How do the graphics cards of m1530 and studio 16 compare?

Just curious how much stronger one is over the other. The m1530's is a 256mb card, but it's ddr3 and seems a lot more powerful than the typical 8600M.

Oh, and does anyone know when there'll be new colours for the studio 16? =)

Thanks.

 

According to these reviews the cards offer pretty much the same performance, (synthetic benchmarks though).

The XPS 16's GPU is probably a little weaker than the m1530's because in the testing case, the XPS 16 featured a faster CPU and still attained slightly lower benchmarks than the m1530.

 

According to their GPU chart, the 3670 is 61 and the 8600M GT is 69, so it is indeed really close: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

 

Looks as if the ATI card beat out the Nvidia card in all but the oldest 3dmark settings. Not by a whole hell of a lot, but by a decent little amount.

I'm sure it would scuff the DDR2 8600m gt that was in the inspirons quite a bit more, or at least I'd guess.

 

Notebookcheck.com benchmarks should be taken with a pinch of salt.

They do not take cpu speed, type, or generation into account nor do they take the variations in gpu types into account, for exaple which memory type the card uses or which driver is in use.

Unless the computers tested each use the same cpu, have the same memory and have the exact gpu used listed, the synthetic benchmark is pointless as you are not just comparing graphics cards.

On a comparison of just 8600m gt 256mb gddr3 (xps 1530) versus ati mobility radeon hd 3670(studio xps 1640) I'd say at stock clocks the difference is neglible.
The 1640 being slightly better but the difference not being enough to see any real difference in performance.

The only benefit I'd say the 8600 has over the 3670 is that it overclocks very well, I don't know how well the 3670 overclocks.

 

Y'know I was thinking that too when I was looking...that they didn't mention the type of memory in the card they used. I simply assumed it was the ddr3 versions.

I would think that the radeon would do slightly better in general though. Not enormously, but better...and I still think it would do a fair amount better than the 8600m GT with the DDR2.

In general too wouldn't the higher speed of the memory that comes standard with the studio 16 also help quite a bit?

 

The other thing to conisder is that the Studio XPS 16 is marketed as a multimedia laptop as opposed to a gaming laptop. I'd be much more interesting in multimedia (Blue-ray decoding, scaling, etc.) performance comparisson between the two cards.

 

That's true...but I think it's neat to see how the gaming ability of a "multimedia laptop" compares to the gaming ability of an advertised gaming laptop. Now granted as far as "gaming laptops" go the 1530 isn't exactly a monster but it's great for the price.

 

The 3670 also runs way cooler then the 8600 i havent even passed 70c with my 3670

 

Temps are laptop specific, my 8600m overclocked (ridiculously high) doesn't go over 68.
Though saying that, some other posters get very high temps.

 

thats very surprising. Cooling pad?

 

Either way, I am going from a 1.83core2duo to a 2.53core2duo, and from ddr2 to ddr3, and from an 8600m GT (the inspiron 1720 version, so ddr2) to the radeon in the XPS 16....so pretty sure I'll see quite an improvement

 

You should see a noticable improvment