8400GS vs X2500

Hi!

I would like to know which one of these cards perform better in games. I know that the x2500 is not DX10, but that doesnt really mind me

What would be the approx difference in Percentage?

thanks!!

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
check out number 39 and 47 on the list. should compare different plusses and minuses, i think the major difference is that the ati is 128 bit while the nvidia is only 64 bit, but then again, the nvidia will save you on battery, but the ati is the stronger card by significant margin it seems, looking at 3d mark

 

x2500 is possibly a crippled x1600/1700

+-10% if it is the crippled one, otherwise 40% overall better.
But than 8400GS have other advantages such as new architecture and lower power consumption and future game titles will possibly play better than x2500 but dont expect many framerates.

Performance wise they 8400gs vs x2500 are almost equal if the x2500 has 64 bit bus. otherwise it will outperform the 8400gs.

 

so then there is not much difference?

 

No, but again if you want game performance as your first priority check out the memory bus-bandwith of the x2500 if it's 128 bit than it will beat up the 8400GS in every game. So make sure to do this you dont want to be dissapointed.

Notebookcheck table is not a reliable source and it certainly not shows real game performance.

 

you mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units#Comparison_table

 

no look at CHAZ's GPU guide and it will explain you all that you need.

 

doesnt appear the x2500 in there...

i was planning buying the ASUS F3se (ati x2500) or the COMPAL IFT00 (OC version of M1330 )

 

I added the X2500 into the GPU guide, it's the same thing as an X1700 as noted. The 8400M-GS is a rather weak card so get the X2500 if you want to game. Even better, complete the FAQ in the What Should I Buy forum so we can help you even more.

 

i simply cannot believe that the X700 is better than the 8400gs

 

it is it will not run some elder games on high resolutions where as x700 can because it has 128-bit bus

 

but on games like Rome total war or UT2004, which one scores better, the x700 or the 8400gs?

apparently, the x700 gets around 900 points in 3dmark06, while the 8400gs gets around 1500

 

Those games are using shader model 2 so x700 will win hands down.

 

rrreeeaalllly??????

mate, u have started a depression on me... really, i cannot believ that!!!

mate, there is a 2 year difference, and we arent comparing a low range GPU to a HIGH END GPU, its just one mid-high GPU (x700 when it came out) and med-low GPU (8400gs today)

really, i think one of us isnt understanding something..

 

X1700 I thought Chaz said! Better more powerful beast than the X700...

 

so, to sum things up, the nVidia 8400gs is worse than the ATI x2500 around 20%.

However, what gets on my nerves is that the mobility x700 is better than the 8400GS!!!!!

you know what? i have been waiting for a laptop for 2 unending years. I was going to buy one with a x700 (up to 512mb with RAM sharing)... but i waited cos i wanted my laptop to be good at gaming.... i have waited and waited and bought a laptop with the 8400gs two weeks ago. it must arrive this week, but now you have told me that the x700 is better!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aaaaaarrrghhhh!!!

im stupid

are you 100% sure x700 is better than 8400gs?

because im thinking on cancelling my order...

 

As noted you didn't read my post right, I said X1700 and not X700. The X700 is still faster than an 8400M-GS though.

3DMarks are irrelevant. The 8400M-GS only has a higher score because it has Shader Model 3.0.

One thing - stop making multiple posts - use the EDIT button.

 

Sorry for multi posting... But CHAZ, understand my rage when i have been waiting 2 years for something that turns up to be worse than the thing before!

I thought that the 8400gs was close to a x1600, which beats the x700... correct me if im wrong...

should i then cancel my order?

here is the configuration:

Core 2 Duo T7700 (2.4gb)
2Gb RAM
160gb 7200rpm
8400gs
XP HOME EDITION

is that still worse than a laptop from 2 years ago with a x700?

thanks!

 

Yes the 8400M-GS will be worse than an X700. I have an X700 in my laptop and I can post benchmarks that prove its faster. If you want better video performance then you ordered the wrong machine. Everything else is better (most likely) and I'm glad to see you got XP D) but the video card is not up to par . . . you need an 8600M or HD 2600 to get a nice jump in performance.

 

this is what i plan to play:

- Rome total war
- Red orchestra (UT2004)
- Brothers in Arms series, including last one
- UT3

seriously, isnt this card enough for these games? CHAZ, sorry to be so repetitive, but isnt the 2 years gap enough for having a mid-low (8400gs) card beating a mid-high card (x700)?? Its like if they tell you that horses are slower than snails... its hard to believe, but it can be proved

mate, i dont now whether to laugh or whether to cry. I should have bought a laptop 2 years agoooooooo!!!!!!!!

 

The X700 was an excellent card for the time and still holds its own. It has a lot more brute power than the 8400M.

I know it's hard to digest but it's the truth - if you want to play newer games you should buy something with an 8600M or HD 2600.

 

and how would the 8400gs run on the games i stated in #19?

thanks CHAZ! sometimes its hard to accept the truth

 

Yeah two years ago was x700 imba pwned in every game 8400GS hardly can set newer games on medium...

 

but shouldnt it be enough for some red orchestra, bia, rome total war and ut3??

thanks for your time!

 

ut3 will run on low resolution and lowsettings

the others will run ok. medium i would say

 

One thing to note, is that if you don't mind overclocking your 8400m-GS, you can boost the performance to above that of the x700. The 8400M-GS kills the x700 in shading power, and has the same number of TMU's and ROP's, so if you overclock the memory to get an equal or better bandwith, you'll get better performance.

 

That is just about right but again they will perform simillarly in new games on resolutions higher than 1024x768...

 

that is pretty sad. I thought UT3 engine was really good optimized. I heard that a few were playing with the 8600GT at max and at 1024x768 without problems... i believed i could run at med quality + 1024x768 with the 8400gs...

last question: how would a laptop 8400gs compare to a desktop 6600GT in performance?

thanks!

 

I am assuming my estimations from Bioshock Gears of war and R6-vegas as these are the games that use UT3 engine, and as what i have seen is either UT3 engine is extremely demanding or also those mentioned are all poorly coded(Bioshock is not!!).

 

You should be able to run UT3 with medium settings and 1024x768 without problems, based on it's demo.

And an 8400M-GS has significantly more shader power than the 6600GT, with similar fill rates, it only falls behind in the memory bandwith. Expect similar performance on low resolutions in older games, though in newer games expect better performance at low resolutions and high settings. Though at medium and high resolutions the 8400M-GS will fall significantly behind at stock clocks due to the lack of memory bandwith.

The UT3 demo appears to perform much better than any of those games, though I don't know why. Perhaps the demo doesn't have all of the detail options available, even at high settings.