Beware Integrated chipsets in new laptops and desktops

[derekmorton]

Gogoran raised an interesting point in another discussion and I think its worth its own thread.

>But as a matter of fact, even current computers - desktops and laptops alike - feature new graphics chips - onboard solutions - which are just not powerful enough for MSTS, since they are not designed for gaming at all.

The thread is at:-

https://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?306906-Debating-on-Doing-Away-with-MSTS

The first one to target will be the Intel HD chipset, this is just not up to MSTS or any other sim/game.

Please add any other Integrated chipsets that are not up to MSTS.

[derekmorton]

The next one is the AMD version:-

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/chipsets/Pages/desktop-chipsets.aspx

And an nVidia one:-

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/g45-geforce-9400,2263.html

[GoGoran]

I was careful to say that the problem is not generally with ALL integrated graphics solutions, but SOME of them. Nvidia and Ati have been producing decently performing integrated graphics for a few years by now, e.g. the GeForce 6150LE, which is sufficient for the default MSTS and many addon routes and trains (though not all of them).

But yes, there are quite a lot of models which are not up to the task, mostly from Intel and SiS. I can tell from my own experience that the SiS Mirage III (AGP x8 interface) is one of them. I cannot name any others, simply because I don't have them and cannot try them for myself.

Technical specifications, DirectX compatibility etc. are not a sure way to tell whether MSTS will run with it or not. Only experience will tell. So this thread could serve for users reporting their own experiences with specific chipsets.

[GoGoran]

And an nVidia one:-

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/g45-geforce-9400,2263.html

[/URL]

I have to contradict you there:

Given my own positive experience with the GeForce 6150LE integrated chipset, I am quite sure that the integrated GeForce 9400 will be even better, and thus more than sufficient for many MSTS routes and trains, except the most recent and detailled ones.

It is really mostly Intel and SiS chipsets which lack the necessary performance, I guess. For whatever reason -- given today's technology, both companies should be able to churn out much better graphics solutions at virtually the same cost. Nvidia and AMD/ATI show the way.

[EricF]

It's still more complicated than just tossing integrated chipsets to the curb. ATI and nVidia typically build "last year's technology" into their integrated chipsets. They use the same driver families as their discrete card cousins. They're just built on blueprints that have been cost-amortized since the chips are already tooled up and in production. Their biggest bottleneck is the typical shared memory architecture in integrated chipsets. First, regular RAM is not generally up to the same specs as video RAM, access to it even over a fast memory bus still has to be arbitrated with other system RAM demands, and all too often there's not enough system RAM in the PC to trade around once the graphics routines kick in. It's particularly noticeable on Windows XP systems that aren't maxed out on RAM. On the good side, since these are based on known drivers and chipset families, you can look up their basic specs and figure out if they have a chance at running what you want or not. Most ATI and nVidia integrated chipsets have sufficient DirectX support to run MSTS at acceptable, but not stunning, performance levels. More modern sims could be a problem though.

Intel integrated graphics are a whole other animal. For one, Intel just doesn't seem to write particularly good drivers. For another, their architecture is modular and designed for a building-block approach so that PC and motherboard manufacturers can add or delete features within a chipset family to hit a chosen price point. Great for cost savings, but bad for performance. The computer buyer often doesn't get full specs from the OEM manufacturer, so it's too much of a gamble with Intel chipsets. You just don't know what you're going to get until you have it home and test it out. Folks have reported some problems with incorrect texture patterns showing up with Intel chipsets that, by their specs, should be perfectly fine for MSTS. Buyer beware.

My main MSTS machine is no ball of fire by today's standards, and it's using an nVidia GeForce 9400 integrated chipset. I get acceptable performance with MSTS graphics options turned all the way up, running on Windows XP with 4GB of RAM installed (Seeing only 3GB, of course) and a Core2 Duo CPU at 2.53GHz. It's doing OK in OpenRails, too. The key here is most likely the driver architecture and the fact that it's a full-featured, albeit older, standard graphics chipset. Given enough access to sufficient system resources, it works. Mainly, RAM must be maxed out so video memory usage is kept out of the way of MSTS and the operating system.

My other MSTS machine is a Core2 Duo laptop, running 2.16GHz. It's windows XP, and again maxed out on RAM with 4GB installed, seeing 3GB. Video is an older but full-featured Intel 945GM chipset billed as the "Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950" model. It does run MSTS, and without any video or texture artifacts. I can even run MSTS configured exactly like my desktop system and still get nearly the same performance. That's in spite of a slower CPU, a significantly slower memory bus, and an inferior graphics chipset and driver architecture. The MSTS framerates are consistently about 4-5fps slower than the desktop at all times. Performance drops off much faster, though, if I throw more modern games at it. I have yet to try OpenRails on it. I'm expecting adequate but not exciting performance there.

If it counts for anything, at least both machines were designed and built by companies that don't cut corners on basic hardware engineering. The desktop is a Mac Mini (Booted into a WinXP partition) and the laptop is a ThinkPad Z61t by Lenovo. Both were engineered as solid, middle-of-the-road machines for their day.

This isn't to say that I believe that all integrated chipsets aren't so bad. Some are OK; notice that I grant them "acceptable" performance. Not stellar. Good enough for MSTS in the examples I own, but then I don't play much in the way of modern games, at least not on PC's. (I prefer consoles and a 60" plasma for things like Forza 4...) I strongly believe the latest crop of Intel chipsets are flaky as heck, mostly because there's something wrong with their DirectX implementation in the driver, the hardware, or both. ATI and nVidia intgrated chipsets might be OK, provided the PC manufacturer doesn't under-spec to hit a price point, but that's getting more and more common these days. You've gotta look at the DirectX and physics processing specs to be sure. And you'll still keep hitting the wall on memory performance as modern games and sims get more demanding.

[eric]

I have the HD, and not all games are suffering from it. Specifically, OpenRails works pretty well with it.

I still suspect the bigger issue specific to MSTS is how well backward compatibility for DirectX works with newer chipsets. The visual issues some of us are having with terrtex seams in MSTS don't exist in OpenRails, which is using the XNA framework instead of DirectX.