Intel HD 3000 wow...

[ri0ku]

I never said anything about a magical 3000 nor was I implying that the lowest I get is 20FPS which is still fine for most parts. I am attaching screen shots but of course Photoshop is a great tool which i could have used to change the pictures just to prove a point...

Those models arnt using high textures which you stated you selected in your original post... (I know this because I do video game modelling and understand how they are rendered within an engine in different stages for different settings)

Second, now your stating your minimum fps is 20 whereas before it was 30. Thirdly theres like what? 8 zombies on the screen?

Edit: Ok looking again theres around 19 actual zombies on screen in a single frame. Some a fair distance away from you and also it seems like a custom map which is using hardly any triangles and seems fairly basic, comparing that with an actual valve made map would be a completely different scenario. Your FPS would be even worse.

and 20 fps is not good at all, anything less than 30 fps is deemed borderline unplayable. Your average TV channel (none High def) run at a framerate of 24 frames a second. The human eye cant really tell much different above this number when looking at a moving image. Anything under 24 is when your eye can start telling there are seperate images being rendered or in our terms... Lag

 

[416049]

Those models arnt using high textures which you stated you selected in your original post... (I know this because I do video game modelling and understand how they are rendered within an engine in different stages for different settings)

Second, now your stating your minimum fps is 20 whereas before it was 30. Thirdly theres like what? 8 zombies on the screen?

Edit: Ok looking again theres around 19 actual zombies on screen in a single frame. Some a fair distance away from you and also it seems like a custom map which is using hardly any triangles and seems fairly basic, comparing that with an actual valve made map would be a completely different scenario. Your FPS would be even worse.

Ok that 'basic' custom map is actually found on a website where you can find offical custom maps and it got 98/100 rating by critics... must be extremely basic than.

http://www.l4dmaps.com/details.php?file=7302

I am still using those settings and I did not change anything since then, apart from the fact that i actually entered a game, is there maybe an ingame command which i could use to show you that i am actually using these settings while in the game because i would happily do so!

 

[ri0ku]

Ok that 'basic' custom map is actually found on a website where you can find offical custom maps and it got 98/100 rating by critics... must be extremely basic than.

http://www.l4dmaps.com/details.php?file=7302

I am still using those settings and I did not change anything since then, apart from the fact that i actually entered a game, is there maybe an ingame command which i could use to show you that i am actually using these settings while in the game because i would happily do so!

It is a basic map... its a giant open map with some basic rock brushes put into place... its very basic.. Doesnt mean people dont enjoy it... but from a performance point it should be easier for the GPU to render because its basic...


The area where you are in the image is the big open space part... the map is still basic when concerning triangle count. Step indoors to a place with more detail and take a shot or just look at your fps when your being attacked by zombies... that my friend is what is widely known as a Lagfest.

Infact just go on the actual campaign of the game in the more detailed official valve maps and look at your fps while your being attacked by 50+ zombies. I just know it wont be smooth at all, slideshow is the word I would use for it.

 

[416049]

It is a basic map... its a giant open map with some basic rock brushes put into place... its very basic.. Doesnt mean people dont enjoy it... but from a performance point it should be easier for the GPU to render because its basic...

right than tell me which map from your pov is demanding and I will use that and screenshot it

 

[KnightWRX]

Ok that 'basic' custom map is actually found on a website where you can find offical custom maps and it got 98/100 rating by critics... must be extremely basic than.

What does any of what you say relate to the graphical composition of a frame at a certain area of a map ? You have to understand, gamers don't rate custom maps based on triangle count/texture quality of a certain area of a map.

The frame can be extremely basic and areas of maps, even official ones, can be chosen to display the maximum possible number of FPS. That is why benchmarking usually relies on running an average FPS (with maximum/minimums thrown in for accuracy's sake) over an extended period of time and an extended portion of a map.

Quake had timedemos which were used to benchmark the game. Hence when you said your game runs through QII, Timedemo 1 with 48 FPS average, everyone had a known benchmark to compare against. Does L4D 2 have a similar mecanism ? Those are usually what is considered true benchmarking and what is comparable to what is out there.

 

[ri0ku]

I dont really care tbh, I am not here to fight with you its just basic logic and sense.. if people give out false information it gets peoples hopes up etc and then theyl witness something negative which they believed beforehand would make their game playable.


If you must do it.... just play an actual campaign level and look at your FPS while theres like a true horde of zombies on screen attacking you at one time. Your fps will be something under 15 I think. Especially at the resolution with those settings.

 

[jamesryanbell]

Okay...

It's a big deal. This needs to be taken so seriously that you have to question whether or not to buy ANYTHING with this GPU in it. It's that big of a deal (so much so that it even eclipses the benefits of Sandy Bridge).

 

[416049]

What does any of what you say relate to the graphical composition of a frame at a certain area of a map ? You have to understand, gamers don't rate custom maps based on triangle count/texture quality of a certain area of a map.

The frame can be extremely basic and areas of maps, even official ones, can be chosen to display the maximum possible number of FPS. That is why benchmarking usually relies on running an average FPS (with maximum/minimums thrown in for accuracy's sake) over an extended period of time and an extended portion of a map.

Quake had timedemos which were used to benchmark the game. Hence when you said your game runs through QII, Timedemo 1 with 48 FPS average, everyone had a known benchmark to compare against. Does L4D 2 have a similar mecanism ? Those are usually what is considered true benchmarking and what is comparable to what is out there.

For the first part yes I noted that which is why I asked him (ri0ku) to show me a map that meets his requirements, he didn't tell me one so i am still stuck with what I have, oh and I am not trying to get anybodys hopes up, i am just stating what I am experiencing myself

I don't know about these Time Demos as I just started playing Left4Dead a while ago, if you could show me some way of knowing I would test it though, do a time lapse video or something?

 

[ri0ku]

For the first part yes I noted that which is why I asked him (ri0ku) to show me a map that meets his requirements, he didn't tell me one so i am still stuck with what I have, oh and I am not trying to get anybodys hopes up, i am just stating what I am experiencing myself

I don't know about these Time Demos as I just started playing Left4Dead a while ago, if you could show me some way of knowing I would test it though, do a time lapse video or something?

What do you mean I didnt tell you one? Just play a campaign map... is that so hard to understand? Play an actual campaign map the ones Valve have made that are the actual game...

Your just making excuses. You are wrong and you know it. We all do too.

 

[416049]

What do you mean I didnt tell you one? Just play a campaign map... is that so hard to understand? Play an actual campaign map the ones Valve have made that are the actual game...

Your just making excuses. You are wrong and you know it. We all do too.

You know what I am giving up, I don't have to prove anything to you and no i will not admit that I am wrong cuz as weird as it may sound to you I am not, what you have been adding so far was basically questionioning all of my motives and not for 1sec considering that maybe I may be right too, why don't you try it with one of these laptop and an external screen and the same settings and an official map and than report back your experience! Feel free to question me but i am still saying that I don't lie and me making up excuses is complete and utter crap

 

[Davidkoh]

You know what I am giving up, I don't have to prove anything to you and no i will not admit that I am wrong cuz as weird as it may sound to you I am not, what you have been adding so far was basically questionioning all of my motives and not for 1sec considering that maybe I may be right too, why don't you try it with one of these laptop and an external screen and the same settings and an official map and than report back your experience! Feel free to question me but i am still saying that I don't lie and me making up excuses is complete and utter crap

You did post misleading information saying you were playing it smoothly. you yourself posted a picture where under low game requirements it was at 22 FPS. 22 FPS is unplayable and a significant slowdown. How low would FPS go under higher game load? 15? 10?

 

[ri0ku]

You know what I am giving up, I don't have to prove anything to you and no i will not admit that I am wrong cuz as weird as it may sound to you I am not, what you have been adding so far was basically questionioning all of my motives and not for 1sec considering that maybe I may be right too, why don't you try it with one of these laptop and an external screen and the same settings and an official map and than report back your experience! Feel free to question me but i am still saying that I don't lie and me making up excuses is complete and utter crap

I just did, my brothers HP laptop runs an i5 with the 3000 HD and hes getting 19 fps on campaign with your settings running at 1440x900 which is lower than your res and thats his FPS.

theres enough evidence from all other sources that explain it, and when combining logic and basic knowledge with this it is quite clear that you are telling lies.

Not to mention, you clearly said that your minimum FPS was 30, and then you upload a screenshot where that seems to be your highest... and your lowest being 22. In what is a very basic area to render.

My brothers HP laptop has an older i5 in it and is of course running windows too so its not a fully 100% comparable test, however if hes getting those sorts of results at a lower res, you should be getting something very similar.

Like others have said. 22 fps is not smooth gaming... you are giving out misleading info.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't know about these Time Demos as I just started playing Left4Dead a while ago, if you could show me some way of knowing I would test it though, do a time lapse video or something?

Reading around, it seems L4D 2 and L4D don't provide any standard demos in the game to use for benchmarking. Benchmark sites have provided their own demos and thus you can't really compare the benchmarks from site to site since they probably have different demos that offer different average performance on the same setup.

As far as I can tell, for that particular game, ri0ku is right, you'll need to run through the single player campaign and note FPS yourself, trying to catch maximum/minimum numbers and make an average yourself.

This would be time consuming for you of course. But it's your choice, as ri0ku points out, others have tested L4D 2 on your hardware and your numbers don't match up to reality, so your perception seems skewed in favor of certain scenarios. If it works for you, that's fine, but you can't pretend to hold any truth or objectivity in this debate since you have no evidence.

We'll have to take what you say as pure opinion.

 

[Squicken]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

If you have an 11 inch, you're probably playing at a lower resolution.

 

[KnightWRX]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

If you have an 11 inch, you're probably playing at a lower resolution.

He said he's playing on an external monitor at 1600x900 and showed a screenshot of his settings showing the 1600x900 resolution.

 

[416049]

Reading around, it seems L4D 2 and L4D don't provide any standard demos in the game to use for benchmarking. Benchmark sites have provided their own demos and thus you can't really compare the benchmarks from site to site since they probably have different demos that offer different average performance on the same setup.

As far as I can tell, for that particular game, ri0ku is right, you'll need to run through the single player campaign and note FPS yourself, trying to catch maximum/minimum numbers and make an average yourself.

This would be time consuming for you of course. But it's your choice, as ri0ku points out, others have tested L4D 2 on your hardware and your numbers don't match up to reality, so your perception seems skewed in favor of certain scenarios. If it works for you, that's fine, but you can't pretend to hold any truth or objectivity in this debate since you have no evidence.

We'll have to take what you say as pure opinion.

I was trying to state it as an opinion, from the beginning on and never did any personal attacks up until he had to personally attack me by calling me a liar.

I do think that being called a liar is quite far fetched as he himself cannot prove that I am lying, of course you could try to prove it by getting the same monitor as me and computer as well as maybe internet connection?, and cabeling but that would be completely wasting your time.

And yes i agree that calculating all of that would be pretty time consuming and still I don't think I could be 100% accurate.

 

[ri0ku]

I was trying to state it as an opinion, from the beginning on and never did any personal attacks up until he had to personally attack me by calling me a liar.

I do think that being called a liar is quite far fetched as he himself cannot prove that I am lying, of course you could try to prove it by getting the same monitor as me and computer as well as maybe internet connection?, and cabeling but that would be completely wasting your time.

And yes i agree that calculating all of that would be pretty time consuming and still I don't think I could be 100% accurate.

Now that I am allowed to talk again, I was going to apologize for calling your a liar. So I am sorry for calling you one.

However I think its clear you may not know much about what we are talking about here. Your internet connection, monitor type or cabling have nothing to do with Frame rate performance. The computer hardware does however which you mentioned. But as I have mentioned and others too, we have evidence of people using the same hardware as you getting terrible performance, so logically your hardware cannot out perform this. Also as stated previously 22fps is not smooth. I outlined what is and what is not in a previous post.

When someone who is running identical hardware to you but is running on a lower resolution than you and is getting even worse fps than you are running at a much higher reslution. It is impossible that you performance can beat theres with identical hardware and the same game.

I have nothing much more to say about this. It seems pointless to talk unless you have any knowledge of this which I dont think you do, or at least not as much as some posters here.

I do apologize for calling you a liar though. Have fun with your macbook.

 

[2IS]

I just don't get what the use is of such a configuration. It's like going backwards to the days where laptops had extremely crippled GPUs....Intel Extreme Graphics!


I'd much rather have a CPU that benches ~1400 points lower in Geekbench, still is adequate for what one might be using an 11" ultraportable for, and a killer GPU for the size. L4D and Portal 2 run absolutely maxed out averaging 35-45fps on my 1.6ghz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM and 320m. You're telling me the new i5/i7 configs with the 3000HD will run this much worse?


Despite the rumors, I really, really, really still don't see Apple using Sandy Bridge in these computers anytime soon. They'll wait for Ivy. Calling it.

What most people will use an 11 or 13" MBA for isn't video games, so for most people, this "pointless configuration" will run faster then the current one.

 

[Davidkoh]

What most people will use an 11 or 13" MBA for isn't video games, so for most people, this "pointless configuration" will run faster then the current one.

Most people won't notice a CPU upgrade either...

 

[2IS]

Most people won't notice a CPU upgrade either...

Then we've got even less to worry about.

 

[RichardBeer]

Do any of you GPU experts think that performance on the 3000 and on any current card in the Mac lines for that matter, could be increased by an update of the openGL from 2.1 to 3.1? I.E When Lion comes out as it's purportedly sporting updated GL.

 

[striker33]

Cant believe you lot are still bickering about this.

Until you get the damned thing in your hands, all opinions on the matter are invalid.

 

[KillerTree]

Cant believe you lot are still bickering about this.

Until you get the damned thing in your hands, all opinions on the matter are invalid.

It's not like the HD 3000 hasn't been tested before.

 

[striker33]

It's not like the HD 3000 hasn't been tested before.

So?

They dont all run at the same speeds, and no one has tested the SB processors to be used in the next Air on OS X, so its impossible for anyone to say how well the HD3000 in the Airs will run in comparison to the 320M in the C2D model.

 

[Kentochan]

I don't even want to try SC2. It might die.

I can play SC2 on medium settings without ANY lag/stuttering. Only after I set a handful of the settings to "high" does my MBP stutter.