Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 - 128 or 256 MB on X60s

Message

csicsi · #1 Post by **csicsi** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:00 am

Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 - is this 128 or 256 MB video RAM on the X60s?

Thanks!

SeanHayward · #2 Post by **SeanHayward** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:47 pm

To my knowledge the Accelerator uses system memory and doesn't have its own dedicated video ram. I believe it can use up to 224 mb of the main system's ram.

thibouille27 · #3 Post by **thibouille27** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:56 pm

SeanHayward wrote:To my knowledge the Accelerator uses system memory and doesn't have its own dedicated video ram. I believe it can use up to 224 mb of the main system's ram.

Indeed. I think the default at bootup is 7MB (odd number I know).

FlexOink · #4 Post by **FlexOink** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:59 am

I think it totally sucks that the X60 doesnt have an option for a dedicated video card. I need one for my 3D work, and the intel integrated crap just doesnt cut it.

You could say that the X60 is a designed to keep the battery life as high as possible, and dedicated video will eat your battery, but Sony has introduced a hybrid system in the Vaio SZ series, where you can switch between integrated and GF Go7400.

The X60 is a beautiful machine, but it still is a business machine, so the dedicated card would have been in place.

thibouille27 · #5 Post by **thibouille27** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:06 am

And it would eat a couple centimeters on each side, no thank you.

I know, I'd like it as well but hey, as long as I can play WOW (and it does pretty well) I don't care...

trentblase · #6 Post by **trentblase** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:03 pm

FlexOink wrote:I think it totally sucks that the X60 doesnt have an option for a dedicated video card. I need one for my 3D work, and the intel integrated crap just doesnt cut it.

You could say that the X60 is a designed to keep the battery life as high as possible, and dedicated video will eat your battery, but Sony has introduced a hybrid system in the Vaio SZ series, where you can switch between integrated and GF Go7400.

The X60 is a beautiful machine, but it still is a business machine, so the dedicated card would have been in place.

I don't think you should expect high-end video out of an ultraportable. As you said, it's a business machine, and frankly very few business users need 3D for word processing, etc. I'm sure YOU need it for business, but it is not the common case.

FlexOink · #7 Post by **FlexOink** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:02 pm

No I dont mean a high-end card, I know that would not make any sense with heat production and battery consumption. But even a low end card is 4 times better than the intel integrated crap. Ati X1300 or GF Go 7100 dont eat up a lot of more power than the intel chip. It would only broaden the user base for the X60.

Expecially in the architecture/design branch a lot fo people need mobile battery friendly machines and a dedicated card.

I know the T60 is a great machine, but relatively thick, heavy and larger than the X60, not the best mobile, 'carry around whole day' laptop.

I love the X60 for its battery time, if only iy had a dedicated card.....

trentblase · #8 Post by **trentblase** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:46 pm

FlexOink wrote:No I dont mean a high-end card, I know that would not make any sense with heat production and battery consumption. But even a low end card is 4 times better than the intel integrated crap. Ati X1300 or GF Go 7100 dont eat up a lot of more power than the intel chip. It would only broaden the user base for the X60.

Expecially in the architecture/design branch a lot fo people need mobile battery friendly machines and a dedicated card.

I know the T60 is a great machine, but relatively thick, heavy and larger than the X60, not the best mobile, 'carry around whole day' laptop.

I love the X60 for its battery time, if only iy had a dedicated card.....

I see what you are saying, but I still think that an ultraportable is probably a poor match for architecture/design. Design work requires a fairly large screen, and of course there have been a number of complaints about the low resolution of the x60s (even though that's not an "ultraportable problem", per se).

Also, wouldn't the addition of any "card" make the system bigger? I suppose the 1.8" HD model might have room.

christopher_wolf · #9 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:54 am

FlexOink wrote:No I dont mean a high-end card, I know that would not make any sense with heat production and battery consumption. But even a low end card is 4 times better than the intel integrated crap. Ati X1300 or GF Go 7100 dont eat up a lot of more power than the intel chip. It would only broaden the user base for the X60.

Expecially in the architecture/design branch a lot fo people need mobile battery friendly machines and a dedicated card.

I know the T60 is a great machine, but relatively thick, heavy and larger than the X60, not the best mobile, 'carry around whole day' laptop.

I love the X60 for its battery time, if only iy had a dedicated card.....

The integrated video card by Intel *isn't* crap; use it before saying things about it. True, it won't scorch performance marks versus a larger discrete card, but it does get the job done. I have seen X41s with a good amount of memory handle my Biophysics simulator I coded in OpenGL pretty [censored] well and with a few 100K lines of OpenGL and OpenDX code in FORTRAN, it is a lightyear from a walk in the park to render in real time at video FPS.

The ATIs and the nVidias would eat up more power than the Intel chip, that has always been one of the things in favor of the Intel Graphics. Intel can design and control for power consumption much better not because they aren't discrete, but because, as an integrated chipset, they can consider it as part of the entire "Centrino" design architecture and control for it with tighter tolerances than they could expect out of somebody like ATI or nVidia. Having a ULV CPU and system isn't going to matter all that much anymore when you put in a graphics card, or any other system component, that doesn't heed the other power saving options except its own and gobbles away. What power that doesn't get used by the other devices, because they are uniformly clocking down and powersaving, will end up going to that device. Unless, of course, you clock down the discrete GPU; which Apple did to the X1600 and made more than a few of their users unhappy and defeats the purpose. I have actually seen significant changes in battery life on systems running Integrated vs. Discrete, so it is a real concern for people that must have a business-class ultra-portable; same goes for the temperatures.

smvp6459 · #10 Post by **smvp6459** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:45 pm

One thing to realize with discrete graphics card: they can be designed to scale power usage down. I had a nVidia 440 Go in a laptop and if you had its driver installed you could bring down the power usage. I don't see any reason the power overhead on a discrete card must be ridiculously larger than an integrated card.

christopher_wolf · #11 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:04 pm

smvp6459 wrote:One thing to realize with discrete graphics card: they can be designed to scale power usage down. I had a nVidia 440 Go in a laptop and if you had its driver installed you could bring down the power usage. I don't see any reason the power overhead on a discrete card must be ridiculously larger than an integrated card.

Inherently, there isn't much difference; ATI has PowerPlay and I am sure nVidia has something different. The thing about being integrated with an intel chipset is that the entire centrino platform acts as a whole; even the ATI PowerPlay doesn't go by exactly the same power management procedures that the integrated chipsets are capable of. This is the same thing that effects power-efficient CPUs; you can pack on all the power saving features you want on the CPU....yet, if there is another part in the system that is being a power hog, the "power efficiency of the system" suffers far more than the gain by the power saving in the CPU; I have actually seen that happen to systems as well. If it is integrated, you have a better chance at the power management due to the fact that you are going by the platform maker's own specs on how to manage power consumption to the integrated chipset.

domi · #12 Post by **domi** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:21 am

FlexOink wrote:I think it totally sucks that the X60 doesnt have an option for a dedicated video card. I need one for my 3D work, and the intel integrated crap just doesnt cut it.

If history is any guide, you will see a video adapter with dedicated memory in the X61. At least that's what happened with the X30 and X31.

ssimon · #13 Post by **ssimon** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:32 pm

For starters it would be nice if Lenovo simply used higher resolution LCD's on the X60's so that we get more than 1024x760x32.

Though the screen is only 12.1", I would love to see 1280x1024 on it or even higher. The Intel GMA950 certainly supports it, and while it would not be a speed demon it would surely make the machine a LOT more appealing. Don't you think?

kaspar · #14 Post by **kaspar** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:03 pm

Under Display Properties -> Settings -> Advanced -> Intel Grapics... -> Graphics Properties... -> Information it is stated that Minimum and Maximum graphics memory is 8 and 128MB respectively. So, my question is whether anyone has found a way to increase the maximum amount of available graphics memory to, say 256MB? I guess it could be done by some lower-level driver tweaking and I'll look into it when I have time.

k

#15 Post by **archer6** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 6:14 pm

FlexOink wrote:I know the T60 is a great machine, but relatively thick, heavy and larger than the X60, not the best mobile, 'carry around whole day' laptop.

I find the T60 mobility, to be quite acceptable. Especially when compared to other computers in it's class, which indeed is completely different than the ultra-portable class. Therefore I cannot see the logic in comparing two completely different products, designed for different applications.

christopher_wolf wrote:The integrated video card by Intel *isn't* crap; use it before saying things about it. True, it won't scorch performance marks versus a larger discrete card, but it does get the job done.

I have actually seen significant changes in battery life on systems running Integrated vs. Discrete, so it is a real concern for people that must have a business-class ultra-portable; same goes for the temperatures.

My experience reveals that not only is the Intel integrated card not _crap_, but a very effective way to accomplish the goal of getting the job done in a very efficient fashion. Furthermore, I too have seen the greatly enhanced battery life achieved by implementing this type of architecture. My X60s is fast, stable and cool running, what more could one want?

There are so many great choices in the ThinkPad lineup, it's really about purchasing the appropriate notebook for the job. I trust the depth and skill level of the design & engineering departments, responsible for the ThinkPads, to know what they are doing. They offer a dense line of different models and configurations which I'm certainly not going to pick apart...

FRiC · #16 Post by **FRiC** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:59 am

christopher_wolf wrote:The ATIs and the nVidias would eat up more power than the Intel chip, that has always been one of the things in favor of the Intel Graphics.

I don't know if that's for the current generation of chipsets, but this has not always been true. The discrete graphics option uses a different Intel chipset (9xxPM) compared to the shared graphics (9xxGM) and the PM chipset uses less power. I have identical laptops that use both chipsets, and the PM version runs considerably longer on batteries when doing the same things.

felix1926 · #17 Post by **felix1926** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:53 pm

kaspar wrote:Under Display Properties -> Settings -> Advanced -> Intel Grapics... -> Graphics Properties... -> Information it is stated that Minimum and Maximum graphics memory is 8 and 128MB respectively. So, my question is whether anyone has found a way to increase the maximum amount of available graphics memory to, say 256MB? I guess it could be done by some lower-level driver tweaking and I'll look into it when I have time.

k

i wanna know something like that too...
reali hope anyone could have the answer.

Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 - 128 or 256 MB on X60s

Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 - 128 or 256 MB on X60s

Give us higher resolution to start...

Re:

Who is online