512MB NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT vs. 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 130M

Hey, I'm planning on getting a new laptop in a couple weeks, I've basically decided on the HP HDX16t. I'm going to use it for school work and a decent amount of gaming and was wondering what the exact differences between these two graphic cards are and if it's worth an extra $100 for the 1GB card. Also, could i play Crysis on Mid-settings or so with both of these, or just the 1GB? The specs of what I'm looking are as follows

Vista Home-Premium 64-bit
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor P7450
4GB DDR2 RAM
320GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive
512 mb NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT or 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 130M

Any feedback is welcome and helpful
(Suggestions for a different laptop of similar quality are appreciated as well, as long as its under $1000, which is my budget)

 

The gt 130m is newer tech, cooler and is like 20% more powerful, in my humble opinion its a better choice.

 

The 9600m GT GDDR3 version will play Crysis at 1024 x 768 on high except shadows and shader have to be set to medium, no AA. 32+FPS through most of the game..

The GT 130m would be a better choice though

 

Never mind the memory size, what matters is the memory type and speed.
Pick the GT 130M only if the 9600M GT isn't GDDR3-equipped.

 

Thanks for the quick responses, so far the general consensus is to go for the 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 130M. Some people were assuming/asking if the 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT was GDDR3, of which i have no idea as it doesn't say on the customization page

 

If it's HP, chances are both GPUs are DDR2(at least I'm pretty certain the 9600M GT is). If they're both of the same memory interface, pick the GT130M. I'm not sure it's worth 100$, but it's better than the 9600M GT assuming both are either running DDR2 or GDDR3.

 

The HDX16t uses DDR2 for both models to reduce cost. Personally, I don't think the upgrade is worth $100 since I feel it isn't that much faster than the 9600M GT. You can easily OC the 9600M GT to GT 130M speeds to save you that $100. While you can OC the GT 130M, the speed difference still won't be much.

 

DO NOT BUY THE HDX 16 . As a matter of fact, do not buy HP laptops. Their GPU's are crap. You could get a MSI laptop for a HDX 16's price and the MSI would beat the HDX flat down in the cpu and gpu department.

 

May I recommend that you consider the Sony FW instead? It's a better built machine, plus its 4650 DDR3 is much faster than either of those DDR2 GPUs.

 

I agree. Always go for a DDR3 equipped mid-range card. Even my OCed 8600M GT with only 256mb DDR3 will destroy the DDR2 9600MGT or GT130M.

 

The GT 130M is an overpriced joke. As said you should take a lap with a HD4650 DDR3

 

Agree with Kevin here. FW series is really good and worth looking. The 4650 is the fastest card you can get in this mid-range graphic card class. Also the fact that is DDR3, DX10.1 and you can oc it, the performance can reach a bit below the 9700M GTS
Sony FW overclocking
ATI 4650 overclocking
But if you want to go with this two laptops, try to pick the one that has DDR3 vRAM as everyone said before

 

I'm going to have to agree. While some HPs can be very competitively priced, they tend to use DDR2 equipped dedicated graphics, and they have really crappy heat management.

 

HP are scammers. They are DDR2 junkies. And DDR2 suck.

 

HPs suck in general.2 family members have an HP laptop and they all fell apart after a couple of months.One had the hard drive ''cracked'' after 3 months.My current laptop is 3 years older and it's much tougher and in much better condition than those crap HP laptops.I wouldn't get an HP if it had dual GDDR5 Mobility 4870's and a core i7.

 

I have a hp dv4t and a hp dv5t and I have had zero problems with them. They are good laptops, but definitely not for gaming.

 

Just remember, consumer and business notebooks are very different. HP Elitebooks are among the best notebooks for build quality and features, comparable to the best from Lenovo and Dell's Latitude/Precision.

 

Thats funny, after having personal expierence with 3 HP laptops so far, they were all crap.Plus, I didn't say the dell laptops where of the best quality either.I do give points to HP when it comes to printers and desktops, HP laptops though are alot to be desired.

 

Yea I completely agree. I have an HP laptop and it's worked very well. Never had problems with it, no BSODs either. HP's gaming selection is indeed very crappy, but their mainstream and business laptops are very decent quality, and get the work done.

 

Sine when has this thread turned into a "bash HP" thread? lol

HP makes mainstream laptops and their quality is ok. I mean, despite the fact that their machines aren't the greatest, they *do* make amongst the most money of mainstream laptop companies so they're doing something right(if not simply advertizing )

I find their Elitebooks really nice and rugged. My mom uses one for work and it's lasted her a good long while and it's really sturdy too.

 

Was there a huge mix up here? The Sony FW series DOES NOT offer a DDR3 option while the HP X18t DOES offer a 4GB DDR3 option for an extra $120. Unless I completely missed something...

 

We're talking GPU(graphics) memory, not system RAM. There isn't any noticeable nor significant difference between DDR2 vs DDR3 in terms of system RAM.

However, in terms of GPU memory, DDR2 vs DDR3 can yield up to 20% difference in terms of the graphics performance. Neither of these are specified on either HP nor Sony's site(normally they only give the name of the GPU and the amount of VRAM), but they're an important component in terms of a graphics controller.

HP typically uses DDR2 memory graphics controllers while we have confirmation that the Vaio FW has either DDR3 or GDDR3 memory(depending on your model) in its HD4650.

 

one question, follow link http://www.xoticpc.com/custom-gaming-laptops-notebooks-laptops-with-video-cards-ct-95_51_177.html

512 MB ddr 3 HD4650 from Compal KHLB2 compare to Asus 1 GB ddr 3 HD 4650. other than memory size different, they pretty much the same. + i also read from this forum that more memory only have slightly improvement, is that correct?

 

It won't provide "better performance" if that's what you mean. The extra VRAM will only benefit higher resolution gaming, something you shouldn't attempt with the HD4650 anyways.

 

I had an HP HDX16 with a DDR2 9600M GT, it wasn't a terrible performer at mid res (1366x768... too bad I chose the HD screen). I did have a T9600 which helped, but what really made it was the overclocking. I honestly gained 25% performance by OC'ing 500 -> 660 core, 1250 -> 1650 shader, 400 -> 575 memory. The 130M is basically a factory overclocked 9600M, so you end up with the same thing. The 1GB memory won't make a difference since you won't be running games at a high resolution that would require the extra memory.

Ati's 4650 and 4670 are easily faster. It would take a DDR3 equipped 130M to catch up.

 

I've got an HDX16t and I'll say it's an excellent laptop. HP has better customer service and will own up to their mistakes better than most other companies out there. I went with the 130M and I'm kind of disappointed, but it runs extremely cool. Not sure the numbers off the top of my head, but HP laptops run very very cool these days. My cores do 20°C idle and rarely go over 55. Haven't even got a cooler yet or anything, might want to go that way if you OC.

Don't listen to the haters, people just like ripping on mainstream brands. HP is making top notch laptops now and the HDX16t is one hell of a nice laptop.

 

If the choice is between NVIDIA® Geforce GT 130M 512MB GDDR3 and NVIDIA® Geforce 9650M GT 512MB GDDR3?


and the difference in price is yeah around 100-200... wouldnt you say its worth it?


If you dont wanna OC the 9650 and just get it stock, just having a cooler 130M has to be pure win?

 

In the OP's case however it's DDR2 GPUs in both instances.

Anyhow, it's a question of personal opinion if you wanna pay 100$USD for a slight increase in performance and a smaller die.

 

if it means cooler, then I say freaking yes.


But I am a 8600m user. My Laptop was ruined because of that stupid card. Way to blow almost 3000 grand when that card was new and nobody knew about the flaws... and I couldnt get a recall or anything



Actually, the reason why I am asking is because of that zepto 14'' where you can choose between 650m GT and 130m ... But the hilarious part is that this is actually a notebook that supports MxM! LOL.

You can take out the GPU by yourself if you want...:S thats insane(and cool).. so maybe I should save those 200$ and upgrade later.


Still.. If it means a cooler card, then I am all for it.

 

^Depending on which MXM format it is, the upgrade path might or might not be worth it.

Anyhow, if I was ona budget, I wouldn't pay 100$ for something purely because of heat. I'd save the 100$ and get myself a cooler or something.

 

FYI just because it supports MXM, doesn't mean you can upgrade your GPU. There are many, many other factors that come into play for upgrading GPU on a notebook.

 

I know this is an old thread but I have a hdx 16dx and it's specs are great, however I;ve came to realize that it's much more than how much onboard RAM you have and vid RAM in your system. Win7 gives me a "user experience rating" of about 5.9, which is considered excellent. Now I know this number in no way shape or form is to be used as an accurate comparison tool to be used between computers, but it is indeed misleading when a Game for Windows says "Recommended Sys Req: 4.0", then after I start it up just to find Im getting 20 FPS at 1280 x 960 with settings medium-to-high.

I've come to realize the single most important factor in game-related performance is quite simply the GPU + bandwidth. Quantity accounts for nothing; quality everything. 1 GB DDR2 RAM = inferior to 256MB GDDR3. CPU speed accounts for some I suppose, when you're dealing with complex shapes, textures, and scaling. But for overall performance, it's all in the quality.

I blame myself for not doing enoguh research prior to purchasing my laptop on these issues. When you're browsing in the store for laptops, and see 4 GB RAM, 1GB ViD mem., + <all other fancy specs>, all for under 1K, it seems as though you're getting one heck of a deal. For the average user, this is a great machine. No complains with it so far, and I think it looks great compared to other HIDEOUS looking Lenovo, ASUS, and even Acer laptops (styling that resembles 80's trends, more specifically Lenovo. This is strictly cosmetically speaking thou, has no bearing on performance.) I'd say this laptop would just get you by as far as performance is concerned, but by no means this is a gaming machine. I;ve tried everything to push it to the limit and max out FPS, but it just wasnt designed to deal with the stress of todays resource-hogging games.

Fortunately, theres the ViDock 2, which I plan on purchasing this xmas, which will truly then give me the performance I'm craving.

 

The vidock 2 is a nice way to boost gaming however it will turn your laptop into something even more hefty than a desktop computer ; laptop, vidock, external monitor, external keyboard, external mouse. If you are happy with more clutter than a desktop provides then you should love it. It think many people including me however conclude currently the vidock idea turns the point of having a laptop on its head. After setting it all up you may feel like "why didn't I spend half and much as this on a desktop with better performance." Sucks but tis the way unfortunately

 

You should also be learning that the Windows Experience Index is not the best benchmark of a system's capabilities.

 

Also there is a DIY Vi dock which is way more cheaper than the Vidock 2 .. try searching for a thread on it in the forums...