one of these sections:
'Core' 'Paradise lost' or 'Reckoning'
and then tell us your frame rate...
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. August 2008 @ 14:52 |
Link to this message
|
Well, I don't want to be the one who says integrated is unusable. But be realistic. You might be able to barely play with some minor settings on medium, but full medium settings is just not feasible with integrated.
Shaders, Shadows, Objects, and Post Processing are what truly change the look of the game and affect performance the most. I'll give you medium shadows, hell, I'll give you medium post processing. But shaders and objects quality is out of the question for any Integrated Graphics. Not to mention 1024 res. If playable, probably averaging 17-20FPS or close.
Also, try the end levels of the game. If, at any point in the game you get 40FPS, it sure won't be there.
Good news for us. The Crysis Warhead Expansion will add many performance fixes to the engine. These fixes will later be released for the original Crysis as well. Admit it folks, Crysis is an amazing looking game, but the graphics just don't match the performance. Hopefully this means I can see CryEngine 2 with some serious eye candy and a decent resolution.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. August 2008 @ 15:01 |
Link to this message
|
I'm doubtful to be honest. Crytek will need to seriously overhaul how the game is produced to still be able to look as good and run better on lower end systems. Big performance gains from game engines like those don't come easy. Even the HD4870X2 can only max the game smoothly at 1920x1200, let alone 2560x1600, and that's without AA too. Meanwhile other similarly good looking games like Episode Two and Call of Duty 4 are rocking nearly three figure frame rates at 2560x1600, and with AA on the same hardware. The game's a vast system hog.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 00:13 |
Link to this message
|
That only further supports my point that Crysis is not realistic on integrated graphics. You already need a monster system to run it on all high let alone all very high. I can see all medium at 1024 res with an X1950Pro or a 7900GS, but there's really no way integrated could do it, especially anywhere near 40FPS. It just doesn't have the flexibility or power of discrete cards.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. August 2008 @ 00:15
|
Member
|
13. August 2008 @ 01:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
it don't matter how many cores you have... yes you maybe able to run the graphics processing through your cpu but it still isn't enough...
Laptop- AMD Athlon X2 64 @1.9ghz, 4gb ddr2 @667mhz, 120 gb hdd, nVidia GeForce 8200m, 8x DVD-DL Burner, 15.4" widescreen, Windows 7 Ultimate
V9 PS2 with clear blue fliptop& swapmagic 3.6
iPhone 3G 8GB OS 3.0 Jailbroken w/ MMS and Tethering Enabled
30gb Black Video iPod
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 07:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Lmao - software rendering is even slower than integrated graphics - the 3dmark06 CPU test should be proof of that.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 08:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Lol true. Who here got over 3FPS on the CPU test? Not me :P
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 08:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
0.7 and 1.3 for the two tests for me. I think I know someone who in the latter test got around 3.4 ish for the second test, but that was with significant overvolting on a Q9450, not a practical real world result, on a more reasonable voltage though, him and someone else got around 3fps on the second test... lmao. 3fps being good, what a joke. it even looks appalling too.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 08:25 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah I hover around 1-2FPS all the way through the test. But then so did my 4400+ with the X1800XT.
CPU speed DOES affect scores in 06. But we're talking a 9600GT getting 9500 on an AMD X2 and 10500 on a Core 2 Duo.
Any decent dual core is adequate for any game. The only games that saw an improvement from OC'ing were Crysis(very minor) and Half Life 2(during heavy physics).
Saying you can run Crysis on an Intel integrated because you have a quad is like saying a Geo Metro can outrun a Kawasaki Ninja because it has more wheels.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 08:27 |
Link to this message
|
lol very true. As for the CPU performance, 3dmar is ridiculous in that regard. The same graphics setup (stock HD3870s in crossfire) got 13801 on my 3.15Ghz Core 2 Duo, and 20,500 on a 4Ghz Q6600, yet in real world testing in Crysis, they performed pretty much the same.
|
Member
|
13. August 2008 @ 14:48 |
Link to this message
|
Quake 4 as medium settings was the last playable game on the X3100 intergrated series... I know from playing it... I laughed my @$$ off when he said he got 30fps on crysis... He'd be lucky to get 10 in a dark corner on low settings considering 20 was the average in Q4...
Laptop- AMD Athlon X2 64 @1.9ghz, 4gb ddr2 @667mhz, 120 gb hdd, nVidia GeForce 8200m, 8x DVD-DL Burner, 15.4" widescreen, Windows 7 Ultimate
V9 PS2 with clear blue fliptop& swapmagic 3.6
iPhone 3G 8GB OS 3.0 Jailbroken w/ MMS and Tethering Enabled
30gb Black Video iPod
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 03:39 |
Link to this message
|
Exactly what I mean. Quake 4 isn't even that demanding of a game. And I don't consider 20FPS smooth for any first-person shooter. Crysis aside, the X3100 suffers in most games. Even the 6600GT could pull smooth FPS in Quake 4 in high settings. Even so, try the 6600GT in Crysis and watch the slideshow at lowest settings.
I'm not saying the X3100 is terrible. As engage16 has shown, it can do Half-Life 2 at fairly decent settings. It's definitely a big leap from the GMA 950 and Extreme Graphics 2 I suffered with for years. But you can't say it can run Crysis smoothly at any settings and honestly expect us to believe you. Especially at medium settings at 1024 res. We know better.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. August 2008 @ 03:45
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 03:41 |
Link to this message
|
3dmark isn't the be all and end all by any means, but it does mean something, and when a card scores less than 1000 marks with a decent enough processor, you know gaming is going to be pretty tedious. You can get away with less than 1000 for a fair few games, UT2004, Doom 3, even Quake 4 on low, but Crysis? I wouldn't want less than 4000.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 03:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
To truly appreciate the game, I wouldn't use a system that scores less than 7000. So you're looking at X1900XT/7900GTX territory. The X1800XT could do medium at 1024 res, but the frame drops were sometimes absolutely grueling. The X1900XT was really that much better in some cases.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. August 2008 @ 03:50
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 03:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Overclocked, and using my 3.15Ghz E4300 my X1900XT scored 6700, so we're looking at X1900XT-X / X1950 territory.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 03:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
The best last-gen system I've seen run it was 7900GTX SLI with a 6000+. That could do medium-high settings at 1280 res.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 04:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Heh 'last gen' - technically two generations ago now isn't it?
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 04:29 |
Link to this message
|
I suppose it technically has been 2 generations now. But honestly, other than a few of the very newest(and some poorly coded) games, an X1900XTX or 7900GTX can do high resolution gaming just fine. The technology really isn't that dated yet and I still consider the X1900/7900 series pretty high end.
About 90% of the games I own can be maxed on my X1800XT. And others like Assassins Creed and World in Conflict can be played nearly maxed at 1280 res.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 04:34 |
Link to this message
|
At my res, very little can still be maxed on my X1900, UT2004 (no AA), and earlier stuff perhaps.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 04:38 |
Link to this message
|
My point being, though, the X1900XT is still a very capable card and is probably still great for those with a 1680 x 1050 monitor. When I say maxed, I don't necessarily mean resolution. Very few cards can max games at your resolution :P
Yes, tech is moving forward. But that doesn't make older tech completely obselete. It's still useful.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 04:46 |
Link to this message
|
Agreed, unless of course it's integrated....
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. August 2008 @ 06:47 |
Link to this message
|
Well, the X1800XT can also do Bioshock, FEAR, CoD4, CoD2, Episode 2, Assassins Creed, Unreal Tournament 3 and World In Conflict all max or near max at 1280 res. I would consider this a very common resolution for gamers and one that also can deliver fantastic visuals with a small amount of AA.
These are all fairly current games that each look awesome in their own right. So I think that anyone with an X1800/7800 series card or similar is probably gaming just fine if they have a 1280 monitor or similar.
Even though some of those games are getting on in years, for example FEAR and CoD2, they still make any Xbox 360 and PS3 game look like crap in comparison. Especially FEAR on the 360. It honestly looked like shit on a stick to me, even in HD.
We're just lucky that very fast cards can be had for so cheap. If you can't afford a 512MB HD3850, you have no business trying to build a gaming PC.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102715
And I think the 256MB version was a huge mistake. It is seriously crippled in Crysis and other games compared to the 512MB one. You honestly don't need much more power for any game unless you use high resolutions.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
