The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    A bit of a dilemma -- A6VC or A6VA

    Discussion in 'Asus' started by Scorseze, Jan 4, 2006.

  1. Scorseze

    Scorseze Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Hi

    My brother's about to buy a laptop and he settled for the ASUS, which is, no doubt, good value for money.
    The thing is though, is the A6VA worth its bigger money?

    A6VA -- A6VC (main distinctions)

    CPU: Pentium-M 750 1.86 GHz -- Pentium-M 740 1.73 GHz
    HDD: 80 GB HDD Ultra DMA100 -- 60 GB HDD Ultra DMA100
    (no idea what exactly these hdds are)
    Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon X700, 128MB VRAM -- Geforce 6200 256 MB Turbo Cache

    And that's about the differences. Now, as I presume, HDD's got just more capacity and the 1.86 GHz CPU shall be a bit faster (correct me if it's not that `a bit' difference). The real thing is the graphics -- Geforce -- more ram, some `Turbo Cache' thingy (whatever that is). Is Radeon any better then? Less ram, but does the additional 128 mb really matter?
    It's not about games. Crucial applications are Photoshop, Corel, Microstation, Autocad, 3D Studio Max.

    Much obliged for your opinions.

    regards
    James
     
    Scorseze, Jan 4, 2006
    #1
  2. Mystic Image

    Mystic Image Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    6
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    The 6200 is a lot slower... and it's not really 256 MB - more likely it is truly 64MB, with the rest coming from system RAM. If you included the X700 and "HyperMemory" it would be 256MB (if the X700 has hypermemory)...

    Overall, the 6200 is much slower, and most likely that will show up when you're using AutoCad and 3D Studio MAX; I suspect that if you're only doing wireframes, however, that the NVidia will have comparable performance.
     
    Mystic Image, Jan 4, 2006
    #2
  3. Scorseze

    Scorseze Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    So you're not quite sure about that? It seems that as long as there's shared memory considered (ex. Intel Extreme Graphics), manufacturers tend to mention it...

    There's no "HyperMemory" in the specification. Guess it would be far more expensive.
     
    Scorseze, Jan 4, 2006
    #3
  4. ray50000

    ray50000 Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    3
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I believe turbo cache is nvidia's form of hypermemory which is memory borrowed from the system ram. Either way, if you're going to do work with autocad and 3d studio max then you definitely want the x700 graphics card over the 6200, it will make a world of difference. If you take into account the turbo cache memory, both graphics cards have the same amount of memory and you can enable hypermemory on the x700 as well which would give you 256+mb of video memory total.
     
    ray50000, Jan 4, 2006
    #4
  5. AuroraS

    AuroraS Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    651
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    I say spend the extra cash and opt for the A6Va. You may not utilize the X700 right away, but I'm sure in the future, you may thank yourself for getting the A6Va instead of the A6Vc. The Radeon X700 is far superior to the Geforce Go 6200...
     
    AuroraS, Jan 4, 2006
    #5
  6. Iter

    Iter Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    i checked the 3dmark for a6vc, the video doesn't show me a fast performance, i just wonder it's video chip can handle some games....
     
    Iter, Jan 5, 2006
    #6
  7. AuroraS

    AuroraS Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    651
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    It's okay... a little better than the integrated video solutions out there...but no where even CLOSE to the Radeon X700.
     
    AuroraS, Jan 5, 2006
    #7
  8. Scorseze

    Scorseze Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    So the GF6200 is rather rubbish compared to the X700. The former seems to be equivalent to the X300. Thanks for clearing things up.
     
    Scorseze, Jan 5, 2006
    #8
  9. AuroraS

    AuroraS Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    651
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Yes...the GF6200 is equivalent to the X300.
    You'd need a GF6600 to match the X700..

    Definitely go for the A6Va if you can get ahold of one.
     
    AuroraS, Jan 5, 2006
    #9
  10. Scorseze

    Scorseze Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    I believe this is an European model, no problem in this matter. It costs about PLN5500 which is $2014CDN. The one with GF6200 is approx $293CDN less.
     
    Scorseze, Jan 5, 2006
    #10