i know that there is half the streams in the G vs the GS - 8 vs 16
but would a 128mb G play equal or better to the GS
i used to have the dv2500t a while back and it had a 64mb gs so im wondering if this new laptop i just ordered - asus f9s-b1 is going to have the same performance or worse or better - don't care either way, but would like to know what to expect![]()
-
-
so i probably wont notice a difference then. i mainly think if it can play halo 2 on the lowest settings, then im happy
-
-
The 8600m G is definately going to be worse than the 8400m GS. The paltry 64 Mb of RAM difference isn't going to change anything in these weak cards.
-
i disagree about the ram, most games use enough texture memory these days to easily max out a 64mb card but likely not a 128mb one at lowest settings, the performance obviously suffers much more when the fast ram is tapped out
-
but anyway back to you as lithius says new games need strong graphics core which 8400G does not deliver at all. The good think about 8400G unlike x2300/x2500 is that it is not renamed go 7400 and can run Dx10, the bad part is that it is performing as good as go 7400. -
-
The 8400GS would be much better, as turbocache, which I assume the card utilises as well as that 64mb, is decent enough. You'll be held back far sooner by the cards poor pushing power then the ram anyway.
-
The card in the F9 is not bad at all, it's a 128-bit 8400M-G (according to Pulp at least), though it will still be weaker than the card in the dv2500t (not by much though, at higher resolutions especially).
-
since we're talking about graphic cards, what does turbocache do/what is it, all i know is that the asus f9s-b1 has a turbocache of 384mb (if my numbers r right).
128mb geforce 8400m G vs 64mb 8400m gs
Discussion in 'Gaming (Software and Graphics Cards)' started by kickace, Oct 4, 2007.