GMA950 BEAT (ok, by a very thin margini) the ATI chipset (these are both chipset integrated video), it was Intel GMA900 that was lower than the ATI chipset. It's definitely not for gaming, but for pretty much everything else, including digital photography and video, not to even mention "Office" applications, it's fine, and it will run Vista with Aero.Īlso, you got it wrong when you said that ATI Radeon Express 200m was lower in this benchmark than GMA950. sometimes it drops to 15fps when i'm surrounding by NPCs and bad guys, for for the most part i get decent 20-25fpsĪctually, as mid-range video goes, GMA 950 is pretty good. Just FYI, i'm currently playing Titan Quest on my dad's desktop (2.0GHz AMD Athlon64, 1GB RAM, GeForce FX5200 128MB video) on the lowest settings (640x480, lowest details, etc), and i'm quite satisfied at around 20 fps. if FEAR would work, do you think Titan Quest would work? i'm not really picky about having uber-great graphics and what not, i just want to get around 20-30fps at any graphics detail settings. Quick question: i saw you mentioned that FEAR is workable on the GMA950, and it's also listed on Intel's compatibility page. for example, the only game i have on my laptop is UT2004 and it runs very well on my laptop at 800圆00 with low-med graphic details (i've set the graphics card to 64MB). just sort of the light, time killing gaming if you know what i mean.
![gma 950 64mb and 128mb gma 950 64mb and 128mb](https://demo.pdfslide.net/img/380x512/reader019/reader/2020040814/5b1f8eae7f8b9a47328b5219/r-1.jpg)
![gma 950 64mb and 128mb gma 950 64mb and 128mb](https://i1.wp.com/www.alphr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/it_photo_17344.jpg)
how smart am i now?Īnyways, looks like this thread got some good posts in it.įor all intensive purposes, i don't intend to do any hardcore gaming on the GMA950.