W3J vs. A8Jm SCREEN comparison?

From one of the retailers possessing both (ok, or not) or one with some insightful information, which is going to have the superior screen?

The W3V screen is carrying over, but the A8jm is new model. Both are glossy, both are 1280x768 (bleh) - but viewing angles? Color saturation? Sharpness? Etc?

Right now I am leaning towards the A8Jm. Price tag is unreal, and can upgrade to 2gigs of 667 from Milestone for 120 dollars (sweet). A equal/superior screen would be the deal sealer

 

Just a correction.. the A8Jm is actually 1280 x 800

 

Yeap, the A8jm is indeed 1280x800, I was installing the nVidia drivers, and was surprised it wasn't x768

 

well, I guess that is kinda cool in regards to the screen res. Another 32 pixels YEAH



Coriolis, have you seen a W3V (i assume)? What did you think of it compared to the A8's screen?

 

Kind of baffles me that the A8Jm is better in many categories but still less money. I know the materials play a large part (alright - the whole part) but still...it has a better screen - that's just wrong.

 

Many categories? Isn't the A8Jm the same as the W3J in terms of components besides the gpu? Screen and build are obviously different, but I'm wondering where else the A8Jm is superior. Mainly because I've decided to buy the A8Jm over the W3J haha

 

^ Graphics card anyway...maybe I got too carried away...let me think.

I think I was reacting to the low cost to upgrade to 2GB 667MHz RAM too - that's incredible.

 

agreed. That ram upgrade is a total no brainer, and the cost of the notebook is just silly when you think about what it packs.

What about the graphics card though? Do you think that the Go7600 is better than the x1600? I had thought that the x1600 would be better in directX games and the go would be better in OpenGl, and that would be the only difference. I know that people think the x1600 creates more heat, but I think that belief probably comes from people who are comparing the one built into the SMALL W3J. I can imagine that the stigma's would be reversed if we were to reverse the graphics cards in the A8Jm and W3J.

 

You know - I can't say for sure which one would perform better - they're fairly comparable. I like the dedicated 512MB in the A8j - does that also have any hyper memory? If so, it's a beast.

As for speed or performance, that's not always proportional to how much memory each has. I guess the only way to do it would be to benchmarks and test out various games.

As for the screens, I'd really like to know if they use different manufacturers - if one is brighter or is in some way different/better other than resolution.

 

hmm i wouldn't say better, but rather, could keep up with the W3J. one thing is battery life..both seem to be about the same, but the A8Jm is doing it with a 6 cell versus the 8 cell on the W3J. A8Jm has a webcam, the other doesn't. both seem to weigh the same even though the W3J uses carbon fibre (weight probably due to the 8 cell).

 

the default memory in the a8jm is 533mhz, not 677mhz, just so you know. both are 2x512. still, and upgrade from that is only <100USD. the A8Jm has a DVI port, and now bluetooth.

 

They are both pretty much the same I believe.. the Nvidia uses 256 dedicated ram and turbocache (which uses system memory not dedicated) to make it up to 512 if it was ever needed. The ATI uses the same technology but calls it hypermemory. The Nvidia A8Jm scores 3800 approximately on 3Dmark05, and the X1600 W3J scores 3900 approximately (although some users account for even higher numbers without overclocking). Physically the geforce 7600go has 8 pixel pipes vs the 12 on the radeon X1600 but I believe the go7600 uses 8 of another type of pipe (could somebody fill me in?) as opposed to only 4 of that pipe on the X1600. I'd say they are pretty much the same card, and as in all Nvidia vs ATI comparisons, ATI will take the lead in DirectX performance while Nvidia will take it in openGL.

 

That makes me feel a little better - I thought the 512Mb card in the A8j was all dedicated.

 

Eh? mine doesn't have bluetooth.... does yours have it?

 

no thats wrong, the 7600go does not use any turbo cache or share system memory, it is 512 dedicated

 

Well, one thing that seems consistent is that the 7600 scores better in 3d06 but worse in 3d05 compared to the x1600

Also, I believe the x1600 overclocks very well. Not sure about the 7600 (or even if you would be OCing at all)


I am still battle over the resolution. I have to see 1280x800 in person somewhere. I will be coming from 1600x1050 if i go for it



true that the 7600 uses 512 dedicated

 

3dMark is only a general idea. If two cards/systems are within a couple of hundred points, they will perform very similar in real world terms. So these two are dead even there. As far as dedicated memory. I would say that these 2 gpus MAYBE could take advantage of 256, definitely not 512. It's a marketing number. You won't see a noticable gain in performance between those two amounts of VRAM.

In the end, the 7600 should be a little better with OpenGL and the ATI should do a little better with DirectX.

 

hrmmm...any word on the OP lol? An actual comparison between the A8j screen and the W3V/J screen?

 

Mine doesn't have bluetooth either.

 

that should say not

 

in 3dmark06, the difference on stock drivers is around 500 points. that is some significance.

 

Slightly better res on A8jm but Does anyone know if one screen is brighter?

 

Hmm, I tend to take synthetic benchmark scores with a grain of salt these days, since both vendors have been caught tweaking their drivers to boost 3Dmark scores...

Cashmonee has a point, the amount of dedicated VRAM (256 vs. 512) won't make a huge difference with most current games.

If we presume that the go7600 and X1600 are fairly evenly matched, you may see a performance boost on memory intensive games with the 7600... after all, memory allocated (and not used) for the GPU is memory that isn't available for the game.

To be honest, I'm surprised that ATI uses hyper-memory on the X1600, which is a decent mid-range chip. I believe it's better suited for entry level (X1300, go7300) GPUs.

 

Any game that would benefit from having 512 megs of dedicated ram instead of 256 is going to be WAY to hard to render for either of these mobile cards....so ATI's choice makes sense. Nvidia likes to add more dedicated memory as a selling point, even though it really doenst do anything at all (ex: fx 5200 with 512.....)

Isnt the w3j 16:9 and the a8jm 16:10? W3 will be better for movies and HD, while the A8jm is more computer oriented (being able to have 2 documents in word side by side for example)
So that would be my main concern in the screen comparison.....total pixels is not always better remember, id rather have my widescreen 2005 fpw over t he 2001FP which is a 4:3....even though it has more total area.

 

My friend had an ATi 9600XT and when the FX5200 with 512mbs came out he went crazy and paid 200$ to buy it. The hilarious part is that it was 3times as slow as his 9600XT lmao. It was the funniest thing I've ever seen.

 

^ Btw, i think the W3J is 16:10 while the A8Jm is 15:9. In the end, its the same thing.

 

the w3j is definately 16:9, in one the of the pictures of it closeup it distinctly says "16:9 ASPECT RATIO" or somethign of that sort


I doubt antyhing is 15:9....why would they do that? Thats so unstandard. Its going to be 16:10 or 16:9

and in the end 15:9 =/= 16:10 anyways......

 

I agree that the difference in resolution makes just about zero difference -

But W3J is 15:9, and A8jm is 16:10.

 

I can't say about the screen, the W3v screen is good, the A8jm is also good. I've heard the W3j has a better screen, who knows!