Link Copied
robertw3d:
Dear All,
First of All I would like to say Hi! to all of you :-)
It's my first post here, but I'm definately not newbie :-)
I bought HP 6510b with X3100 and Vista ):-[ for my wife and I see that this graphic processor has several big issues. I'm still in touch with Intel's technical support who's telling me that it has HW T&L unit but after my last tests I clearly see that it's nothing but lie.
Under Everest I see that T&L is not supported, Cinebench shows me exactly the same results no matter if I use software or OpenGL rendering. The same is with 3dmark 03 and 05 (2001 is not the best app to run under Vista) . Besides that I can't get an answer if X3100 has it's own 128MB of memory or not. I get an information that it reserves that amount of RAM, but in system information I see that I have 2048MB ... in my old laptops with 910XX or 950 when I reserved some amount of RAM that is subtracted it from total in system information ... Does anyone knows how it looks in real? It's really pity that Intel can't make just compatible drivers - I know that T&L is old but some apps still use is it instead of VS & PS. BTW - are they supported by HW or SW? ... there are so many doubts here ...
This can be one of the best mobile graphics chipstes (I think it's architecture can be as good as some entry level GFs or Radeons ... ) but so far it's so slooow (sometimes slower then my old Quadro FX500(GF5200)) produces a lot of troubles - in most newer games I have to play at 640x480 with almost no details (NFS:Pro Street, SEGA Rally REVO) or some just doesn't work (NFS:Carbon)
One more "interesting" problem at the end - when Vista's Aero is one then Age of Empires III Demo works much slower and graphics is not ok (textures seems to "overbrightened")
For me Intel should introduce in Vista such features (in that order):
- Full HW support for DX9.0(L) (incl. HW T&L !!)
- HW support for 3.0 (I'm not sure if works now in HW mode ...)
- Full compatibility with DX10
- Full compatibility with OpenGL 2.x (including GLSL which is now not supported)
What do you think about it?
Does anyone made performance comparison between best XP and 15.7 Vista driver - I would like to do it on my own but I would like to avoid making a mess on that laptop.
One more thing at the end - Microsoft Update downgrades 15.7 driver to some older version saying that it has "newer" one ... LOL!
Best Regards,
Robert
To hell with that guy who spewed out BS that the drivers don't have hardware T&L support and Vertex Shaders.
The driver has the ability to switch between hardware & software mode depending on which mode will be faster. DON'T be stupid. And Hardware is NOT always faster. Do you think a Riva TNT(TNT 1 basically) will be faster if it had hardware T&L compared to Core 2?? I don't think so.
I have DG965RYCK, E6300, Corsair 2*1GB 800, BIOS 1715,Vista x64 SP1 RC, Driver (Display 15.7) rest all to latest.
I am trying to play Crysis,I can play it for 2 min with 10 fps,but it freeze after every 2 min andI have to start game again.I have no issue with texture even if they are corrupt, but why does it freeze after 2 min. I have the original CD.
Errors in Console on Map load:
[Error]
Error: CallMethod - 'gotoAndStop' on invalid object. [Libs/UI/Menus_StartMenu.gfx] [Error]
Error: CallMethod - 'gotoAndStop' on invalid object. [Libs/UI/HUD_RadarCompassStealth.gfx] WhatI have checked is that on freeze, cpu utilisationis 50% (one core 100%) for crysis.exe, OS is working working fine andI can do ALT+TAB and end task crysis from taskmgr.All temperature in IDU are Green. None of the forums are reporting this. Can any one explain me whats wrong.
tccwin, the reason of the crash is probably related to running out of memory. Download the latest patches for Vista, there's a hotfix that reduces virtual memory usage significantly. However, you can't fix one thing: Vista and Crysis combined uses a LOT of memory. It doesn't happen in XP until I set settings to High or something. Because Vista+Crysis can exceed 32-bit limit of 4GB(2GB physical+2GB virtual), you crash.
I understand what you are saying. I have tried to apply that patch, also installed vista SP1 RC, tried on XP, XP with SP3 RC, 2003 with SP2, and Windows 2008 server. Every where its the same issue.
My System:
Core 2 Duo E6600
DG965WH
2x1GB DDR2-800 Transcend(5-5-5-15)
1x36GB WD360GD, and 1x160GB Seagate ST3160815AS
WinXP SP2
14.31.1 and 14.32 drivers
I have played 800x600 low settings for 40 minutes without a crash(I quit the game after that). I only saw a crash after 5-10 minutes when I play with almost everything on High.
It seems that the 14.32 got a bug (even though I can't find it - runs fine for me) and so they removed the dl. For all those who want to try the 14.32 (even if it has virtually no performance improvements imho) I upped it at rapidshare:
http://rapidshare.com/files/80314095/GFX_XP32_14.32.0.4885_PV_Intel.rar.html
But I remind you: as the 14.32 is not officially released for the X3100 Intel has no responsibilitys to help you on any issues. Neither do I for providing the dl.
Some of you complain about that very HW intensive games are not running properly.
An IGP is not built for games. If you want to game, buy a system with a dedicated graphics card, but you won't get5 hours battery lifetime with a GF8-Series built in.You simply can't complain if Crysis does not run fast on an IGP, even with low settings.It's simply not made for it. IGPs are made to run office apps, just basic stuff, because they should produce virtually no heat or consume a lot of power.BUT on the other hand, Intel said the X3100 would have DX10 support (which also means SM3.0, as it's part of the DX10 specs).This was a year ago. So, it was kind of an advertisement lie, because we still don't have it.
Even the old game "Settlers 5" bluescreens on XP, so there are also some serious issues with the drivers, even if they don't have the promised support yet.
To Robert:
I've got the 6510b, too. The X3100 can get up to 384mb from the system's memory (RAM). Thats also on the HP website I think.. ;-)
To tell you the truth, Intel never advertised the X3100 as DX10 part. Their presentations did, but that was not intended to the end-user, its meant for the motherboard manufacturers and system developers.
14.32improved performance and fixed texture bugs in BF2. Previous drivers show flashing ground on the game.
And X3100 is much weaker compared to the X3000. Plus the X3x00 architecture has only 2 ROPs and 4 TMUs. That's half of the pixel throughput of the GMA950, and the lowest discrete graphics cards. There are games that must be played on software mode for the X3100 because the hardware mode is slow, but same game can be played on the X3000 without software mode.
David - do you mean that X3100 is slower then X3000?? In pdf file with X3x00 comparison, this IGM seems to have more features (only X3500 should be faster ... ). How does it look like in real?
TIA for answer.
Exactly. Generally laptop parts are clocked lower than desktop parts to save power. X3000 is at 667MHz core and X3100 is at 500MHz. And as you would know, graphics chips love memory bandwidth. Desktop X3000 can use DDR2-800 with G965 chipset and laptop X3100 can use only DDR2-667 with GM965 chipset. Intel does seem to try to make mobile parts more advanced, but the basics of the X3100 is slower than the X3000. They are essentially based off the same architecture, aside from the DX10 support on theX3100 and faster clock on the X3000.
It's like comparing Geforce 7600 with Geforce 8400. The latter has DX10 features and a more advanced architecture, but the former is faster. That's like the same thing with X3100 and X3000. It runs Crysis at all lowest 800x600 with 8-12 fps, why bother running Ultra High to get DX10??
I'll give you where I got this theory:
3dmark05 results, 14.32 drivers, XP
Software T&L/VS
T7300/2GB DDR2-667/X3100
868
E6600/2GB DDR2-800/X3000
932
Not much difference there, considering the hardware difference.
Hardware T&L/VS
T7300/2GB DDR2-667/X3100
690
E6600/2GB DDR2-800/X3000
998
The measily 7% difference in software mode widened to 45% in hardware!! This tells that the X3000 architecture scales very well with memory bandwidth and core clock speed.
From the scant benchmarks I could find, the X3500 is 10-20% faster than the X3100. It doesn't have anything noticeable for architecture difference, its clocked same as X3000 and has same amount of shaders. They must have modified the internal architecture or something. Anyways, if my theory is true, they'll need the X4500 in the Montevina platform to catch up to the X3000 in the desktop, and the X4500 in the desktop will be far, far ahead.
And X3100 is much weaker compared to the X3000. Plus the X3x00 architecture has only 2 ROPs and 4 TMUs. That's half of the pixel throughput of the GMA950, and the lowest discrete graphics cards.
Really? So it's no wonder why the X3x00 is slower than the 950...
GJ Intel :-X
And X3100 is much weaker compared to the X3000. Plus the X3x00 architecture has only 2 ROPs and 4 TMUs. That's half of the pixel throughput of the GMA950, and the lowest discrete graphics cards.
Really? So it's no wonder why the X3x00 is slower than the 950...
GJ Intel :-X
Hmm. I think some of the games that perform really bad like Portal and TF on Half Life 2 engine can perform much better. The performance in Half Life 2 is really good. OpenGL driver also sucks, so it can't run ET: Quake Wars, and runs really slow on Quake 4/Doom 3/Prey. The problem is, Nvidia/ATI's drivers are really that much better.
Performance on Half Life 2/Battlefield 2 is how X3000 should perform across lots of games, with the optimized driver. Doom 3 gets 10 fps on 640x480 low on the first scene walking around. Now that's a driver problem, not a hardware problem. It should be able to get 30 fps not 10. In comparison, Geforce 7150M gets 36 fps with AMD Turion. Geforce 7150M also has 2 ROP and something like 2 TMU.
