http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/ Engadget Comments for Intel GMA HD graphics review deems them excellent for video, mediocre for gaming http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
Wait.. Dammit.. 2 years late for that...

]]>Jan 25th 2010 7:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
ok.......
..............................but can it play crysis?]]>Jan 25th 2010 7:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
So what they're trying to say is that GMA cannot even give a playable framerate on minimum settings...]]>Jan 25th 2010 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
Pretty much.

Can it play Crysis 2 though? (Should I have to ask?)

/sarcasm.]]>Jan 25th 2010 10:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
GMA=FAIL]]>Jan 25th 2010 11:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/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. ]]>Jan 25th 2010 4:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
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 ]]>Jan 25th 2010 4:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
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.]]>Jan 25th 2010 9:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 7:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/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]]>Jan 25th 2010 9:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Only if you're running intel's gpu crap.]]>Jan 25th 2010 11:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 1:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 7:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
fish don't swim at all in land. ]]>Jan 25th 2010 7:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 7:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
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]]>Jan 25th 2010 10:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
that our secret....we can't let the masses know!]]>Jan 25th 2010 12:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 7:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 8:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 8:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 8:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 8:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
"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]]>Jan 25th 2010 9:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 9:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
While you're correct that all of those chips are Dual core, you do know that none of them are Arrandale? ]]>Jan 25th 2010 9:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 9:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 9:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
No, they're really not.

They're Clarkdale, Arrandale chips are mobile pieces. ]]>Jan 25th 2010 9:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
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. ]]>Jan 25th 2010 9:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 9:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
Which is why I agreed with you on that part the first time. ]]>Jan 25th 2010 9:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 8:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
Apple uses at the very least a 9400 across the entire lineup... WHAT are you talking about.]]>Jan 25th 2010 8:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 9:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/
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.]]>Jan 25th 2010 9:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 9:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/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.]]>Jan 25th 2010 11:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 8:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/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.]]>Jan 25th 2010 10:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-review-deems-them-excellent-for-video-med/Jan 25th 2010 10:10AM