8400gs

I was looking at the HP site, and the dv6500 can be configured with the 383mb 8400GS card, while the dv2500 has the 313mb 8400GS card. One is 128 dedicated and the other 64mb. 2 questions with this:

1- How much better will the 383mb card perform in a rough percentage (I wont hold you to it)?

2- Will that 64mb dedicated cause problems with some installs that require 128mb cards?

I dont even know if this card will fill my needs, but I was intrigued by the 14" size of the DV2500 and so I wanted to see how the card might perform.

Thanks!

 

I've been looking at both of those computers also for school, and was kinda PO'd to find out that the dv2500t only has 64mb dedicated. I know the 128mb dedicated in the 6500t will definitely be better than the 2500t. No doubt about it. And having only 64mb will cause some problems with some game installations. I have, however, seen some fixes for a few games that allow you to get around this problem, but you'd have to search the individual games to see what is out there. Back to the performance question, I'm no whiz at guessing, but I'd have to say that the 128mb dedicated card would have at least a 20-30% performance better than the 64mb card. Could be totally wrong, but its my best guesstimate.

Hope this helps a little.

 

I havn't had any problems in gaming with my 2500t and I play Company of Heroes, Battlefield 2, and Halo 2.

 

So then those 3 games installed OK with the 64mb card? Because I saw on another thread, someone was having trouble with Neverwinter Nights 2 not installing properly because of a 64mb video card.

 

just for some peace of mind, if you're gonna buy a notebook, but one with better graphics and save yourself some headache in the future. if your gonna buy one, at least get one you wont have to worry about installations on.

 

is the fact that the 8400gs on the 2500t is only 64 mb dedicated that much more crippling? it says that it will utilize some 700+ mb ram if you have 2gb ram so performance wise it shouldn't suffer that much right?

 

for around the same price, you can get a dell 1520, which has an 8600 gt, which is much faster than the 8400gs....I know alot of people hate dell, just putting it out there.

 

Yeah, that was my logic when I ordered the 2500t. Haha, so hopefully someone who knows more about computers can verify this (hopefully!)

 

Unless you get an Asus or some weird gaming notebook, just about all 14"ers have the 8400M GS or equivalent business class card (at best).

And from what I hear, it will run any game out on the market right now. It may not do so at the highest settings, but the bottom line is they will run.

Newer games (like Crysis) that are graphically demanding are big ?s. It also depends a lot on how efficient the developers make the game (just think of CS:S vs Oblivion).

Although sure, if a 15" notebook is fine with you, go with the 8600 GT. You'll get much better performance, for sure.

 

What do you mean by run? To me there is a big difference between running a game (game opens) and playing one (good fps).

The "run" in italics is sort of unnerving...

BTW what 14" ASUS that is currently out has better than a 8400GS? Are you referring to the speculated f8?

Does this have the same performance of a PC 8400GS with PCI-E? Or, have they done something to it to make it more suitable for notebooks (underclocked it). Looking just at its 3dmark score doesn't really help tell exactly how well it will run games just how much better it is (or worse) compared to other cards).

 

Look, I don't have an 8400 GS. I will in a week, and honestly all I remember from other posts I've read on the subject is that it can run basically any current game at medium settings. It's comparable to the Go 7600.

And if it's any consolation, CS:S will run on an ATI x300. Granted, CS:S is a very well-coded game, but still. The 8400 GS will be much better.

I'm not a huge gamer, and I never really payed a lot of attention to Asus... If Asus hasn't come out with a 14" gaming notebook yet, then it hasn't; I'm no expert on this.

I really don't know. My guess is the PC version will run a lot better, but thats just common sense. I don't have any facts to support that answer with.