Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

diamond.g

macrumors G4
Mar 20, 2007
11,114
2,444
OBX
Hehe, the problem is most people don't know the difference even if you gave them more info. While the X3100 may be fine for most tasks I would imagine anyone even remotely serious about OGL 2.0+/DX10+ would run far far away from it.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Mar 23, 2005
29,190
386
Indianapolis
I remember the GMA950 on my Mac mini (1.25 GB RAM) getting somewhere around a 2.4-2.9.

I've heard of some people getting a 3.0 with a GMA950 as well.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,776
15
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
I remember the GMA950 on my Mac mini (1.25 GB RAM) getting somewhere around a 2.4-2.9.

I've heard of some people getting a 3.0 with a GMA950 as well.

Thanks, Eldorian! :)

In other words, unless the drivers for SR are highly underoptimized, there's no evidence that the GMA950 is a bottleneck for the WinSAT test.... I guess, though, that DirectX 10 or OpenGL benchmarks would be more useful for the gamers.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Mar 23, 2005
29,190
386
Indianapolis
Thanks, Eldorian! :)

In other words, unless the drivers for SR are highly underoptimized, there's no evidence that the GMA950 is a bottleneck for the WinSAT test.... I guess, though, that DirectX 10 or OpenGL benchmarks would be more useful for the gamers.
I do not think the GMA X3000/3100 will support Direct X 10. Intel has mentioned that it isn't powerful for it even with the programable features it has. I have been getting conflicting reports on the X3000 Series supporting Direct X 10 though. I would like to see the hardware T&L turned on at least.

http://laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=2320

http://www.trustedreviews.com/notebooks/review/2007/04/17/Intel-Santa-Rosa-Revealed/p4
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.