What Games Can Ultrabooks Really Play?

[Phr3d]

Asking a LOT, I realize, but including (just Locating one, I know) an IRIS laptop would have been informative.

 

[aubegon]

Why do such reviews not consider simulator games? Not everyone is into Grand Theft Auto and the like. I would have loved to know how they fared on, say FSX, Xplane, Train Simulator for example.

 

[Stiqy]

No they won't. There's a HUGE difference between the Intel GPUs on these laptops and a dedicated GPU from NVidia or AMD.

People really don't know how to read.

""While ultraportables aren’t as suited to gaming as true gaming laptops, it’s still possible to play a wide variety of games on the integrated graphics you’ll find inside. Trade-offs will have to be made: resolution, quality levels and frame rates, but with the right kind of expectations your nimble business machine can deliver decent, playable results -- and that's kind of the idea.""

Like I said, the summary of the article still holds true for the 940M. Serious trade off must still be made. Also, the 940M is a low end GPU. If your definition of huge is 40% or less, I'd call you hyperbolic.

You are trying to use a subjective article conclusion to argue against an objective fact. the 940m is going to post scores roughly triple or better the integrated graphics scores. Those results would not be "the same as the article."

If you are some PCmasterrace douche that vomits if they see less than 60fps then yes, you won't care about the difference between integrated graphics and a 940M...because anything less than a 1060 is beneath you.

But that doesn't mean the difference isn't there. A 940M will play all of the "current AAA" games on their list at 25-40 FPS. The integrated graphics either can't play them at all or struggles to get to 20fps. That's an objective difference in gaming, and acceptable to many people for the price point.

 

[Evernessince]

You are trying to use a subjective article conclusion to argue against an objective fact. the 940m is going to post scores roughly triple or better the integrated graphics scores. Those results would not be "the same as the article."

If you are some PCmasterrace douche that vomits if they see less than 60fps then yes, you won't care about the difference between integrated graphics and a 940M...because anything less than a 1060 is beneath you.

But that doesn't mean the difference isn't there. A 940M will play all of the "current AAA" games on their list at 25-40 FPS. The integrated graphics either can't play them at all or struggles to get to 20fps. That's an objective difference in gaming, and acceptable to many people for the price point.

Batter #3

"But that doesn't mean the difference isn't there. A 940M will play all of the "current AAA" games on their list at 25-40 FPS. The integrated graphics either can't play them at all or struggles to get to 20fps. That's an objective difference in gaming, and acceptable to many people for the price point."

I'll put this in all caps so you can understand.

I NEVER SAID THERE WASN'T A DIFFERENCE, ONLY THAT SAID DIFFERENCE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THIS ARTICLE.

learn. to. read.

Also, the 940M averages 40% over integrated on average. It isn't going to net you 40 FPS when integrated is getting 20 FPS. You'd be looking at at 29 FPS instead of 20 which as I have pointed out on numerous occasions doesn't change the summery of this article. That's assuming your low frequency mobile processor isn't bottlenecking at all too. Fallout 4 on a 1.9 GHz mobile CPU is fun /s.

 

[yeeeeman]

This article just shows how much we need AMD in our lives. We need that sweet Ryzen + Vega APU that will make entry level, super-thin notebooks capable to play more than basic games.

 

[Darth Shiv]

I disagree, the 940M should be between 20%-80% faster than the HD 620 in the i5-7200U, depending on the game/benchmark used.

Wow, you managed to disagree with my point and agree with it at the same time.

I said "Your results will be similar to the ones posted in this article."

20 - 80% will still net you similar findings to which the article found.

"While ultraportables aren’t as suited to gaming as true gaming laptops, it’s still possible to play a wide variety of games on the integrated graphics you’ll find inside. Trade-offs will have to be made: resolution, quality levels and frame rates, but with the right kind of expectations your nimble business machine can deliver decent, playable results -- and that's kind of the idea."

So tell me that the above does not hold true for the 940M. Seriously, why do people always have to nit-pick to try and prove a point.

Because Intel iGPUs are genuine trash and even something as lowball as a 940M is a LOT stronger.

Also the outcome was:

The final tally stands as follows: of the 34 games I tested, 22 ran and were playable on the Core i5-7200U. Eight of these games ran at resolutions below 1080p, while nine needed to be run at the lowest possible detail settings. Nine games ran at near maximum settings, five of these nine were indie titles.

A 940M would absolutely change that breakdown.

 

[Evernessince]

Because Intel iGPUs are genuine trash and even something as lowball as a 940M is a LOT stronger.

Hyperbole. 40% IMO is not "a LOT stronger". iGPUs might not be amazing but they have massively closed the gap compared to back in the day. Getting an entry level graphics card nowadays is only at best a small step up. But like I said before, a 940M will not change your world. It would not be worth it to spend more on an ultrabook with a 940M for the 5 extra frames, especially considering the extra power draw.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Well mine has an i7 7500U and a 940MX but the results aren't much better. Like it is maybe twice as powerful or so but you still can't play anything that isn't like 10 years old or uses 2D graphics.

That's a good number of games, though I'd have liked to see how Metro 2033/Last Light fared. Just for fun, I don't intend to buy one these. hehe.

Below 10 fps on the lowest possible settings. Or maybe they wouldn't launch at all.

Mine can do Stalker CoP on medium with like 30fps. Modern Warfare 3 runs on low in 720p also with about 30fps. Shockingly Age of Empires 3 is also on low - medium and 30fps.

A common issue with NVIDIA Optimus? is making sure the discrete GPU is running on the game. I recommend to check your config in NVIDIA's control panel.

 

[Stiqy]

Batter #3

"But that doesn't mean the difference isn't there. A 940M will play all of the "current AAA" games on their list at 25-40 FPS. The integrated graphics either can't play them at all or struggles to get to 20fps. That's an objective difference in gaming, and acceptable to many people for the price point."

I'll put this in all caps so you can understand.

I NEVER SAID THERE WASN'T A DIFFERENCE, ONLY THAT SAID DIFFERENCE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THIS ARTICLE.

learn. to. read.

What you originally said was

"Your results will be similar to the ones posted in this article."

"results" similar to the "ones" - plural.
referring not to a singular conclusion, but to tested results.

Then you slyly changed it to "outcome" in a later post when you got called on it and accused the guy who called you on it for nitpicking on sematics. Claiming you just meant the subjective conclusion or outcome of the article.. notthe actual results of the testing. ya right.

Looks like you are the one trying to apply some sort of nuanced meaning to your words and ignore what other people are saying. learn.to.read. If you go back and read his post he is not talking about the subjective conclusion of the article, he is talking about the objective results of testing a 940M against integrated graphics. The *results* are tangibly different. learn.to.read.

 

[Evernessince]

What you originally said was

"Your results will be similar to the ones posted in this article."

"results" similar to the "ones" - plural.
referring not to a singular conclusion, but to tested results.

Then you slyly changed it to "outcome" in a later post when you got called on it and accused the guy who called you on it for nitpicking on sematics. Claiming you just meant the subjective conclusion or outcome of the article.. notthe actual results of the testing. ya right.

Looks like you are the one trying to apply some sort of nuanced meaning to your words and ignore what other people are saying. learn.to.read. If you go back and read his post he is not talking about the subjective conclusion of the article, he is talking about the objective results of testing a 940M against integrated graphics. The *results* are tangibly different. learn.to.read.

Outcome and results are the same. You are now arguing grammer. You have lost.

 

[madboyv1]

Asking a LOT, I realize, but including (just Locating one, I know) an IRIS laptop would have been informative.

It would be interesting to see how an Iris or Iris Pro igp in the games tested in this review, but yeah... it's stupidly difficult to find laptops with Iris... Rather, not difficult, but rare (and it shouldn't be).