256MB NVIDIA® GeForce? Go 7900 GS vs 383MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS ?

What is generally the better video card do you think if i'm going to buy a laptop that are both the same price, those are the video cards i'm allowed to choose from. Mainly be running Aoe3 or WoW or something. But maybe higher graphics later.

383MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS
hp dv9500t

or

256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ Go 7900 GS
dell inspiron 1705

 

the 7900gs kills the 8400m gs in everything. The only issue is that the 8400m is a Direct X 10 card. Still the 7900gs will win against it in every benchmark.

 

As mD- said, the Go 7900 GS is a much faster graphics card than the 8400M GS. If you want to have a DX10 graphics card, with alot more power than 8400M GS, then look for either the 8600M GS or 8600M GT. Those graphics cards will perform faster than the 8400M GS.

 

Alright, so lets say i upgrade it to a 8600m GS, Now does the does the graphics card from the dell still blow it out of the water? or how do they compare now?

 

The 7900GS will still beat the 8600GS in real world benchmark. But for DX10 sake, the 8600GS is the better choice.

 

The Go 7900 GS is still faster than the 8600M GS, by quite a bit. The 8600M GT is aso slightly slower than the Go 7900 GS, but the difference isn't massive. However, if you are wanting to run older games on the notebook or games with low requirements, then the 8600M GS should do fine.

 

Alright, so now here is the big decision...

I can go with a dell inspiron 1705 for $1,465 with a T7200 2.0ghz Processor and the 7900gs video card.

or

Hp dv9500t with a T7300 2.0ghz processor and the 8600m gs graphics card for $1550

or i can downgrade the processor a little and go with a HP dv9500t with a T7100 1.8ghz and the 8600m gs graphics card for $1,479

or of course i can leave it as the 8400 graphics card with the 2.0ghz processor for $1,409


Curious, I run wow on all LOW graphics, will the 8600m gs run it on high u think?

 

I would go with the 2.0Ghz (I like even numbers) and the 8600m GS (DX10 to future proof your investment).

You will be happy with any of the options you mentioned above. All strong choices.

 

So I think I like the dv9500t / T7300 2.0ghz / 511mb 8600m GS / 2g mem the best, what's everyone think?

$1,428.25 - was price

Usage : Light gaming - WoW / AoE / moderately new/old FPS's
Entertainment, watching movies, editing, burning dvd's, lots of multitasking

 

What do you plan to use it for?

What programs and games (if any)?

 

Updated earlier reply with what i'll be using it for...I always seem to be missing something ^_^

 

That dv9500t (and at a great price) should do a nice job with all of that. The Core 2 Duo will let you multitask to your heart's content.

Any other recommendations anyone?

 

The T7300 has always been the best and most significant upgrade from it's 1 step down. Because you double your cache with it, from 2MB to 4MB I think. Any jump after that i.e T7500, wouldn't be as big and usually not as cheap.

I don't think WoW is at all gpu intensive, you might even be able to play it on high with the 8400, but you're not going to get many games like that, esspecially in the future.

 

if you want an alternative that's cheaper try the PowerPro J 10:15 or PowerPro A 9:6. They both have the 8600GS standard and they both come with three year warranties.

 

would you be able to play the games, such as FEAR, HALO 2, CS(all), and other gpu intensive games, if not max/high, at least at medium? with the 8400m GS?

 

i have the 8400m gs with only 64mb dedicated (dv2500t) and 767 shared (831 total)

and halo 2 runs fine for me - havent tried high settings, just left it as it was and it plays fine. i thought the video card would have more shared memory because i have 4gb of ram but it only shares a maximum of 767mb with 2gb of ram.

but i like the video card, works good for me

 

I am curious about something please help. This is directly from the information from hP.

The NVIDIA(R) GeForce(R) 8400M GS delivers improved quality and performance levels in 3D graphics. If configured with the 1GB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm), there will be 128MB dedicated memory and up to 255MB shared memory. If configured with the 2GB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm), there will be 128MB dedicated memory and up to 767MB shared memory.

What would happen if you have 4gbs of system Memory, which is now offered from Hp. Would this be a sweet gaming setup for a cheap price then. I know if running 32-bit vista it would only recognize 3gbs, but what would the shared memory total be. I am pretty new at this and am curious about how good this setup would be.

 

I could be wrong, but 1.8 should be an even number...just not an integer if I remember my math terms correct.

 

Seriously, the 8400 will probably have a difficult time using more than 256MB total of memory (maybe 512MB tops)...

I think that memory would top out at 767MB, of which half of that allocation would be useless

 

The issue with video RAM, guys, isn't entirely how much you have. Cards using more dedicated memory (on board the card) are often going to be better, because the memory bandwidth to that RAM is so much higher. It's RAM that is dedicated solely to your GPU. Otherwise, all the information that your card is working with has to pass through the system bus, which is also trying to handle requests from your other hardware (CPU, hard drive). Not to mention that VRAM is usually higher quality and faster RAM anyway.

I can't remember for sure, but I think on board memory is something like 4 times faster than using system RAM. My knowledge on this subject may be a little bit dated, though, as I haven't looked into it in the past year or two.

So, here's the trick: Let's say you have a GPU with no on board memory at all (integrated chip on the motherboard), and it was sharing 2GB of memory from your system. First of all, that's 2GB that your system doesn't get to use, which could become an issue at some point. Secondly, and more importantly to me, there's a good chance your game is going to run like crap. If your card can't get access to the information in memory, then even if you have the world's fastest GPU your game is going to be choppy.

And that's why the 7900GS is able to outperform these chips that are based on the newer 8 series chipset: It's 256MB on board, and (on my Gateway NX860XL at least) shares an extra 256MB, so it has more data that it can work with quickly while still having storage for large textures.

With the GPU and VRAM overclocked about 30%, I get 60-80 frames per second with all of the options turned on high in Counter-Strike Source, 1920x1200 resolution. Without overclocking, it's something like 50-65 or so. I'm able to run NWN2 (which, I admit, isn't all that good looking for how much muscle it requires) at 1920x1200 with all the options on, but my fps is low, about 20-30, which does kinda suck but since the game is pausable at any time it's certainly still playable. I think it has something to do with the shadow maps, I only recently installed the game and haven't played around with the vid settings that much. This card hasn't disappointed me so far.

So my question for you is: How soon will it be before a game comes out that requires DirectX 10 only? I know that there are some games in the works that are like that, but I haven't been paying attention to which ones, a few of them are continuing to support DirectX 9.0c for the time being. Some, like Company of Heroes, are offering a patch if you want to go DirectX 10, but it's not a requirement. For the most part, Vista is a terribly unpopular piece of software, and of course it's the only place you'll find DX10. So, any company that makes a DX10 only game is forcing gamers with XP to go Vista; that company is going to get boo'd by any gamers that don't want to make the move (and there's quite a few). I haven't done much research on recent games, but I think it's likely that DX9c will continue to be supported for at least a year or two, by which time these laptops might be struggling to run the latest games anyway. So, how soon until games that run DX10 only start coming out?

 

The definition of an even number is any integer with the form 2k. So yeah, it's not an even measurement in ghz.

On topic...I have a laptop that is now over a year old, and it still runs like a champ, specs in sig. The 7900gs is a very capable card at stock, and if you want, it is a great overclocker as well. As everyone else has mentioned the main draw to the 8600GT is that it is a solid card with DX10 support, but overall, the 7900gs is in fact more powerful, but lacking that DX10 support. It is very doubtful that companies will exclude a DX9 option in their newer DX10 games. Also, what good will DX10 support do if your card is too weak to play with all the eye candy anyhow?

 

I'm with Final Spirit for several reasons.

First and foremost, the general consensus is that the 8600 series will be incapable of playing DX10 games at reasonable settings and resolutions. Note that this isn't entirely based on those "DX10" ports- we don't need another "Lost Planet/CoH/Call of Juarez aren't real DX10 games" discussion (although its true). Honestly, there's not much in DX10 that gets me excited. Physics yes, real-time terrain generation yes (the DX10 nVidia waterfall tech demo) but not much else. Given the choice, I would 100% side with the 7900 GS, as DX10 isn't a deal making improvement at the moment.

Secondly, even if we assume the 8600 GS will do alright in DX10, games for the foreseeable future will implement DX9 as a backup render pattern, much like current games still support DX8, etc. Sure you won't get prettier smoke or realistic flowing water, but you will get the higher-performing card that will still work on future games.

Finally, the 8600GS has terrible memory bandwidth, like the rest of the 8600 series. Not only are these cards terribly underpowered in the shader department, but they suffer greatly at increased resolutions due to the truncated memory bandwidth operating on a 128-bit bus. If that 17" monitor is using an enhanced resolution, or you choose to play on a larger screen, the performance of the 8600GS, while already lower than the 7900, will suffer dramatically.

Just my $.02. Best of luck on your purchase.