Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: Do you guys think the intel GMA X3000 will run halo 2 vista ?
  • Subject: Do you guys think the intel GMA X3000 will run halo 2 vista ?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Do you guys think the intel GMA X3000 will run halo 2 vista ?
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

do u guys think the gma x3000 will run halo 2 vista cuz im getting a new system soon and i want to no what gfx card to get

  • 04.12.2007 5:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

No, it won't.

  • 04.12.2007 5:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Dude, I don't think that's even a graphics card to begin with. Are you kidding?

The answer is not a snowball's chance in hell. Sorry.

  • 04.12.2007 5:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Seriously, do you just ignore the stickies?

  • 04.12.2007 5:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: PanchoBelt
Seriously, do you just ignore the stickies?
The stickies have nothing to do with this--you can't seriously consider using an integrated chipset to run Halo 2 Vista.

  • 04.12.2007 5:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Yes, but he could at least use google.

  • 04.12.2007 5:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: PanchoBelt
Yes, but he could at least use google.
You mean the Google.

Man I love Bushisms...

  • 04.12.2007 5:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=8791928

Check here on this link.

  • 04.12.2007 5:52 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I know that GMA 900 can run Half Life 2, halo and Doom 3 smoothly at 640x480.
You'd just hope to have lots of ram and a good processor.

  • 04.12.2007 7:04 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

Posted by: brianv
I know that GMA 900 can run Half Life 2, halo and Doom 3 smoothly at 640x480.
You'd just hope to have lots of ram and a good processor.


call me when it can max FEAR or Oblivion at 1920x1200.

  • 04.13.2007 12:20 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

How the heck could it not play Halo 2 Vista?
It has above the required Pixel Shader and Vertex Shader versions (both of which are 3.0 on the x3000)
It's capable of full hardware vertex processing (it has Hardware T+L)
It maxes out at 384mb of system ram used for graphics operations, so if you have enough RAM, that wouldn't be a problem.
It has full support for DirectX 9.0c
And it has a 667mhz clock speed.
Let's compare that to the nVidia 6000...
First off: The memory size beats the **** out of the nVidia, which has 128 for GF6100
Clock speed is also faster, 667MHz definitely beats 425MHz
Both support DirectX 9.0c
I'm sure the other fine details are surpassed by the integrated card. The way I see it, it should cause no problems playing Halo 2, granted, those specs may be fore minimal play ability, in which case the game may run only with lower settings, but other than that, I see no problems.

  • 04.13.2007 10:59 AM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

Why? Because it's really really slow.

  • 04.13.2007 11:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Admiral Bacon
How the heck could it not play Halo 2 Vista?
It has above the required Pixel Shader and Vertex Shader versions (both of which are 3.0 on the x3000)
It's capable of full hardware vertex processing (it has Hardware T+L)
It maxes out at 384mb of system ram used for graphics operations, so if you have enough RAM, that wouldn't be a problem.
It has full support for DirectX 9.0c
And it has a 667mhz clock speed.
Let's compare that to the nVidia 6000...
First off: The memory size beats the **** out of the nVidia, which has 128 for GF6100
Clock speed is also faster, 667MHz definitely beats 425MHz
Both support DirectX 9.0c
I'm sure the other fine details are surpassed by the integrated card. The way I see it, it should cause no problems playing Halo 2, granted, those specs may be fore minimal play ability, in which case the game may run only with lower settings, but other than that, I see no problems.
Except that you're comparing oranges to apples.

  • 04.13.2007 11:38 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

But they both count as one serving of fruit!



And I actually think an x3000 would be a lot faster than an nVidia 6100. The card itself is faster, and being integrated would make the bus speed a faster, even if it hogs other things. And a few lost frames per second doesn't mean it won't be playable...
Edit: Also, the nVidia 6100 is outdated tech, the x3000 is top-of-line for integrated cards.

[Edited on 04.13.2007 2:57 PM PDT]

  • 04.13.2007 2:54 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

It wont be playable. Look at some benchmarks, it's about equal to an x300.

  • 04.13.2007 3:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: staticx576
It wont be playable. Look at some benchmarks, it's about equal to an x300.

Where are you getting your benchmarks for the Intel GMA x3000 if you're comparing it to a Radeon x300?
PS/VS is higher than an x800, size is in par with an x800, so unless your considering pixel tunnels, it's right up there in the "playable" region, everything else would just determine speed...

Ok, let me put it this way for everyone:
According to the benchmarks in the Minimum Requirements (and based on the stats of the listed minimum cards) the Intel GMA 950 and the Intel GMA 3000 could play Halo 2 Vista if it wasn't for their lack of hardware transform and lighting. Now I'm not saying they'd play it well, but if you emulated Hardware T+L, they could play Halo 2 Vista. Now, the Intel GMA x3000 has amazing stats: pixel shader and vertex shader 3.0, 667 Mhz core speed, 384Mb of video memory (which is great if you have enough system RAM to spare for graphics), and unlike the other GMA's it has hardware t+l. The Intel GMA x3000's stats far surpass the ATI Radeon x700, in fact, they are a hell of a lot better than my x800 (which only has pixel shader + vertex shader 2, 256Mb of dedicated RAM, and a much slower clock speed). Now according to these benchmarks, the Intel GMA x3000 should not only be able to play Halo 2 Vista, but should be able to play Halo 2 Vista quite nicely. That's all I have to say. If you can actually provide one shred of proof that shows that the GMA x3000 is below the specs of an nVidia 6100 or an ATI Radeon x700, then please, show me, because I would love to see it.

[Edited on 04.13.2007 3:20 PM PDT]

  • 04.13.2007 3:07 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Heroic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

yeah not all integrated chipsets suck...most of them do, but not all. You may be able to play it, ignore the people who posted without doing research.

  • 04.13.2007 3:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Pet0sh
yeah not all integrated chipsets suck...most of them do, but not all. You may be able to play it, ignore the people who posted without doing research.


Exactly.
And I don't care if I'm comparing my orange to your apples, because your apples are rotted to the core and my orange is from Florida.
Just because it's an integrated card does not mean it sucks. In fact, I wish I had an x3000 over my Radeon x800 (which is technically an AIW x800, but seeing as the TV input doesn't work, it's as worthless as a Radeon). Pixel Shader 3? Vertex Shader 3? My god, it just hit par with an Xbox 360. I don't want to repost everything I said, so I'll just end it there. It's a great card, and I'd put any amount of money on it playing Halo 2 Vista. Period.

  • 04.13.2007 3:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

1 question

why are you not getting a graphics card?

@Admiral Bacon

your comparing it to the nvidia 6000 series, please, try to compare something like a 8800 gts

it has 340 VRAM... what makes the IGP better?

[Edited on 04.13.2007 3:36 PM PDT]

  • 04.13.2007 3:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm going to guess he isn't getting a graphics card because graphics cards are expensive. Even an old ATI x700 is in the hundreds of dollars, and it's so outdated it's not even worth looking at, much less buying and installing in a PC. The only graphics cards worth buying these days are the nVidia GeForce 8800 and the ATI equivilant. That'll set you back around $600, which can buy you one dang nice notebook from BestBuy (souce: Acer 5610x, $600, new, Vista Premium, Intel GMA 950, 1.66ghz dual-core, 80gb HDD, DVD-RW burner)


EDIT:
Why would I compare it to the best graphics card on the market? To continue with the analogy, why would I compare my orange with a steak and shrimp dinner at a fancy restaraunt? That just doesn't make sense.
I think the point the topic starter is trying to make is that he doesn't want to have to buy a graphics card, so he wants to know if buying a stock machine will suffice. If the stock machine has an Intel GMA x3000 - and seeing as how that's Intel's standard for new desktop chipsets - then the answer is yes, buying the stock machine will suffice. I will not compare something that's going to cost him nothing to something that he can buy a brand new PC rather than buy.

[Edited on 04.13.2007 3:43 PM PDT]

  • 04.13.2007 3:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Admiral Bacon
I'm going to guess he isn't getting a graphics card because graphics cards are expensive. Even an old ATI x700 is in the hundreds of dollars, and it's so outdated it's not even worth looking at, much less buying and installing in a PC. The only graphics cards worth buying these days are the nVidia GeForce 8800 and the ATI equivilant. That'll set you back around $600, which can buy you one dang nice notebook from BestBuy (souce: Acer 5610x, $600, new, Vista Premium, Intel GMA 950, 1.66ghz dual-core, 80gb HDD, DVD-RW burner)
k, lol

1 a x700 is intergrated, thats a whole mother board and its horrible

2 a 8800 gts is about 300 bucks

3 that laptop is craptacular, 1.66ghz lol git with teh program

my suggestion is to get off, do some research then come back with a worthy post that has some present day computer knowledge

  • 04.13.2007 3:42 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

That's a 1.66ghz dual core (1.66 x 2 = 3.5), and it's actually really nice... Not the point.

An x700 can be purchased separately for $100, it's not just an integrated chipset.
The nVidia 6200 is also around $100.
The 8800 GTS may be a reasonable comparison, but as you said, it is a round $300. I was referring to the top-of-the-line GeForce 800 GTX.
I have all the knowledge I need to make a post.

[Edited on 04.13.2007 3:47 PM PDT]

  • 04.13.2007 3:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Admiral Bacon
That's a 1.66ghz dual core (1.66 x 2 = 3.5), and it's actually really nice... Not the point.

An x700 can be purchased separately for $100, it's not just an integrated chipset.
The nVidia 6200 is also around $100.
The 8800 GTS may be a reasonable comparison, but as you said, it is a round $300. I was referring to the top-of-the-line GeoForce 800 GTX.
I have all the knowledge I need to make a post.
i have a 6200, try $50 about a year ago

the 8800 GTS (from the very limited resources on the GMA X3000) is faster

the GMA X3000 it has a clock speed of 667, my 6200 has a set speed of 350, OCed to about 420

so im guessing that it is about equal to a 7600 or lower, but with a awesome CPU and at least 2 1/2 gigs of ram, you might pull off H2V on low settings

also it could be a pentium D dual core or w/e, and those are teh sux

oh yeah i read your edit. im just pointing out the best on the market. if he wants a GPU that can run H2V at a higher res than the xbox, then get a 7800 GS



[Edited on 04.13.2007 4:04 PM PDT]

  • 04.13.2007 4:01 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

Posted by: Admiral Bacon
I'm going to guess he isn't getting a graphics card because graphics cards are expensive. Even an old ATI x700 is in the hundreds of dollars, and it's so outdated it's not even worth looking at, much less buying and installing in a PC. The only graphics cards worth buying these days are the nVidia GeForce 8800 and the ATI equivilant. That'll set you back around $600, which can buy you one dang nice notebook from BestBuy (souce: Acer 5610x, $600, new, Vista Premium, Intel GMA 950, 1.66ghz dual-core, 80gb HDD, DVD-RW burner)
EDIT:
Why would I compare it to the best graphics card on the market? To continue with the analogy, why would I compare my orange with a steak and shrimp dinner at a fancy restaraunt? That just doesn't make sense.
I think the point the topic starter is trying to make is that he doesn't want to have to buy a graphics card, so he wants to know if buying a stock machine will suffice. If the stock machine has an Intel GMA x3000 - and seeing as how that's Intel's standard for new desktop chipsets - then the answer is yes, buying the stock machine will suffice. I will not compare something that's going to cost him nothing to something that he can buy a brand new PC rather than buy.


Please do some research before you deicde to post, it helps not only for you to understand what everyone is talking bout, but to help make a more informed post.

An x700 is NOT hundreds of dollars to start with, I do not know where you conjur these figures from but they are about as right as the rest of your content. Second of all I do not know how you get away comparing a graphics card to a laptop, they are related how? Not to mention those specs leave A LOT to be desired, you get what you pay for. You will get a whole lot more performance from a $600 graphics card than a laptop at that price.

As for your analogy, it is pretty underwhelming, especially since you try to argue that the x3000 is on par with an xbox 360. I would say it's closer to comparing rotten apples, oranges, and filet mignon with an x3000, geforce 6 series and a geforce 8 series. The x3000 will never be good, at least to my standards. I do not care if you dont mind having the CPU do some of the work since intel sucks with drivers and even then it wont perform well. The 6 series was good for it's time and infact I still have 2 6800 GTs that run quite well, but they have been relegated into the position of apples. And lastly the 8 series which everyone knows how well it performs.

A few more things I would like to point out are that you CANNOT add the clock frequencies of dual core processors, it does NOT work that way and it wont. Also it boggles my mind to know why you would ever want to trade in an x800 series card for that intel processing unit, sure it may support sm3(the Xxxx series does not) but then again so does my CPU(everything can be emulated in software) but it will not perform as well as I would like just like an x3000.

Keeping with the misinformed trend you really have no clue what you are talking about, just like CPU's you cannot translate performance across different chipsets based purely on megahurtz. I thought this was common knowledge now adays. It brings back bad memories of the pentium 4 days. Who cares what MHZ rating it has because it has 2 pixel shaders, of course that is also a bad metric on how to rate parts since they also do not translate well across different chipsets so that is out. Then we will move on to memory, forgive yourself for you do not know what you say but you cannot use memory sizes to compare either. This is especially true since it's an integrated card with memory being leached off the main system ram which not only slows the rest of the system down but it also is incredibly slow memory compared to the dedicated ram on the GPU itself, but you knew this. There are geforce 6200s which can use up to 512 megs of ram and by your logic is better than say a 7900gt with 256 since the 6200 has twice the amount.

[Edited on 04.13.2007 4:14 PM PDT]

  • 04.13.2007 4:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Of course an nVidia 8800 is going to be faster... That's like saying a McLaren F1 is going to be faster than riding a bike...


(and with the Acer notebook, it's not a Pentium D, as I said, it's good processor, not a piece of crap, lol)

And yes, if he wants a good card to run it wonderfully, I would also suggest a GeForce 7 as ATI has always given me problems.


EDIT:
@staticx576: You have yet to provide me with your statistics on the x3000. You have given me nothing to work with. I've done plenty of research. And yes, I do believe $150 (new) is "in the hundreds". I compare a graphics card to a notebook because I'm saying you could spend the money on a graphics card or buy a whole 'nother computer (which with some very small fixes, btw, could play H2V itself) for the same price. With Intel's x3000, the CPU does none of the work.. The only part of the system being used is RAM, and if you have enough to begin with, it doesn't matter. I'm only adding the clock speeds for the speed when actually doing something. Playing a game that runs on a single thread is much different, and I understand that, but having two 1.6 ghz processors when multitasking is like have a 3.5 ghz processor. When you emulate rendering with a CPU (also known as a reference graphics device) the highest FPS you can get is around 2-3 (and do NOT try to argue that, I know, I write games)


THE INTEL GRAPHICS MEDIA ACCELERATOR X3000 WILL PLAY HALO 2 VISTA. Period.

[Edited on 04.13.2007 4:17 PM PDT]

  • 04.13.2007 4:08 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2