8400M GS and 8600M GT: How long will they be up to date?

I plan on getting a laptop from Dell, and like usual, +$100 for 128MB 8400M GS or +$200 for 256MB 8600M GT.

My question is, how long will each of the two cards stay up to date with gaming and software or other things? I plan on keeping a laptop for maybe 2 years from now. I was thinking that maybe I oughta lean forward to the 8400M GS, since the 8600M GT may be more than what I need for gaming and seems like an advantge to only play Crysis on better settings (unless Crysis can run decently on 128MB 8400M GS well in any way?), but than I realized my decision may oughta depend on how long the cards will keep up to date.
That may help me more to know what I'm doing here...

 

i think they can play the games in the future decently for 2 years, but that is just my opinion.

 

8400m gs is nearly outdated.

8600GT will be good for another year.

 

Well first off, whats your definition of "up to date"? Do you mean can it just play the game on med/low if need be? Or on high. If you game very lightly, you may be able to live with the 8400, but if you play moderately or more and like playing with higher resolutions and settings, i suggest you invest your money in the 8600. You might be able to keep it for two years, depending on how you game.

 

I'd game a little, maybe not play as high spec games as Crysis, well at least not on high, maybe low settings, since these kind of games don't come around too often. For the average PC game, I'd prefer to play med/high, since they'd look ugle on low, like, FEAR which was ugle on low and is an example of an average spec PC game at this time.
(Crysis is one of the only PC games I know that actually looks decent on low settings).

 

Umm if your going to get the 8400M GS for gaming, its a waste of money. That card can only play....say games like Battlefield 2 ...even then not at full high quality unless OC'd. 8600M GT will last you quite a while as it can run many games up to date

 

Ok, if you play fps then get the 8600

 

The 8600m GT is a decent mid-range card that will continue to play all released games right now with at least medium settings, 2-3 years from now it will be considered obsolescent or low-end by which time you should consider switching laptops.

The 8400 series on the other end is a low-end DirectX10 compliant card and it's useable shelf life is lower than its 8600 brethren by at least 1 to 1 1/2 years.

 

True its only if u play FPS games. If ur into RTS, RPG, MMORPG then get a simple 8400M GS. Graphics of those game genres wont exceed 256mb for another year or two..

 

So, the 8600M GT may seem to handle more than what I need and play Crysis at better settings (why buy that for Crysis? pttph...), but soon, it would have the purpose of being up to date too? If thats the case, why not the 8600M GT?

 

Supreme Commander, World in Conflict and the Witcher are a real pain for the 8400GS, that's not considering more graphically demanding games of the genres on the horizon.

 

If you are seriously considering this machine to be used for gaming, including with games like Half-Life 2, FEAR, etc, I'd recommend getting an 8600m GT.

The 8400GS is not a bad card, but it is as low as you can go before becoming integrated.

You don't want to get an 8600m GT just for Crysis, but every other game will be much more playable with this card at settings above low than with an 8400m GS.

 

u dont need an 8600M GT to run Half Life 2...an 8400M GS should be able to tackle it.

 

However, the 8600 can run it, as well as future games better.

 

I'm apprecaiting the help. I'll accept more answers though. Thanks a lot!

 

ll the games I play on my 8400 run well, though not at the highest settings. usually games run well on medium at 1024x768
I play:
FEAR
CSS(high)
HL2(high)
TF2
COD4
bioshock
crysis(800x600 medium/low)
NFS MW & U2

 

1) Crysis probably won't run AT ALL (at least not with any nearly playable FPS) on a 8400m GS;

2) The 8600m GT sold with most of Dell's laptops (except XPS) is already out dated as they ship with only DDR2 instead of GDDR3...

That can get even worst, if you choose a Geforce 8600m GS over a 8600m GT... cause the "GS" mobile version of the Geforce 8600 actually is NOT a Geforce 8600 AT ALL !!! It's just a renamed Geforce 8500 for desktops... and it has only half of the stream processors of a real Geforce 8600... 16 stream proc. of the Geforce 8600m GS/Geforce 8500 Desktop against 32 of the "real" mobile/desktop Geforce 8600.

​

 

^^ good post. The 8400M GS can run crysis fairly well on low but only if you overclock (take caution while doing so). U can get atleast 30~ fps on low settings with Crysis with the 8400M GS

 

Well, I was actually aiming possibly for a Dell Inspiron 1720 but mainly, like you said, a Dell XPS... 1530... with DDR 3...

 

Well for gaming, aim high for the best gear. If ur just a casual gamer like me , just get something as good as the 8400M GT which is a really nice card that i like alot. It plays BF2 on full high x8 AA, Counter strike Source all high, x16QAA, x16AF...

All at stock drivers. Wait until I overclock then i will tackle bigger challenges such as Crysis >

 

Uhh, I have to stick with the options with Dell, so NO 8400M GT, just 128MB 8400M GS

 

My vote, even if you're just doing casual/moderate gaming is to go for the 8600M GT. While it's not the hottest card out there, it certainly more than doubles the performance of the 8400M GS

Actually, if you config your laptop with a fairly low-end core 2 duo, that should save you some money, and still give you more than you need for a processor. Also, if you buy your ram from newegg or a similar site, you can save tons of money.

 

Well in that case troyman, go for the 8600M GT. Dont spend your money on something that wont make you satisfied in...lets say 2 months?

 

Oh, you mean when I said I may go for Intel Core 2 Dup 2.0GHz? Well that was a $100 upgrade, the standard would be Intel Core 2 Duo 1.66GHz. Would that be more than what I need like you said?

 

thats a big leap.... from 1.66 to 2.0 .. i'd go for the 2.0 personally

 

You're joking right?

I've scored almost 5k w/my OC'ed G1S and a Geforce 8600m GT w/256mb GDDR3 and cannot play the CSS w/x16QAA and x16AF !!! At least not in high resolution without lagging like hell (if I turn on the AAs)... In order to play online with a good ping, I turn off all the AAs and whatsoever, and leave the other options between medium to high at 1680x1050 resolution to get an average FPS of 80~100 fps.

Therefore, unless you NEVER play online OR you're joking... you cannot turn on all the AAs at 16x on the CSS... even more using only a Geforce 8400m !!

That's totally impossible. Sorry.

 

You wanna bet buddy? Screenie COMING UP!


Ill do any other map if you still dont believe me :\


Rez is defaulted and cant go higher than what i have. My ping cannot exceed 60fps therefore stays in the 57's.

 

Show me an ingame FPS screen-shot and will believe you, cause the one you posted didn't count as you're alone at the screen... I'd like to see another one w/more intensive gameplay! (a.k.a. many players shooting/running at the same time!)


Cheers.

 

That will have to be post-poned for tomorow then! i am not afraid of anything. It is really late and i have an assignment due tomorow. Ill post something tomorow you'll see Dont worry!

 

Ok, I know I've gotten accurate answers right now, but after being on YouTube looking up Crysis... dam, how is it that some people run Crysis well on 8400M GS or something? It's like I get multiple answers from everybody when I want the one answer to if the 8400M GS works well. I guess it looks ok on low settings, but hear about "oh, I over overclocked" or "no overclocking" . It's really flipping me out right now!

Oh yea, and please don't continue that Counter Strike ****! It's nothing I need to know, or is it? I actually personally have never tried the game after all...

 

I'm not doubting of you... I just thought it was nearly impossible to get any good FPS w/16x AAs turned on w/a Geforce 8400m... but even things that may seen impossible can actually BE possible... So... I think you got my point...

 

You should get the 8600M GT if you plan on playing games within the past year (COD4) at native resolutions with fluid frames. The 8400GS probably is enough for games older than a year (WoW, CS). This includes my mindset that I don't believe in overclocking, at least not while I'm in the warranty time frame. Besides, the new 9xxx series is coming out shortly...soon...I dunno but the 8xxx series has been out a while now and in my opinion the 8600M GT is a great value.

In fact, even the 8600M GT only nets me 20 frames at 1200x800 during a heavy firefight. Albeit, I'm still using the stock drivers.

 

Just run the CSS stress test on those settings for quick benchmarking

Well he does have the 256mb ddr3 8400m GT but with those ultra settings im sorta doubting it aswell... not to mention 2gb ram

 

8400GS is only good for casual gamings. Forget about recent shooters, unless you are willing to turn down details quite a bit (which would make them uglier than, say, Far Cry with max detail). Other demanding games such as WiC do not work very well on 8400GS neither, let alone future games.

8600GT is a lot better - however, on desktop side, 8600/HD2600 is already becoming outdated. And, to be honest, even 8600GT/HD2600 isn't up to per for likes of Crysis or WiC. However, they will likely stay "usable" for another year or two with little tweaking.

I have 8400GT 256MG, which is about 30% slower than DDR2 8600GT, and much faster than 8400GS (the difference between 8400GT/GS is bigger than their names suggest, as long as 8400GT is DDR3 256MB version - doubling the number of ROP makes huge difference). I can play Fear: Combat with AA/AF on and get good framerate, as long as softshadow is off. Witcher plays very well except Swamp (inefficient glass rendering) and Merchant quarter (CPU limited), although I would need to turn down details in I want to use AA.

So, basically, if you want to game on laptops, you have to make concessions - the matter is, what are you willing to give up?

 

Mate, I thought the Geforce 8600 GS was the one 30% lower than the GT version...

So, wouldnt it be something like:

Geforce 8600m GT GDDR3 [20% faster] > Geforce 8600m GT DDR2 [20% faster] > Geforce 8600m GS (uses the same chipset as the Geforce 8500 for desktops) [20% faster] > Geforce 8400m GT GDDR3 [20% faster] > Geforce 8400m GS DDR2 ??????

 

Most of 8600GS use DDR2, making them slower than GDDR3 8400GT 256MB. GDDR3 8600GS tend to perform similar to DDR2 8600GT, little slower, most likely. But there are so few of them.

As far as I know, Mobile 8600/8400 hierarchy goes like this. Note that information regarding mobile GPU is pretty sparse, so it may not be very accurate.

8700GT is higher clocked 8600GT.
8600GT has twice the shader than 8600GS (32 vs 16), and that gives considerable edge over 8600GS clock-per-clock. But 8600GS have higher-clocked core - otherwise they are the same, I believe.
8600GS has more texture units than 8400GT, giving it small edge clock-per-clock.
8400GS has half the ROP (4 VS 8) compared to GPUs above, and also has 64bit bus, compared to 128bit bus on above GPUs.
8400G has half the shaders of 8400GS (8 VS 16).

There are numerous cut-back versions. There are DDR2 8600GT and 8600GS models, and 64bit 8600GS/8400GT around - meaning, it is a mess now. Seriously, Nvidia should reduce numbers of GPU variants and tighten controls on how venders implement GPUs.

 

yeah , that's truly giving me serious amount of head ache and I am now suffering from shingles attacking on my chest.

they should reduce numbers of gpus.

 

Well I believe they should cut out the 8400M, 8400M GS and 8400M GT and replace them with an entry-level card. I agree with the 8600M GS and GT variants, and as for the 8700M GT, 8800 GTS and GTX, I think that they should make 1 card for these three.

So, that would mean:

8400M - entry level
8600M GS - mid range
8600M GT - mid range
8800M - high end

While I do understand their reasoning for all of those other cards, I still believe simplicity is more important for users.

 

yeah that's more logical amd it should be as simple as like you wrote.

 

There are always a lot of things posted on the Internet, but just think about it: Crysis is the most graphics intensive game out now, and it struggles even on high-end desktop systems at 1900x1200 resolution. My desktop has extreme quad-core processor and 9800GTX (desktop one) and I had to cut down resolution to 1200x1024 to have smooth gameplay at high settings. There is no way that a 8400m, which is about 5 times slower than 9800 GTX, can play Crysis well.

 

I have made my x1600 last 2 years, and the only reason Im getting a new laptop is because I need to sell my desktop and the laptop is have some issues. Depending on what games you plan on playing I dont see why not.

 

Well wait, I notice some of you people are JUST saying that the 8600M GT is better than the 8400M GS, but yet itself isn't that great. But if it's mid-range at the time right now, will it stay mid-range for very long like 2 years? Cause Mid-range seems just fine...

Well, I also know how some of you say that Nvidia has got some new cards coming out soon, but HOW SOON? How expensive? And would Dell even start offering them with PCs? I wanna get a new laptop soon....

 

Nothing new of any signifigance anytime soon from nV on the laptop front, and only rumours on the AMD front.

Mid-range will not stay mid-range for 2years, it will slowly move it's way from current position to low-end. But in 2 years time, you should still be able to play any title on the shelf with a GF8600M GT, the only issue being that you will likely have to turn down features and move sliders to the left. Even right now the GF8600MGT and it's counterparts require you to limit your settings. Expect to be playing in DX9 mode alot when more stressful titles come out, however you should still be able to play them well into 2010.

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's mid-range right now, allowing you to play with decent graphics and good frames, but even it struggles on higher graphic options (if you don't overclock). The 8600M GT is still great for today's game and even future ones like The Sims 3, Starcraft 2, Spore, and BF: Heroes, because those are all scalable.

Don't hold me accountable for this, but I'd guess the 8600M GT is golden for the rest of 2008, but beyond that, that's when you'll need to start lowering the graphic options.

If you keep up with rumors you can get a good gist, unfortunately I don't.

 

The 8600GT is a good, solid card, and will easily last several years as long as you don't mind descending the slope towards low video settings. I tried out Gears of War on my 8600GT DDR2, stock speeds, two days again, and it ran far better then I expected - even with a DDR2 model jat stock, it shows the potential the card has in well optimized games...and OC'ing will improve your experience even more, or if you're lucky to get the DDR3 one...

[/IMG]

 

I think the 8600 GT will be a solid mid range card for at least 2 more years. I too just retired my X1600 and my 6600m but you can still play games on those today...and they have lasted 3 years. Heck the x1600 scores 2200 on 3dmark 06 and how old is it? at leat 3 years old...and it can still play the latest games (albiet on lower settings).

 

Exactly. I would still use my x1600 if the lcd and USB's werent having any issues. When my dell arrives the acer will become a file/print server and will use my 22in lcd in my office. Will I game on it? Yeah I think Ill play a few games when I feel like using a 22in over 17in. But inferior card? nope not even on stock clocks and old drivers.

 

I like what you're telling me there. If you're wrong, no worries. Its possible it may not be able to run MEDIUM in high spec games after a year from now, but by the time it could barely run on LOW on high spec games, that'll probably be in over 2 years. And for the average spec PC game: very likely over 2 years.

Yea, unlike the 8400M GS, which, well, seems to be at that state right now that the 8600M GT won't be dealing with in 2+ years. I guess 8400M GS is outdated.

 

The 8400M GS is NOT OUTDATED BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO PLAY EVEN SOME OLDER GAMES AT HIGHER SETTINGS AND RESOLUTION..! It was made to be a low-end card and is, in fact, a low-end card.

The 8600M GT is slightly different. While it can play "recent games" [now] at medium-high settings and at decent resolution, in a few months [or maybe years] the card probably can't do the same for "recent games" [by then]. That's what we identify then as obsolescence -- the card is then out of date.

 

I bet in 2 years my 8600gt will be able to play some of the new games of that time on medium.

Like...I can still play some of todays games on medium....heck some even high settings with my old x1600 and that card (ill say it again) is over 3 years old.

I think people misrepresent graphics cards at times too...remember the 8600gt is a midrange card and everyone is saying "ohh no! it cant even run todays games on ultra high wiith 24X antialising...it sucks!!" Well if you want to run your games at 1900X1200 ultra high etc etc then you need a desktop with some SLI.

For my laptop gaming experience the 8600GT IS a very powerful card that will continue to be able to play the latest games at enjoyable levels for some time to come.

Now, isnt that the honest answer everyone is looking for?

You are welcome Enjoy your games!