540m and 550m work 1080p

would a nvidia geforce 540m 1gb work smoothly on a 1080p laptop screen?
if not would a nvidia geforce 540m 2gb work smoothly on a 1080p laptop screen? (or is it the same thing for the 1gb or 2gb?)
if not would a nvidia geforce 550m work smoothly on a 1080p laptop screen?
i know that if i play my games on a 1080p laptop screen, i need some good graphics card to keep up with some good fps and wat not. i play games like league of legends and starcraft 2.
are the 540m and 550m capable of doing that?

 

Depends on the game. I play Starcraft II at 1080p at medium detail and it runs smoothly. 1080p and high detail is pushing it, though. Average framerates aren't bad, but I experience framerate drops at key times (outbreaks of big battles) when smooth framerates are most important. Bad Company 2 and Mass Effect 2 require setting resolution to 768p to run smoothly at even medium detail, for the same reason.

 

Yeah... the 540M not a superstar GPU thats for sure. It all depends on the game, I think in most cases you would want to lower the resolution in exchange for higher quality settings.

Or invest in a system with a better GPU.

 

Both of their builds point mostly towards 720p gaming.

 

The Geforce 540 1 or 2 gb should perform the same since it cannot properly utilize the extra vram anyways, but that or the 555m should do games quite good at 1920x1080 with graphics set to low or medium.
(Depends on the game)
But dont expect any miracles from it.

 

The 555m is better than 540m most definitely, but both are 'medium range mobile gpu's', which are mostly geared towards gaming at resolutions below 1080p (though it's possible to play games on such a resolution if they support it and aren't too demanding... or if you reduce details to say ... medium).

If you would like to game on 1080p effectively, then I would recommend a system with at least a GTX 560m or GTX570m (the latter being the better option).

 

1080p is steep, you might wanna downgrade that to 720 imo, 560 and later are the best cards for 1080p with a better graphics/resolution ratio

 

Quick question: why do people refer to 1366x768 as "720p" instead of "768p"? I mean, we refer to 1600x900 as "900p" and 1920x1080 as "1080p"...what am I missing?

 

because everyone does so, specially tvs

 

But is there any logic or sense behind it? Where did it come from to begin with? Every other "p" designation refers the rows of vertical pixels, but that one doesn't. It's bizarre. It'd be like if every single baker sold "two pound bags" of flour that all had exactly 1.75 lbs of flour.

 

sincerely I go for the simplicity, it was a mess to understand that thing of wuxga and so forth.

but I dont have any other logic explanation for that

 

I hate the letter designations too, never figured out which is which.

But saying "768p, 900p, and 1080p" is no more complex than saying "720p, 900p, and 1080p"...

Edit: I'm hijacking this thread, I'll start a new one about this. http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...366x768-called-720p-not-768p.html#post8109569

 

Your best bet with those cards would be something like 1600x900.

 

I seriously do not recommend getting the 540M. Yes, it is a gaming card, and yes it can run most modern games on medium settings, but the 550M is far superior. I don't think that it can run modern games that on high enough detail so that it looks nice while at 1080p resolution and clean framerate at the same time...

 

550M far superior? It's less than 10% faster. The 540M and 550M are the exact same chip, only the 550M is clocked slightly higher.

In MW3, running on high settings and 800x600, I get 25 FPS.

Overclocked to 775/1550/950 I get 30 FPS. And, the temps are only 1 or 2 C hotter.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/msi/622834-msi-x460-540m-gpu-overclocking.html

 

For whatever reason (I think there was a thread about it somewhere in some forum) the 550M card is much better in the shaders CUDA core count 144 vs 96.

I have played with both 540M and the 550M. The 550M does feel much smoother and easier to play more demanding games on a 1080p screen (though for best results reducing the resolution is still done).

If I recall it came down to that the Nvidia website bills the 550M as an overclocked version of 540 with 96 shaders but in reality everyone who has the 550M finds 144 shader CUDA cores. Different theories abound as to why they market it one way and in play its actually different.

Some people think because the Nvidia card makers did not want to falsely advertise the 550M as a underclocked 555M though it seems it performs closer to that even though the GPU is really closer modeled to the 540M with higher shader CUDA count.

Every GPU however performs different than the other. Based on how these items are constructed and just random quality of certain chips some people can push the 540M to high overclocks and it can easily perform close to the 550M while others get cards with the GPU only able to handle mild overclocks.

I would rather be safer if you have a choice and get the 550M incase you get stuck with a card that does not have the ability to stably overclock very high.

 

Ah, ok, I was looking at notebookcheck specs. I still stand by the 10% faster, according to notebookcheck benchmarks.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/dell-xps-studio-xps/567176-gt-550m-144-cores.html

 

Ah you found the link... Much more learned individuals in that forum than I speaking about it.

I agree that benchmarks by experts are probably way better referrence than my anecdotal gaming experience.

Also it depends on your gaming tolerance, preference, and how you like to keep your settings. Some people 10% may feel big while others who just count FPS it may seem inconsequential.

If you are just playing MMO's it probably wont make much of a difference as those types of games are geared to be easy on min graphics requirements to play on different systems so they can make more $$$.