In fact, the AMD platform provided better performance at the native LCD resolution than Intel manages at 800圆00.īefore we get too carried away, we should also mention that there are three games in our test list where neither platform could come anywhere near providing adequate performance: Call of Duty: World at War, Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena, and Mass Effect all failed to break 20 FPS at 800圆00. Out of all of the games we tested, only Company of Heroes and Unreal Tournament 3 are even remotely playable (20 to 24 FPS) at the native LCD resolution. Unreal Tournament 3, STALKER: Clear Sky (barely), Company of Heroes, Devil May Cry 4 (again barely), and Empire: Total War manage tolerable performance.
INTEGRATED INTEL GMA 4500 GRAPHICS GAMING PERFORMANCE DRIVER
(Incidentally, if we drop the four failed titles along with ETQW and Crysis from the average, AMD's HD 3200 ends up being just 88% faster, so further driver tweaks could still help Intel.) You might not think that's a fair comparison, but if we look at frame rates there are only five titles where Intel managed playable frame rates - and this is at 800圆00 with minimum detail settings. If we add up all the frame rates in all of the titles (counting a zero against Intel for any games that they fail to run properly), the final tally is that the AMD platform ends up providing more than twice the performance of the Intel platform (140% faster) when it comes to gaming. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is another title that wasn't even close, with AMD's 780G providing 266% better performance than the 4500MHD. The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, and Race Driver: GRID all failed to run on the Intel IGP. Frankly, the fact that Crysis runs at all on Intel (with DX9 mode forced) was a bit surprising, but AMD ended up being a whopping 335% faster so let's not dwell on the achievement. In fact, the closest Intel gets is in STALKER: Clear Sky where the AMD platform is only 31% faster. Sigh.)Īs you probably expected, there's not a single instance where the Intel integrated graphics provide a better gaming experience than the AMD IGP. (I know… most of you have already skipped these two paragraphs and are staring at the chart. That's pretty bad if you're interested in gaming, but we do have to give Intel some credit: the last time I tried to test gaming compatibility with an Intel IGP (GMA 950), only about one third of the titles would even load properly! Okay, are your expectations set sufficiently low yet? Here we go. These four titles would crash to the desktop and nothing we tried fixed the situation. In fact, out of the 18 titles that we tested, the Intel laptop still failed to run four of them. While we're making disclaimers, we also need to mention that Intel's GMA 4500MHD failed to run quite a few games until we force DirectX 9 mode. Okay, that's not entirely true we did get a few titles to break 30 frames per second at the native 1366x768 LCD resolution, but those games where the exception rather than the rule. We loaded a variety of titles onto the laptops, and after a look at performance using medium detail settings we quickly decided that even the Radeon HD 3200 had no business running anything above minimum detail at 800圆00. The fact of the matter is that neither of these solutions is particularly fast when it comes to playing 3D games. These integrated graphics solutions might be the best that AMD and Intel currently offer in laptops, but don't get excited. Before we get to the gaming results - quit looking ahead and pay attention to this paragraph! - we need to put gaming performance in perspective.
0 kommentar(er)
