NEW Latitudes on the way!

Bad news. Only 48 CUDA Cores... meaning this is more likely a re-badged 415m than a 420m. The 420m has 96 pipelines.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M - Notebookcheck.net Tech
NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

3DMark06:
420m: 6150
415m: 4000


Boo! Why put in a dedicated card that is no better than the Sandy Bridge integrated 3000 graphics?


BTW, the new Thinkpads and Elietebooks have the same problem...

Not a game changer, but it leaves almost zero reason to get dedicated graphics. Although some of the lower spec'd models will have the slower 2000HD graphics.

 

Sandy Bridge GPU is slower than my Quadro NVS 160M (~Geforce 9300M but with 256MB memory instead of sharing the RAM) in my Latitude E6400.

Example:

This is the fast Intel GPU model you can find, for desktop... StarCraft 2 runs at 39fps. My laptop GPU, runs at 58-60fps.
Source:http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/intel-hd-graphics-2000-3000.html

Also, if you look at in-game screen shots.. on the few games that the Intel Sandy Bridge support, it doesn't draw some effects compared to Nvidia and ATi graphic card at the exact same resolution and settings. Probably driver tricks to present highest FPS in games and benchmark scores. This tactic is really not new for Intel.
PLUS, Nvidia and ATi cards provide FULL OpenGL, DirectX and OpenCL support, while the Intel graphic solution doesn't (and no OpenCL support at all).

Plus, with the Nvidia or ATi solution, you know that the CPU is not used for assistance (so more CPU power to you for you games, or CAD work), AND you have full software support, as Nvidia and ATi make a universal drivers.. while Intel still stuck with software lists.

 

Oh dear:

New 8460p:


Latitude who??

Seriously though, while I think the new E-series looks good, these well....look better. and the trackpad...mother of God that's a big one (and glass!!)

It's gonna be a tough choice for me in the near future I say!

 

Well, take a second look - its as thick as new E series, at least judging by pictures.
Image you posted is just marketing gimmick - take a look at real life hands on pictures, laptop is twice as thick as in your image and they try to hide its true thickness by making bottom half of laptop black and sloped.
I still prefer E6320 over new EliteBooks, perhaps 12" EliteBook will look better than bigger ones, but theres no info on 12" EBook so far.
And what about batteries - will 6 cell batteries protrude from Latitudes and EliteBooks as well?

 

Thickness isn't a concern for me really (I don't get why people freak out over anything that isn't "MacBook Air" thin..) as long as it's not 3 inches thick I'm fine. I think that the design is pretty good looking overall though.

 

The Elitebooks are nice, but I don't think they kill the looks of the new Dells. As has already been pointed out, look at the Engadget pictures. They don't look as magical (in comparison to the ad pictures) in real life.

Thanks for this info! Just looking at the specs of the cards, the 4200M should be quite a bit more powerful than the NVS 160M. So perhaps the 4200M will offer a good bump over the Intel HD 3000 graphics.

I will be waiting patiently for some benchmarks!

**edit**

According to the notebookcheck tests for the HD Graphics 3000, starcraft 2 at low settings has an average of 98fps.

This is a lot better than X-bit Labs tests. The 2500K is a quad core chip, and I assume the HD3000 tests from notebookcheck are also from Quad Core mobile parts. Why is there such a big different in fps?

According to Anandtech's review of a Sandybridge Compal laptop the HD3000 does 59.7fps at 1360x768 (this is a higher resolution than the X-bit labs bench).

Unless I have missed something, I think the X-bit labs tests have some issue or error.

 

You can find a lot more benchmarks here:
Computer Games on Laptop Graphic Cards - Notebookcheck.net Tech

Search and restrict to 3000HD, 9300G
9300GS and NVS 160. The 3000HD is srtonger by a wide margin on the few overlapping benchmarks. It is more than twice as strong in 3dMark06 and Vantage. I would not go on a review of desktop hardware.

 

Oh my lord that Elitebook looked like a glorified Envy. Chicklet keyboard, and a semi glossy finish, makes me wanna puke!

 

It could be a driver update from Intel.... maybe they found new way to not draw many objects to gain a lot of FPS. Or startCraft 2 update. Also, the Intel GPU is based on how fast your CPU is. If you overclock your Intel Sandy Bridge you also increase the speed of the graphic card. They are not independent.

Oups, I had vSync ON all this time! I tested this again, with the latest Nvidia driver and SC2 update, Windows 7 SP1 Aere ON (as always), minimum settings set in SC2... the game goes at 106fps easy, no even doubting this.

So, in conclusion we can see that it's still faster than Intel fastest graphic solution on the desktop... and this is 2 year old laptop with a slow Core 2 Duo (P8400 2.2GHz), where the GPU architecture is 4 years old.

Trust me, Nvidia and AMD (ATi) are not idiots... they will do everything they can to not allow Intel to have a better GPU.
While Intel offers a free GPU solution (hence why they include them on the CPU.. so that you cannot.. not have it).
If Intel is able to even come close to either manufacture low end chips.. than they are both bankrupt.

 

The NVS 160M is hardly better than the integrated graphics on the 1st generation i7-620. It is not superior to the HD3000.

The HD3000 is ranked #154. The NVS 160m is #210. Tied with the lower level HD2000 that will come with 2nd generation i3 and lower level i5 chips. It will also get you better battery life, becasue it shares with the CPU.

For low end discrete graphics it is game over. They will hold on this iteration and fool some people. But the days of the 310m or ATI5470 are numbered. they will stick to higher end graphics with switchable solutions- like they should. They also will leverage their technology to make mobile CPU/GPU combo's used in phones and tablets- like Tegra2.

3DMark06:
NVS 160M: 1900
3000HD: 5050

Drivers do not make up such a wide chasm.