First off, that's not Max settings. That looks at most like 8 chunks, and that's on Fast. Second, run on 1.8.8 on max settings, and see what you get. It's not going to be more that 50
Second off, minecraft 1.8.8 dont even work.. nor forge version..
that's fancy, and 16 chunk.. oh and i will take even more screenshot as a proof
If you're from Syria, then you use Syrian Pounds, not dollars. And converting 5000 SP to USD is a whopping $26.50.
The best proof you can provide is to have a Minecraft tab open showing your frame rate, etc and a separate window with Speccy opened to prove you're running what you claim to be running.
Also on Vanilla survival I get at most 425ish FPS and my R9 Radeon 390X is approximately 25 tiers better than yours.
It's total bullcrap also considering my average frame rate is 58 on max settings and 8 as my render distance.
Second off, minecraft 1.8.8 dont even work.. nor forge version..
that's fancy, and 16 chunk.. oh and i will take even more screenshot as a proof
each dollar is about 350 syrian pound..
Speccy?.. i will try it
there is shadows but the sun was above so it appeared no shadowy..
i realized that after i took screenshot
anyway i will take even more screenshots.. as another proof
I don't get why you're trying to hard to deny it. Intel HD 3000 is crap and it always will be. If 1.8.8 doesn't work, than thats a sign that Intel HD is bad. THat's not fancy. The leaves are not transparent, and that's not 16 chunks. I've owned loads of laptops with Intel HD 3000, 4000, 5500, and 6000 and none of them get over 100 fps on 16 chunks and Fancy, and especially not intel HD 3000
He said his laptop costs 5000 SP, 5000/350 = $14.29.
I can just imagine the ads: now for LESS than $15.00, you can run SEUS Shaders with max settings on this laptop that seems to be complete garbage but really has an undercover i7 and 980 ti!
I don't get why you're trying to hard to deny it. Intel HD 3000 is crap and it always will be. If 1.8.8 doesn't work, than thats a sign that Intel HD is bad. THat's not fancy. The leaves are not transparent, and that's not 16 chunks. I've owned loads of laptops with Intel HD 3000, 4000, 5500, and 6000 and none of them get over 100 fps on 16 chunks and Fancy, and especially not intel HD 3000
i am not denying intel HD graphics was never a good graphics card, but not a very bad one too, it is crap, and yes 1.8.8 don't work because of that graphics card, that is 16 chunk, i used fancy, just zoom the photo, cuz i turned off MIP MAPS (they have very high effect on FPS)
He said his laptop costs 5000 SP, 5000/350 = $14.29.
I can just imagine the ads: now for LESS than $15.00, you can run SEUS Shaders with max settings on this laptop that seems to be complete garbage but really has an undercover i7 and 980 ti!
i said 500 DOLLARS, meaning it is 175 000 L.S here (which is alot).. i accidentally typed that other zero
Everything: Intel is NOT GOOD , NOR BAD, it is crap in many games, but i am saying that it is also good in many games.. and believe me, i will do my best to get a better graphics card, but if i couldn't afford one, i am not sad because this graphics card is enough for ME
i don't care if you believe or not.. all i care about it i believe myself
P;S: this thread isn't about a proof , it is about What do YOU think about intel, how much bad are they? ways to make it better for intel users? and what graphics card you suggest for people?
(and i am not posting more pics, nor videos, i don't care about what you think of me, a lier? an idiot? attention seeker? don't care )
I use an i5 with HD4000, and, as listed below, I can get up to 200fps (average of about 120 with 8 chunks, but when playing on an entity-heavy map with 8 chunks, it can dip to 60) on a resolution of nearly my entire screen.
That being said, multiplayer and such can dip down to 45-90
I use Fancy Graphics and 8 Chunks, usually.
Upon testing, 12-16 Chunks can bring it down to 60.
Not only this, but lightweight games like HL2 run perfectly at max settings.
*tries to run Rust... even on Legacy it has 5fps ;-;*
Java is cpu intensive, so your i5 is what'd be doing it for you.
I use an i5 with HD4000, and, as listed below, I can get up to 200fps (average of about 120 with 8 chunks, but when playing on an entity-heavy map with 8 chunks, it can dip to 60) on a resolution of nearly my entire screen.
That being said, multiplayer and such can dip down to 45-90
I use Fancy Graphics and 8 Chunks, usually.
Upon testing, 12-16 Chunks can bring it down to 60.
Not only this, but lightweight games like HL2 run perfectly at max settings.
*tries to run Rust... even on Legacy it has 5fps ;-;*
sounds about right. My macbook air 2015 runs MC maxed out around 60-120 fps. With 8 Chunks and Fancy around 150-200 fps. I have Intel HD 6000 though
I agree that Intel Graphics does the job. But I can't agree that it doesn't deserve it's detractors.
my thought is that Intel Graphics are best for basic desktop usage. it can drive desktop applications very well- as I mentioned I have a T550 thinkpad with a HD 5500, and it can drive my 2880x1620 screen well enough for my desktop usage (programming, Visual Studio, Browsing, Running the applications I write/change for testing, our server-side software, etc.
it sure as heck doesn't work for playing most games. Minecraft is probably playable at default settings when full-screen, but compared to my desktop there is simply no comparison. I'm sure it would run very well if running in a smaller window, but again this is why Intel is not generally well-regarded in gaming circles, because in order for games to run well, you need to compromise.
Again, it's perfectly fine for desktop applications, but compared to Nvidia and AMD Cards you'll be making sacrifices if you want to play games with Intel Graphics.
I use an i5 with HD4000, and, as listed below, I can get up to 200fps (average of about 120 with 8 chunks, but when playing on an entity-heavy map with 8 chunks, it can dip to 60) on a resolution of nearly my entire screen.
That being said, multiplayer and such can dip down to 45-90
I use Fancy Graphics and 8 Chunks, usually.
Upon testing, 12-16 Chunks can bring it down to 60.
Not only this, but lightweight games like HL2 run perfectly at max settings.
*tries to run Rust... even on Legacy it has 5fps ;-;*
Yes intel do run games with good and ease, but not all
I just want to get something straight: I don't, and in my experience neither do most of the users here, "hate" Intel HD graphics. "Hate" would mean that we dislike them for no reason other than the fact that they carry the Intel HD name, which is not true. The reason we recommend against using them is because they quite simply perform much worse than mid-ranged to high-end dedicated Nvidia or AMD GPUs, and often aren't sufficient to run many games. If Intel came out with an HD 7000 tomorrow that performed as well as a mid-ranged dedicated card, I'd be perfectly happy accepting and recommending it, provided the price isn't exorbitant of course.
I agree that Intel Graphics does the job. But I can't agree that it doesn't deserve it's detractors.
my thought is that Intel Graphics are best for basic desktop usage. it can drive desktop applications very well- as I mentioned I have a T550 thinkpad with a HD 5500, and it can drive my 2880x1620 screen well enough for my desktop usage (programming, Visual Studio, Browsing, Running the applications I write/change for testing, our server-side software, etc.
it sure as heck doesn't work for playing most games. Minecraft is probably playable at default settings when full-screen, but compared to my desktop there is simply no comparison. I'm sure it would run very well if running in a smaller window, but again this is why Intel is not generally well-regarded in gaming circles, because in order for games to run well, you need to compromise.
Again, it's perfectly fine for desktop applications, but compared to Nvidia and AMD Cards you'll be making sacrifices if you want to play games with Intel Graphics.
Yes, the whole reason i created this thread is to know what is best..
and exactly Intel is perfect for desktop applications (and some certain lite games)
And far from good comparing to Nvidia and AMD.. actually Far Far Far Away from good compared to AMD
Post a speccy log. Anyway, my laptop has intel i5 (intel 3000 I believe) and it does AWFUL. Minecraft runs around 20-50fps (depending on where I am, low graphics, with optifine) The most intensive game I have run on it was Skyrim, and believe me it was worse than the console versions. I ran the game at lower than the supported resolutions (ran at lowest res, and used an external tool to lower it some more) & played with all the graphics settings lower than low ( I used that mod that puts everything at ultra low settings). I also used numerous mods to help get more performance. That said I played around 40fps, which was pretty nice considering the game wouldn't even run at lowest supported settings & lowest supported resolution.
Post a speccy log. Anyway, my laptop has intel i5 (intel 3000 I believe) and it does AWFUL. Minecraft runs around 20-50fps (depending on where I am, low graphics, with optifine) The most intensive game I have run on it was Skyrim, and believe me it was worse than the console versions. I ran the game at lower than the supported resolutions (ran at lowest res, and used an external tool to lower it some more) & played with all the graphics settings lower than low ( I used that mod that puts everything at ultra low settings). I also used numerous mods to help get more performance. That said I played around 40fps, which was pretty nice considering the game wouldn't even run at lowest supported settings & lowest supported resolution.
how the heck? I can run minecraft more than 60fps on vanilla and drop below it only when i use shaders. Even skyrim runs well here(30fps).
Second off, minecraft 1.8.8 dont even work.. nor forge version..
that's fancy, and 16 chunk.. oh and i will take even more screenshot as a proof
each dollar is about 350 syrian pound..
Speccy?.. i will try it
there is shadows but the sun was above so it appeared no shadowy..
i realized that after i took screenshot
anyway i will take even more screenshots.. as another proof
I'm just a very boring person.
Post your results in a screenshot next to a Minecraft TAB.
And ripped straight from google:
1 US Dollar equals188.82 Syrian Pound
yeh but, well because the war it is 350 here.. google lies.. don't believe , dont care
I'm just a very boring person.
And you still haven't posted it. Okie.
I don't get why you're trying to hard to deny it. Intel HD 3000 is crap and it always will be. If 1.8.8 doesn't work, than thats a sign that Intel HD is bad. THat's not fancy. The leaves are not transparent, and that's not 16 chunks. I've owned loads of laptops with Intel HD 3000, 4000, 5500, and 6000 and none of them get over 100 fps on 16 chunks and Fancy, and especially not intel HD 3000
Gaming PC Specs - Intel i5-2500K ~ ASUS P8P67M-Pro ~ Hyper 212+ ~ MSI GTX 970 OC ~ 8GB DDR3 Ram ~ 250GB Samsung EVO 850 ~ 500GB HardDrive ~ XFX 550w PSU ~ Fractal Core 1000 ~ Windows 8.1 ~ Samsung P2350 1080p Soon upgrading to GTX 1080/R9 490X + 1440p 144Hz
Macbook Pro 15" Retina - Intel i7 ~ 8GB Ram ~ Nvidia GT 650M ~ 256GB SSD ~ 2880 by 1800 Screen <3
If its 350, than that means your laptop only cost $14.28
Sounds fishy
Gaming PC Specs - Intel i5-2500K ~ ASUS P8P67M-Pro ~ Hyper 212+ ~ MSI GTX 970 OC ~ 8GB DDR3 Ram ~ 250GB Samsung EVO 850 ~ 500GB HardDrive ~ XFX 550w PSU ~ Fractal Core 1000 ~ Windows 8.1 ~ Samsung P2350 1080p Soon upgrading to GTX 1080/R9 490X + 1440p 144Hz
Macbook Pro 15" Retina - Intel i7 ~ 8GB Ram ~ Nvidia GT 650M ~ 256GB SSD ~ 2880 by 1800 Screen <3
He means 1 USD = 350 SP (Syrian Pound)
He said his laptop costs 5000 SP, 5000/350 = $14.29.
I can just imagine the ads: now for LESS than $15.00, you can run SEUS Shaders with max settings on this laptop that seems to be complete garbage but really has an undercover i7 and 980 ti!
i am not denying intel HD graphics was never a good graphics card, but not a very bad one too, it is crap, and yes 1.8.8 don't work because of that graphics card, that is 16 chunk, i used fancy, just zoom the photo, cuz i turned off MIP MAPS (they have very high effect on FPS)
YES , actually if you came with your money dollars to here, you can own the world, syrian pound got very cheap..
a TV LCD cinema sized screen might just cost you 50. to 100 dollars here
i said 500 DOLLARS, meaning it is 175 000 L.S here (which is alot).. i accidentally typed that other zero
Everything: Intel is NOT GOOD , NOR BAD, it is crap in many games, but i am saying that it is also good in many games.. and believe me, i will do my best to get a better graphics card, but if i couldn't afford one, i am not sad because this graphics card is enough for ME
i don't care if you believe or not.. all i care about it i believe myself
P;S: this thread isn't about a proof , it is about What do YOU think about intel, how much bad are they? ways to make it better for intel users? and what graphics card you suggest for people?
(and i am not posting more pics, nor videos, i don't care about what you think of me, a lier? an idiot? attention seeker? don't care )
I'm just a very boring person.
Java is cpu intensive, so your i5 is what'd be doing it for you.
sounds about right. My macbook air 2015 runs MC maxed out around 60-120 fps. With 8 Chunks and Fancy around 150-200 fps. I have Intel HD 6000 though
Gaming PC Specs - Intel i5-2500K ~ ASUS P8P67M-Pro ~ Hyper 212+ ~ MSI GTX 970 OC ~ 8GB DDR3 Ram ~ 250GB Samsung EVO 850 ~ 500GB HardDrive ~ XFX 550w PSU ~ Fractal Core 1000 ~ Windows 8.1 ~ Samsung P2350 1080p Soon upgrading to GTX 1080/R9 490X + 1440p 144Hz
Macbook Pro 15" Retina - Intel i7 ~ 8GB Ram ~ Nvidia GT 650M ~ 256GB SSD ~ 2880 by 1800 Screen <3
I agree that Intel Graphics does the job. But I can't agree that it doesn't deserve it's detractors.
my thought is that Intel Graphics are best for basic desktop usage. it can drive desktop applications very well- as I mentioned I have a T550 thinkpad with a HD 5500, and it can drive my 2880x1620 screen well enough for my desktop usage (programming, Visual Studio, Browsing, Running the applications I write/change for testing, our server-side software, etc.
it sure as heck doesn't work for playing most games. Minecraft is probably playable at default settings when full-screen, but compared to my desktop there is simply no comparison. I'm sure it would run very well if running in a smaller window, but again this is why Intel is not generally well-regarded in gaming circles, because in order for games to run well, you need to compromise.
Again, it's perfectly fine for desktop applications, but compared to Nvidia and AMD Cards you'll be making sacrifices if you want to play games with Intel Graphics.
Yes intel do run games with good and ease, but not all
^ this
Question: How does intel 6000 costs?
That's the comment I've been waiting for
Yes, the whole reason i created this thread is to know what is best..
and exactly Intel is perfect for desktop applications (and some certain lite games)
And far from good comparing to Nvidia and AMD.. actually Far Far Far Away from good compared to AMD
Thanks all for the feedback
I'm just a very boring person.
Post a speccy log. Anyway, my laptop has intel i5 (intel 3000 I believe) and it does AWFUL. Minecraft runs around 20-50fps (depending on where I am, low graphics, with optifine) The most intensive game I have run on it was Skyrim, and believe me it was worse than the console versions. I ran the game at lower than the supported resolutions (ran at lowest res, and used an external tool to lower it some more) & played with all the graphics settings lower than low ( I used that mod that puts everything at ultra low settings). I also used numerous mods to help get more performance. That said I played around 40fps, which was pretty nice considering the game wouldn't even run at lowest supported settings & lowest supported resolution.
how the heck? I can run minecraft more than 60fps on vanilla and drop below it only when i use shaders. Even skyrim runs well here(30fps).
On Intel HD Graphics 3000?
How in the holy molly can't you run GTA IV better than you run COD BO2?
How in the holy molly can you run shaders on 60 FPS with these specs, too? Do you have some huge tweaks + performance mods?
Btw, intel cards are weak and integrated, that's why they're hated. They're not gaming-friendly afaik.
Before I say anything I wanna say I am a Nvidia Fan
But the reason being is that GTA and Minecraft are more CPU based, and COD is more GPU based.
Exactly. His CPU is stronger than his GPU, making it senseless that he is able to play a game more GPU-consuming than a CPU counterpart.
Hm, how strange.
GTA IV is well known as a very poor performance port, which is partly due to it's excessive CPU usage.