ATI x200m Game Review

"For the concern of Lag on BF2 here is the Video. http://youtube.com/watch?v=5x6Bj2M5zCI Enjoy = ) "

Most people have the fully shared x200m and the x200m is mostly judges by that card. I just want to let the people with the dedicated version know what they are capable of playing. I have ran test on 2 laptops, different brand, same dedicated version of x200m. They both give outstanding in game FPS when it comes to playing games on an integrated card. Sometimes I cant even believe its a x200m pushing alot of this power. Here are some in game FPS results for the following: Guild Wars, Battle For Middle Earth II, Battlefield 2, and Oblivion.

The system specs tested on were:
Toshiba Satellite a135-s2276
Windows Vista Basic
Dual Core processor
1gbx2 = 2gb Of DDR2 RAM
Dedicated Version Of the ATI X200M

Guild Wars: A really good game, Easy to play and the requirements require RAM over Graphics Card. The 2gb's I have push most of the power that runs the game.

The settings:



screenshot:



Battle For Middle Earth II: The settings all applies to how your going to play it. If your the type of person who likes to rush in and doesnt wait for a huge army then your most likely better off with High settings. If you like to build up your army Low medium settings is right for you. 2gb's Impact this game as much as it does on Guild Wars.

The settings:



screenshot:



screenshot:



Battlefield 2: Now here you go, the game which people say wont run on the x200m. I was Shocked that it ran on mine with High - Medium settings. I about cried when I saw how good the graphics were. RAM Impacts your game! There is No lag so far for every single game Ive played and was amazed that Battlefield 2 Ran the same.

Settings:



Screenshot:



Screenshot:



screenshot:



screenshot:



Elders Scrolls Oblivion: I tried it out when I had the little 512mb stick in there and it RAN awesome on "low settings". The day I added my 2gb's It got a boost to a higher Res and Medium settings! This game can get addicting especially when you get to view all the nice graphics and reflective water around.

Settings:



screenshot:



screenshot:



Well I hope you enjoyed my review. If you have any questions just send me a message and Ill be glad to answer them.

 

I think all in all this is a very poor review, especially considering you have been posting around on the gaming forum that you can run BF2 great on your X200.

12-24fps when idle is not what I call great, that's what I call a dreadful performer and totally unsuitable for play, especially online which is what 98% of BF2 owners do. You're getting 12 and 17fps when idle there, and even STILL under 25 when looking through the iron sights, so I'm willing to guess you'd drop into single digits whenever alot of action goes on....

I run BF2 at medium-high on my Go7400 and get around 40fps - but I could run it all maxed out and get terrible framerates, but go around saying Yeah, my Go7400 runs BF2 on max settings! Sure it could, but it'd be a bad experience and hardly reflects the 'true' Go7400 experience.

Technically any card can run any game at any settings - it's the framerate that dictates how good the card is at pushing said settings. someone could post like you have and say their Go6150 is running Supreme Commander at max settings - yes its possible, but is it playable, without even looking you know no, it's not, and I also knew this about your x200 claims.

No personal offence to you - but it just bugs me when people post misleading stuff like this all the time....

Oblivion looks ok in fairness. No complaints there, the others look fine too but they are old games that are very unintensive in any case.

 

Ok.. You want to see a video on "How bad I lag" on BF2. I can show you some videos to prove on those frame rates I don't get lag unless I "can actually" get 6fps. You don't have to brag about your Go7400. I just trying to show people what they are capable of playing. This is the Dedicated version of the x200m, not the fully shared one which you posted. I have been playing all these games lagless. Some people cant even imagine the x200m playing BF2 at those frame rates on High-Medium settings. So If you want to get further into how I can show you the performance, message me...

 

Videos would be interesting

The first two games look decent, but as above they are old games that are not that demanding. Oblivion looks pretty decent given the GPU here, but it would be interesting to see what non-idle play looks like for Oblivion and BF2

 

Sorry, but it was at the point that you claim it is playable and 'lagless' until it reaches 6 frames per second that I realised how stupid this thread is. If you're happy with that, fine, but don't try and pass that off as 'playable' for the rest of us.

6 frames per second would be unplayable for even an RTS, let alone a fast paced FPS - that is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes of course I can imagine the X200 running BF2 at those framerates at those settings - like absolute crap! As even your screenies show - not even breaking the 25fps mark when totally idle, looking down the iron sights at some grass! That alone indicates your X200 is struggling a dying death running BF2 at those settings, to be honest, and shows that it'd probably explode in intense combat.

I'm not bragging about my Go7400, it's crap card, but it's about 300% better then the X200 and it's limits are BF2 at med-high settings at about 50fps. Of course I could go around saying it can run BF2 at maxed out settings at massive res with full AA and AF - and probably get about 5-20fps, but that would defeat the purpose wouldn't it as it'd run exactly how it runs on mid-high on your x200 - like crap.

Post some screenshots of BF2 at these settings in the middle of intense combat (few guys shooting, few vehicles, whatever) - now that will be interesting.

 

Did you read what I said??? I said if I could actually get down to 6fps. I didnt say I go down to there and I never have.. I will get a video up shortly, just have to find something else to use besides Fraps.

 

I dunno if BF2 is a twitch shooter like UT2004, but anything less that 40-50 minimum (not average) makes competitive gameplay difficult. 15-20 in a FPS would be pretty bad.

 

25 Fps is the Ideal FPS. For some reason I dont see lag from anything below 10fps. Weird huh.

 

I have the video. I hope you all like it. I just want to Prove HavoK's statement wrong "Yes of course I can imagine the X200 running BF2 at those framerates at those settings - like absolute crap". Wow ok I did what you said HavoK and heres your video. Enjoy it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5x6Bj2M5zCI

 

Maybe it is just the video or youtube cutting the frame rate, but that video doesnt look smooth to me. It seems to drop alot of frames and the cross-hair is jumping around.

 

Looks good for an integrated card, but i think you're sacrificing too much framerate for eye candy.
But yeah, it's still impressive what the x200m can do.

 

You've just proved my point. BF2 is running like absolute crap is that video.

That video is absolutely terrible and just proves my point, I don't see how you fail to realise this. How can you claim it's not choppy at all when it clearly is? At once stage in the alleyway it looks to be running at about single digit frames per second.

In the aerial combat scene it actually looks like a slideshow.

Conclusion - you are trolling on purpose as even your own video that apparently proves your claims does nothing but reinforce mine.

 

Well what do you think?!? Fraps makes the game choppy as I said. I will chop your FPS in half. Imagine how it runs w/o fraps. It runs great. Its not like im going to lower my settings for something you said. I know for a fact it was a bit laggy with the game recorder on, but you dont have to try so hard to prove that "omg the x200m is such a terrible card".

 

First a reminder, though your x200 has a 64MB DDR SDRAM memory, it's still classified as and integrated GPU (go to ATI.AMD's site here).Though the 32MB gives the GPU a boost it still largely depends on the main memory and the Texture and Lighting operations are done on the CPU.
I am renaming the thread so it wouldn't be confusing to the newbies.
And about the frame-rate, many people will disagree with the "playable" part, it depends on the person who wants to play the game.

 

Good for an integrated but not sure the loss in framerate is doing anyone any favours - I wouldn't play it like that, put it that way

 

low-medium plays nicely, high no way....

 

Well yea, of course it plays really smooth on medium settings, but It still works fine on me to put the textures and terrain on High. I just seem to get the lag when I use Fraps. Otherwise it works fine.

 

No-ones trying to prove that the X200 is a bad card - just to counteract your false claims that it can run BF2 well on medium-high settings.

Tell you what, email ATI themselves- I guarantee they will tell you no way, the X200 is not capable of running Battlefield 2 at those settings. Also, trawl the web for 'X200 Battlefield 2'. My bets? Thousands of posts about X200 running BF2 like crap.

Your claims about FRAPS are laughable. FRAPS doesn't not impede FPS when taking pictures at all. Videos maybe, not not pictures. Wow, it might drop a frame or too when you take the picture. But nothing remotely noticable. Certainly not 'halfing' it as you claim.

Nobody cares what you run your games like - it's your own business. However, it is ridiculous to go around advising people that the X200 can run BF2 at medium-high settings. As I said before, the Go7400 can technically run something like Company of Heroes at 1680x1050 with everything maxed out. But it'd run like absolute crap. So logic would tell you that you can only claim it can run a game in so far as it can run it well - a nice framerate, consistant, and enjoyable to use. So that'd generally be around medium then. I'd be flamed to death if I claimed my Go7400 was running COH at max settings - because its obviously not true....just like the X200 running BF2 at medium-high is equally as untrue. BF2 even, runs at Medium-high at 800x600 on my Go7400 at a nice 30-60fps - the generally acceptable limits within said logic to state its capabilities.

Bottom line: You are free to run your games at whatever settings you like, and rejoice and cry over them as you see fit. You really should know better however, to post claims based on circumstances that are unacceptable to probably about 99% of the gaming community; look at your threads even, how many people posted in agreement with your BF2 review and the X200s capabilities?

I don't think there are many that will disagree with me, apart from you.

 

I was talking about the videos "Not Pictures!". Read before you speak please. I am "NOT" talking for every single X200m. I am speaking for the Dedicated version. My version. It runs my games at my settings. It doesnt run the way you say it lags and people have their views at it. Yes I can play it very very smooth on medium settings but I want to get the best from my card so anything above putting the texture and terrain on high would lag my game up as much as it did with FRAPS. So I did set a certain limit and testing how it runs while. Not all x200m's are the same. I do and will keep running it on Medium - High settings. Conclusion ended.

 

Eh, dude, have you ever played BF2, or for that matter any demanding game(be it FPS or RTS) on a decent, dedicated card? If so, you'd know what Havok is going on about. The video isn't too convincing, for what you've been claiming, or it might be just youtube. I could see lags and frame skips, so it didn't count for much. An x200m, with dedicated memory or otherwise, is simply not a card that you can push so far.

 

-sigh- There's no point in arguing this. If Filipinocrzy is happy with the performance, so be it. Just don't recommend people a X200M cause it plays all these games 'smoothly'. For most people, it wouldn't be acceptable.