Intel GMA HD graphics review deems them excellent for video, mediocre for gaming
By Vlad Savov 
posted January 25th 2010 7:29AM
posted January 25th 2010 7:29AM
posted January 25th 2010 7:29AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
*Insert Crisis Joke Here*
Wait.. Dammit.. 2 years late for that...
@geekthree
ok.......
..............................but can it play crysis?
@geekthree
So what they're trying to say is that GMA cannot even give a playable framerate on minimum settings...
@Kurian
Pretty much.
Can it play Crysis 2 though? (Should I have to ask?)
/sarcasm.
@Kurian Whenever I'm looking for a laptop etc. as soon as I see "Graphics: GMA xxxx" I move on.
GMA=FAIL
@Kurian Well the minimum frame rates here matter somewhat more than the average for playability and I would say that most of the time it'll be 24FPS+ which is playable although not great.
Also somewhat important to point out is that the intel GPU is actually very overclockable, so you're likely to get acceptable frame rates for casual gaming as long as you don't run crysis.
@Kurian
As someone who was cursed with a GMA x3100 for a year and a half, I can safely attest to that, with a few exceptions, F.E.A.R 1, HL2 (if you consider 15-120 on medium playable) DOOM 1 and 2, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R Shadow of Chernobyl (ehh, I found it playable, but I think I just adapted to the lag)
I
@blue Really? Whenever I am looking for a laptop, I immediately look at portability, size, battery life etc... Dedicated graphics in a laptop are FAIL because they'll never compete with desktop graphics. Not to mention they are huge battery hogs.
I buy laptops so I can use them on the bus if I need to, use them at university for notes, powerpoint presentations, maybe watch a DVD if I am travelling or downloading music.
I don't need to be playing Modern Warfare 2 on high settings on my laptop. I have a powerful custom-built desktop for that.
Believe me, my cousin owns an 18" quad core HP laptop with dedicated graphics and it's still weak compared to desktops. If you use it on battery, you get maybe an hour or more before battery dies. So most of the time, he just leaves it plugged in like a desktop.
I can understand the convenience of having a laptop with dedicated graphics for when you want to play games, but believe me, 99% percent of the time, you'll be gaming at home, using the power cord.
Integrated graphics are pitiful for games, but 95% of people don't buy laptops just to play games like Modern Warfare 2.
console's are for gaming, computers are better for everything else! So this one is good news~
@cosmicinglewood
Your joking right? Consoles are for those who want long loading times and the inability to play a game at its full potential, especially for those games that are first made for the pc then ported to the console. I love my PS3, but it will never replace my pc when it comes to FPS. I can kind of see your point when it comes to Sports games, but you need to be more specific :D
@cosmicinglewood
Only if you're running intel's gpu crap.
@SlaterGS PC gaming is easily the most powerful, but it's also the least economic. Your system becomes obsolete, so quickly and you can't simply change the processor. You'll most likely need to get a new motherboard. The components cost far more then a simple 300 dollar console and your more secure with a PS3 or 360 (well RROD, but I think that problem is mostly gone).
In other news, water is wet and fish don't swim well in land...
@Aguiluz
fish don't swim at all in land.
@dedparrot The fact that fish swim in land is the whole reason why you exist.
@dedparrot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJJlb93kf4k
ontopic: even though these are worse than proper graphics cards it seems they are still sufficient for people who don't play games and i imagine they make the whole PC cheaper in the end
@(Unverified) NOOOOOOOOOOO! STOP! DON'T SAY IT
that our secret....we can't let the masses know!
maybe new Intel GMA HD for PDA's :D
yeah, but can it play Doo... oh, dang it. yes it can.
Breaking News....this story isn't!
LOL, its 2010 and Quad-Core is still losing against Dual-Core...
@clinte Uh, no. At those settings the integrated graphics are the bottleneck, not the processors. An i3 or i5 wipe the floor with equivalent Core 2's.
@Nitesh
"An i3 or i5 wipe the floor with equivalent Core 2's."
that's because on hyperthreading, turbo mode and QPI in some cases. a dual-core processor related to the i5 or i7 would outperform a core 2
@Liquidmark Yes, and? My comment still stands. You know that Arrendale IS dual core, right?
@Nitesh
While you're correct that all of those chips are Dual core, you do know that none of them are Arrandale?
@jon The i5 and i3 are Arrendale.
@jon Thats kinda what the whole test is about, Arrendale integrates the IGP onto the processor board...What did you think they were testing?
@Nitesh
No, they're really not.
They're Clarkdale, Arrandale chips are mobile pieces.
@Nitesh
http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/corei5-specs.htm
http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/corei3-specs.htm
Arrandale part numbers have an "M" in them.
@jon Oh, whoops. But its still dual core, so my comment on clinte's comment still stands.
@Nitesh
Which is why I agreed with you on that part the first time.
Hate to bring everything back to Apple, but this makes me wonder what they will do for the graphics situation. A 9400 to intel's IGP is a quite a downgrade. Dell already showed laptops with hybrid graphics using Arrendale, so thats possible, but probably not for the 13 incher.
@Nitesh
Apple uses at the very least a 9400 across the entire lineup... WHAT are you talking about.
@Liquidmark Exactly. Arrendale integrates the IGP onto the processor board, and Nvidia is no longer allowed to make the chipset for Intel.
@Liquidmark
He's talking about what apple will be doing with the next gen Macbooks. I think everyones a little scared they're gonna ditch discrete graphics for the GMA HD when they release their core i5/i7 macbooks.
@Luffy Yeah, thats what I was saying. I doubt they will ditch discreet cards (that would be horribly, horribly stupid) but its the 13 incher I'm worried about, as it does not have a discreet card right now and so would be victim to the Intel IGP.
@Luffy
Yeah, this is most likely why Apple have taken ages to update the macbook line, when most of their other lines have already been updated with the new intel cpus...
You gotta really hate intel for doing this though...in the end this just hurts the consumer, especially gamers.
Let NVIDIA do what they are good at -- making GPUs.
Let Intel do what they are good at -- making CPUs.
So basically what this says is that AMD's $87 processor and a ~$60 motherboard outperforms Intel's $200 processor and more expensive motherboard for gaming? Come on Intel...
@darkNiGHTS
While using probably a few times more power as the Intel chip solution. And don't forget that everything *but* gaming will be slower on the AMD setup.
Clearly, if you're a games, discreet graphics will be necessary at least for the next couple years.
Duh?