Aller au contenu

Photo

Intel GMA HD not good enough?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
8 réponses à ce sujet

#1
mgasparo815

mgasparo815
  • Members
  • 3 messages
I just bought mass effect on steam and when i try to launch it i get the mass effect logo to come up and then i get a black screen and the program crashes. is it my vid card or could it be something else. any help is appriciated.
thanks

#2
Bogsnot1

Bogsnot1
  • Members
  • 7 997 messages
No, its not. You need a real video card to play ME and ME2.

There is a thread buried somewhere in this forum telling you what you might try to get it running, but dont expect anything in the way of decent quality, framerates, or support if you have any other problems with it.

#3
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages

mgasparo815 wrote...

I just bought mass effect on steam and when i try to launch it i get the mass effect logo to come up and then i get a black screen and the program crashes. is it my vid card or could it be something else. any help is appriciated.
thanks

Intel hasn't even tried selling a real video graphics card in 13-14 years.  The only time they did try, it was a disaster.  All they can make is a business quality part that is imbedded within a larger chip, typically in the past, in one of the two ASICs making up their chipset pair.  Recently, they moved the video chip into the package with their i3 / i5 processors, however, it was still just a separate chip riding beside the cores and cache RAM. 

More recently, with the Sandy Bridge and some other much cheaper "Ivy Bridge" series, the chip has been more fully integrated into the cores' designs, and speed is greatly improved, although not image quality, not at all. 

High intensity 3D gaming still requires a discrete graphics card built onto its own separate circuit board, unless it is part of AMD's newest APU series, which fully integrates graphics with the cores and the cache, allowing decent image quality that presently is at the discrete HD 6570 level, which sits near the lower end of Medium (way above Intel's place), and a promise of reaching the HD 6670 level has been made. 

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 30 novembre 2011 - 04:33 .


#4
mgasparo815

mgasparo815
  • Members
  • 3 messages
well i can run dead space 2 (of course at very low settings) which is probably a more graphically intensive game than me1

#5
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages
Everyone should know that games that do not share the same game engine cannot be compared with one another meaningfully. Intel simply doesn't care about games, it's as simple as that. AMD and nVIDIA are who to trust.

#6
mgasparo815

mgasparo815
  • Members
  • 3 messages
i appreciate the comments but things like this is what turns people off from pc gaming. i dont want to worry about components and specs and all of that nonsense. when i get a game for my ps3 i know for sure it will run exactly as it should. theres no denying that when a game is running on pc its a better experience, but its also so much more of a hassle

#7
CrustyCat

CrustyCat
  • Members
  • 290 messages
PC gaming is a better experience in my opinion. I have never been able to get into console gaming. I have been PC gaming way too long, well over 20 years.

#8
Fredvdp

Fredvdp
  • Members
  • 6 186 messages

mgasparo815 wrote...

i appreciate the comments but things like this is what turns people off from pc gaming. i dont want to worry about components and specs and all of that nonsense. when i get a game for my ps3 i know for sure it will run exactly as it should. theres no denying that when a game is running on pc its a better experience, but its also so much more of a hassle

I personally enjoy the hassle. I prefer to play games on a machine that only has components that were hand picked by myself. I still play on consoles but that's mostly retro stuff.

#9
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages

CrustyCat wrote...

PC gaming is a better experience in my opinion. I have never been able to get into console gaming. I have been PC gaming way too long, well over 20 years.

I didn't like text-only games (Infocom, for instance), which were all that was around for my first computer.  Later, I found the graphical abilities of IBM's CGA was pretty bad, but the promise of graphical video was attractive.  From about 1983, 28 years ago, I had both a "business" PC and a "gaming" PC (PC-XT plus C64), although I had my first 8-bit CP/M machine in 1980. 

Nothing ever designed as a console ever appealed to me at all.  Laptops never struck me as even vaguely suitable to do gaming on, and blindly buying anything without knowing what I was getting (or not getting) always seemed like just throwing money away, so I would never, ever, have been closed-minded enough to have bought just Intel as graphics. 

G.