Intel IGMA x3100 vs. Nvidia GeForce 8400M GS

[iceangel89]

ya i thought so too, that X3100 has quite ok performance... i think geforce 8400 is not that worth, if i want that i think 8600 will be much better. and X3100 is much cheaper... mmm, but is X3500 coming out soon? i read its much better and has DX10...

[puntoMX]

No, the x3100 also supports DX 10 when the drivers are ready from Intel. Only difference between the x3100 and x3500 is the higher core clock, 500Mhz vs. 667MHz, and OpenGL 2.0 support, as the x3100 has OpenGL 1.5.

[Idontwantspam]

I've heard that Intel is releasing a dedicated GPU some time in the future, though I'm not sure when. Supposedly it'll compete with Nvidia and ATI... which none of their graphics options do yet. I love intel, so I'm interested to see how that turns out. It's not available yet though, and who knows how much it'll cost.

[puntoMX]

Indeed, you heart it well. As AMD has ATI now, Intel wants a peace of the cake too. But they better be starting to make GOOD drivers unlike they did for there integrated VGA.

[Idontwantspam]

yah their integrated solutions suck pretty much entirely. I'm hoping their dedicated card will be pretty good. Intel makes good hardware in the processing department, so hopefully they can improve their graphics. Although I think Nvidia will always win in the graphics department.

As for AMD vs. Intel... just the other day, my economics teacher was talking about how he won't invest in AMD because they're not doing very well, and how he bought some Intel stock and he's making a lot of money on it. This from they guy who asks me for help because he can't figure out how to print an 8.5x14 in word. Go figure.

[puntoMX]

yah their integrated solutions suck pretty much entirely.

Not really, there 950 started to be good, the 3000 sucked but the x3x00 series were good again. I have 945GC boards here that do a better job then the onboard ATI and nVidia ones, although the only for AMD 690G/V is good too.

I would buy AMD stock now; they will go up sooner or later. There are large groups that buy stock now from AMD .

[Idontwantspam]

Ha. I've got a 945GM on this machine, and it can't take anything graphics heavy. Portal bluescreens it. It always identifies the graphics driver, and I've got the latest update, as well as latest BIOS, etc.

[iceangel89]

Ha. I've got a 945GM on this machine, and it can't take anything graphics heavy. Portal bluescreens it. It always identifies the graphics driver, and I've got the latest update, as well as latest BIOS, etc.

oh thats quite bad then ...

[puntoMX]

Must be the brand of the laptop then .

Here people play games on them for hours and hours, but I’m talking about desktops.

[Idontwantspam]

Could be a problem with the specific computer, I don't know. I don't really feel like reinstalling the OS though, and I don't game very frequently so it's not a huge problem. It does work fine on our desktop which is even older and has a GMA945 too.

[iceangel89]

actually i heard HL2 and some other games can crash PCs, maybe check ur graphics driver?

but if it can crash a computer, then i think not really safe getting it, arrggg, but a GeForce or Radeon is much more ex actually... hope X3500 come out faster... i think i heard that is a better 1,... on wikipedia

anyone knows when it will be released? for laptops or a later series like X4000 or X5000(i read they are skipping X4000)

[markerichannelly]

The nVidia GeForce 8400m GS is roughly about 3 times faster than the integrated Intel GMA X3100 GPU. Have a look at the benchmark scores at notebookcheck.com ( http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphi...List.844.0.html ). The nVidia GeForce 8400m GS scores 1328 in 3D Mark 06. The Intel GMA X3100 scores 474 in 3D Mark 06. The X3100 supports Direct X 10, but dosen't have any driver support as of yet. Neither cards will really be powerful enough for DX10 anyway. The GMA X3100 is a very good INTEGRATED card, but no integrated card will probably ever beat a DEDICATED card competitor, as the Dedicated card isn't leaching of the main CPU and RAM! Have decided to get the 8400 m GS in my new XPS M1330 over the integrated GPU as I will be playing HL2 and Doom 3. Wouldn't trust Intel again with my graphics after what they did to me and millions of other people with the Intel GMA 900, not supporting Vista's Aero effects. I and many people are still p***ed off at Intel for doing that. Wouldn't trust them again after that. Long live nVidia!!!

[puntoMX]

The nVidia GeForce 8400m GS is roughly about 3 times faster than the integrated Intel GMA X3100 GPU.

So you say the 8400GT is about 30% slower then the GS and about the same (GT) as the G?

I saw that site before, but those benchmark scores are a bit odd...

If you use the latest drivers with the x3100, you will see that the 8400M series doesn’t perform 3 times better... just 1.2-1.3 times better in 3dmark06, but that doesn’t say much in real life gaming for older games. Newer titles with SM4.0, can’t be played with the 8400GS neither .

Any way, the x3100 should get 1k ratings in 3Dmark06... I don´t have a motherboard with x3100 around, so it would be nice if some one posted there scores here .

[bullo]

Hi! I’m new to this forum. Please, I would need your opinion on this.

I just bought a HP DV9500t customized. As there was a Christmas deal, I put the NVidia GeForce 8400M GS (128MB dedicated, and up to768 shared) instead of the Intel Integrated Graphics Media Accelerator x3100.

I’m not a gamer at all (I make music), but I always knew that a dedicated card is better. The GeForce has 128MB and the X3100 has none.

When I received the computer I saw that Vista was assigning 768MB of the main RAM to the video. As usually happened in the past, I thought I could disable or assign the shared video memory in the BIOS. To my surprise, the BIOS has no setting to change that!!! Of course, the driver either!!! Then I spent the last 4 days reading forums, but many “VIDEO TECH GUYS” say different things. What I would need to know is exactly this:

Since I’m not a gamer, I would like the ‘whole’ computer to have as much performance as possible for recording apps. I have 2GB of ram, but the Video is already using 768MB (Shared) that I will never use and there is no way to disable that! The Intel X3100 has NO dedicated memory, but it takes a maximum of 384MB from the main RAM!!!

So……..Which card should I have??? Intel Med. Acceleraton X3100 or the NVidia GeForce 8400M GS???

I’m thinking of returning my laptop if needed, since it is INSANE to share 769MB out of 2 GB!!! I just want it to use the dedicated memory!!!!

Also, I read in forums that that memory is ONLY used when the dedicated memory is used up, so if I don’t play games, it won’t happen (TurboCache). I called Nvidia Technical Support and they told me that those 768MB assigned to video in the 8400M GS ARE NOT AVAILABLE for other programs. They are just assigned to video weather I play games or not!

Bottom line: I thought that spending an extra 100 bucks will give me better performance than the integrated video card, since it wouldn’t use my main RAM and would have its own graph processor. But in this case, I think I paid more money only to have less memory available fro what I really need!!!

All your opinions will be really appreciated!!!

Thanks a lot!!!

Danny Bullo

[puntoMX]

Bottom line: I thought that spending an extra 100 bucks will give me better performance than the integrated video card, since it wouldn’t use my main RAM and would have its own graph processor. But in this case, I think I paid more money only to have less memory available fro what I really need!!!

Welcome to THE forums .

The extra 100 bucks wasn’t/isn’t worth it, well some don’t agree with me. Don’t worry too much about the RAM that "could be" used, it’s not that it directly lowers your RAM; it’s just marking the limits. So, when you don’t use to much video RAM, it will let the other RAM "free" so the apps can use it.

I hope this cleared it a bit up.