StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Looking at getting a new computer and noted that some are using this rather than an outside video card.

Intel's story is that

3D Gaming

Intel GMA 900 graphics now include hardware acceleration for 3D applications that utilize DirectX* 9 and OpenGL*, so you can play games for fun and enjoyment

Wondering what the graphics card equivalent of this would be?
And has anyone on the board used this as a standalone and been happy or satisfied with its performance, or do I need to get a graphics card to be happy.

Thanks in advance.

Jalinth wrote:Looking at getting a new computer and noted that some are using this rather than an outside video card.

Intel's story is that

3D Gaming

Intel GMA 900 graphics now include hardware acceleration for 3D applications that utilize DirectX* 9 and OpenGL*, so you can play games for fun and enjoyment

Wondering what the graphics card equivalent of this would be?
And has anyone on the board used this as a standalone and been happy or satisfied with its performance, or do I need to get a graphics card to be happy.

Thanks in advance.

It would be equivalent to, say, an inexpensive bargain card from nVidia or ATI. Intel's aim is usually to produce a video chipset that is stable and compatible with all the basic OS driver specifications. That is to say, if you're looking for basic business-level video, then the Intel chipset is fine. Otherwise, even the cheapest bargain-basement competing PCI-X offerings from nVidia or ATI will run rings around the Intel offering.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
Wondering what the graphics card equivalent of this would be?
And has anyone on the board used this as a standalone and been happy or satisfied with its performance, or do I need to get a graphics card to be happy.

Thanks in advance.

In specs, it could be near equilivent to a 9200, but in practice, it sucks, with poor driver support.

Praticle equivlant? A lame hamster trying to spin the wheel but happens to have a history of heavy smoking and has never worked out since junior high


In othewords near complete crap good only for displaying 2D desktops or prehaps 3D ..... screenshots

Intels Accerlators reguarly choke on simple tasks like DVD movies, heaven forbid gaming

Mr Bean wrote:Praticle equivlant? A lame hamster trying to spin the wheel but happens to have a history of heavy smoking and has never worked out since junior high


In othewords near complete crap good only for displaying 2D desktops or prehaps 3D ..... screenshots

Intels Accerlators reguarly choke on simple tasks like DVD movies, heaven forbid gaming

Heaven forbid Intel be able to producing something good... oh wait, compared to its earlier releases, and ALL Intergrated graphics(bar the Nforce2 which was a GF4MX), it works pretty well, and beats the Radeon 9000.

High praise

Seriously, if you don't game, at all, its a okey card, but for anything serious, blow 80$ and get a 9600 Pro.

900-series, Ace. Last I checked, the 9600 Pro was A) realistically priced in an actual retail environment a good deal above 80 dollars, and B) not PCI Express.

White Haven wrote:900-series, Ace. Last I checked, the 9600 Pro was A) realistically priced in an actual retail environment a good deal above 80 dollars, and B) not PCI Express.

A) http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 471&depa=1 100$, near enough.

B) The X600 reminds you of anything?

A) That's a Newegg price for a bulk product, I operate in the real world

B) An X6 is also notably not 80 bucks either

White Haven wrote:A) That's a Newegg price for a bulk product, I operate in the real world

B) An X6 is also notably not 80 bucks either

A) Still aviable for purchase

B) Fine, *gives up* take a X300 off my hands

Thanks for the info.

I knew Intel's previous offerings were pretty skippy - apparently the most current one simply has better marketing.

Thanks to the Canadian dollar, it isn't bad.

Also, is Newegg a good place to buy stuff and does anyone have other suggestions (especially Canadian )
?

Jalinth wrote:Thanks for the info.

I knew Intel's previous offerings were pretty skippy - apparently the most current one simply has better marketing.

Thanks to the Canadian dollar, it isn't bad.

Also, is Newegg a good place to buy stuff and does anyone have other suggestions (especially Canadian )
?

Well, the new one is better, slightly, but yes, dump it
Get a motherboard without it, and it might be cheaper.

I don't think Newegg ships outside the U.S, definitly not international.

Get a motherboard without it, and it might be cheaper.

Not significantly, and CERTAINLY not nearly the ~$40 (at least) cheaper it'd need to be to balance out.

I don't know why people are complaining. It's like pointing at a Civic and complaining that it's not a Porsche. If you want to play games, get a gaming product. If you don't want to play games, why waste the money on a separate card?

My beef with Intel's previous integrated video offerings wasn't the fact that they sucked at 3D.
I expected them to as no integrated solution can really compete with a separate GPU.

No, no. My beef is much simpler.

At resolutions beyond 1024x768, they are just Godawful to work with.
The output was blurry as hell at 1152x864 on both my 845 based laptop's VGA port and on a Intel D845GEBV2 based system I built for my union local.

Get the trick of decent 2D video down, then worry about 3D.
What's the 2D output look like on the new chips?

The issue might be the DACs chosen by the motherboard manufacturer rather than the Intel graphics chip.

At resolutions beyond 1024x768, they are just Godawful to work with.

In all fairness, most people I know HATE using a resolution higher than 1024x768. I know one guy that got a 22" monitor and ran it at 800x600. Said he liked having the icons huge.

Intel markets at the average shmoe. This leaves the power user in the dust, unfortunately...

On the flip side, a 'power user' has no business touching onboard video to begin with.

Too true, although you'd think that Intel would at least TRY to take up SOME of that market. Maybe even develop their own add-in video card chipset.

Behold ATI's R-series chipset, for all your Onboard That Doesn't Suck needs.

phongn wrote:The issue might be the DACs chosen by the motherboard manufacturer rather than the Intel graphics chip.

I don't think it's the DAC's, as the 845G has a 350Mhz integrated RAMDAC and can directly drive an analog monitor. More likely the manufacturer used cheap components for the low pass filter on the output and they're cutting off the signals needed to drive high resolutions clearly.

IIRC, some of the early GeForce cards from a lot of vendors had this problem as well.

I'd expect Intel to demand a little more quality from their suppliers as shitty video directly affects the customer's perception of 'Intel Inside'.