| | |
My Intel Graphics Card SUCKS
![]() |
•
•
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 0
I know this is an old thread, but the fact that Intel graphics sucks doesn't go away. Why can't this company make anything but crap video hardware? Why do they call it "Extreme Graphics"? There is nothing even vaguely extreme about it unless you include my frustration.
I've got a Lenovo laptop with Intel Extreme, so there's nothing I can do about it. I'm not interested in games, but I have it hooked up to an Acer 20" LCD monitor. There is about 1" black bar at the right side of the screen. If I try to adjust the monitor to fill up the screen, the picture jumps to the right and then the screen is half black. That's that, so I just have to live with it. Changing modes doesn't help, only makes it worse.
This monitor works fine with anything else I've tried, so obviously the Intel graphics is putting out garbage timings.
So why is it asking too much for the biggest chipmaker on the planet to perform a straightforward job like throwing stuff at the screen? This is nothing new, it's been going on for years. I've never seen a piece of Intel graphics hardware that was even adequate, never mind good.
AMD has upped the ante by buying ATI. I don't know if that's a good idea, because I've been dirty on ATI for a long time, not because their video cards are no good (although I had one fail completely after only a week of service), it's because they force you to download 100 megabytes or more of crap when all you want is 1 megabyte driver. And you have to do this for each and every model. I was mightily impressed with nVidia's Unified Driver idea, where you only download one driver and it works for all their products.
I've got a Lenovo laptop with Intel Extreme, so there's nothing I can do about it. I'm not interested in games, but I have it hooked up to an Acer 20" LCD monitor. There is about 1" black bar at the right side of the screen. If I try to adjust the monitor to fill up the screen, the picture jumps to the right and then the screen is half black. That's that, so I just have to live with it. Changing modes doesn't help, only makes it worse.
This monitor works fine with anything else I've tried, so obviously the Intel graphics is putting out garbage timings.
So why is it asking too much for the biggest chipmaker on the planet to perform a straightforward job like throwing stuff at the screen? This is nothing new, it's been going on for years. I've never seen a piece of Intel graphics hardware that was even adequate, never mind good.
AMD has upped the ante by buying ATI. I don't know if that's a good idea, because I've been dirty on ATI for a long time, not because their video cards are no good (although I had one fail completely after only a week of service), it's because they force you to download 100 megabytes or more of crap when all you want is 1 megabyte driver. And you have to do this for each and every model. I was mightily impressed with nVidia's Unified Driver idea, where you only download one driver and it works for all their products.
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 0
I'm disappointed with the post in this topic, while
Intel extreme is anything but extreme in gaming.
it wasn't designed for gaming
but to say its only good for office apps and internet just isn't justified
this chipset was designed for basic multimedia
(dvd avi mpeg) with this in mind i set out to determine the base cause of games being unable to run on this chipset
it basically came down to one thing
H/W transform&lighting support
a basic instruction set used since before 2004
most games require direct support or wont run
some games use less restrictive
min. system requirements
game that i can run
I have a Toshiba satellite p105 s6004
specs as follow
intel molibl centino 1.92 GHz
1024 MB pc3400
windows xp sp2
intel 945 express family w/ 128Mb
blaa blaa blaa
anyway I've ran starwars battle front 2 run well
but very slow load times
unreal turny 2004 plays very well
need for speed most wanted & below
and a surprise for me but the newest nfs out
will also play using min requirements
Intel extreme is anything but extreme in gaming.
it wasn't designed for gaming
but to say its only good for office apps and internet just isn't justified
this chipset was designed for basic multimedia
(dvd avi mpeg) with this in mind i set out to determine the base cause of games being unable to run on this chipset
it basically came down to one thing
H/W transform&lighting support
a basic instruction set used since before 2004
most games require direct support or wont run
some games use less restrictive
min. system requirements
game that i can run
I have a Toshiba satellite p105 s6004
specs as follow
intel molibl centino 1.92 GHz
1024 MB pc3400
windows xp sp2
intel 945 express family w/ 128Mb
blaa blaa blaa
anyway I've ran starwars battle front 2 run well
but very slow load times
unreal turny 2004 plays very well
need for speed most wanted & below
and a surprise for me but the newest nfs out
will also play using min requirements
in my dimension 5150 i go into the BIOS then into "Integrated Peripherals" then "graphics" and i set "mode" to "auto/PEG" . This means it will use the pci-express addin graphics card if it is present
If i am helpful, please give me reputation points.
•
•
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 0
I don't play ANY games, I'm just talking about everyday stuff like websurfing and watching video clips.
The monitor's native resolution is 1280x1024, but if I try to use it, I get the black bar on the right. As the temperature goes up, the picture suddenly jumps to the right and the left 1/3 of the screen is black.
I know this is partly an issue with the Acer AL1912 monitor, which I never would have bought if I knew this was going to happen. But the monitor works fine with everything else I've tried it with.
I've been forced to switch to 1024x768, which still exhibits the problem, but not as bad. And this is all because the Intel graphics chip is putting out spurious timings for whatever reason. I can see vertical lines at the edge of the screen that shouldn't be there. They are confusing the monitor, so it can't find the proper sync pulses.
This is a laptop, so there aren't any other graphics options, I'm stuck with the Intel crap. What can I do? Is there some sort of filter I can put between the VGA output and the monitor that will clean up the sync timings?
The monitor's native resolution is 1280x1024, but if I try to use it, I get the black bar on the right. As the temperature goes up, the picture suddenly jumps to the right and the left 1/3 of the screen is black.
I know this is partly an issue with the Acer AL1912 monitor, which I never would have bought if I knew this was going to happen. But the monitor works fine with everything else I've tried it with.
I've been forced to switch to 1024x768, which still exhibits the problem, but not as bad. And this is all because the Intel graphics chip is putting out spurious timings for whatever reason. I can see vertical lines at the edge of the screen that shouldn't be there. They are confusing the monitor, so it can't find the proper sync pulses.
This is a laptop, so there aren't any other graphics options, I'm stuck with the Intel crap. What can I do? Is there some sort of filter I can put between the VGA output and the monitor that will clean up the sync timings?
![]() |
Other Threads in the Monitors, Displays and Video Cards Forum
- Previous Thread: New Monitor takes 2 boots to turn on
- Next Thread: no signal on monitor
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |






