9500m gs 512...

sux.
just my 2 cents.
could just be vista to blame... but just doesnt seem very dependable as a gaming chip. to bad i just payed a grand for this f8sn-a1.
makes me a sad panda... wonder if excaliber will let me trade it in for a g1s.

 

What is your 3d mark scores and gaming benchmarks? Doesnt that f8sn a1 come with a T5450?

 

It has the exact same specs as the 8600m GT.

 

What are you trying to run with it? Don't expect it to be very crysis friendly

I think you should be getting reasonable framerates from anything released up to about 6 months to a year ago just fine even at high settings. Try making sure you have the best driver for your card at laptopvideo2go.com. Also make sure you have your power setting on high performance otherwise your video card will have its speed decreased automatically by windows which will obviously kill your performance in games. I know this from experience :/

 

The 9500M GS and the 8600M GT are the same cards. Since you have a 512MB one, it's probably that it's DDR2 so yeah it's a bit weaker than the G1S's

 

if they r exactly same why did it make it? it is like making a game and then 1 year later you make the same game again with a different name wtf?

 

It is slighty better than the 8600...

 

He's correct; the 9500M GS is practically the same as the 8600M GT (DDR2) and a little better. The improvements are in power consumption and some DirectX10 tasks. Also comparing GenTechPC 3DMark06 benchmark it scores a little higher than the 8600M GT (DDR2). Your issue should be driver related.

 

It doesn't matter what memory it uses. The deciding factor is the clockrates. nVidia has the card listed at the same clockspeeds as the GDDR3 version of the 8600m GT, which will obviously perform better than the lower clocked DDR2 version of that card.

 

well, no i am not expecting to run crysis.
in any case i retract my previous statement. and yes i am running a t5450, but most games that i play dont rely on cpu. after some driver tweaking i am avg. 20fps high settings in WIC med physics, no soft shadow, no crater, uncompressed textures. tf2 (what i play most) im getting about 65 fps avg now, settings maxed, aax4 afx4. so long story short, i like it now. i am, however, considering sending this back and getting the f8sn-c1 in a week, as it has same specs (250gb hd, 3 gb ddr2 667, 9500m) but a t9300 instead for 300 bucks more. it doesnt come out for a week though. I just want to do it for "future proofing reasons" only though. not to mention power consumption, fsb, speed, heat red. , etc.
I would get a g1s, but i have a gaming desktop. i just need a notebook for school. so portability is a key factor for me. this thing weighs a pound less, and is shorter side to side, and front to back by more than an inch.
sd i said though. it was driver error not hardware error.
i had the right driver too, just hadnt configured it properly.

 

Take a look at GenTechPC's Geforce 9500M GS performance review and lozanogo's Geforce 8600 GT (DDR2) overclocking results:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=222056
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=225279

Both cards are DDR2 and clocked the same. The 9500M GS however scores more at stock settings with a lower CPU (C2D 1.66GHz vs C2D 2Ghz).

 

3693 and 3543, well within the error bounds of 3DMark06.

They're actually low for what they should be. The same clocked GDDR3 8600m GT scores 3700 to even 4200 with the new drivers.

 

Again lets not forget the Intel Core 2 Duo T5450 1.66GHz on that notebook which the tests were done. Also the argument here is not that the 9500M GS is an amazing card, but pretty much similar to the 8600M GT(DDR2) with some minor improvements.

 

The processor's not that important for 3DMark when it's matched to a mid-range GPU. It will have a considerable impact if you have say, an 8800 GTX, but with the 8600/9500, it shouldn't matter too much.

 

I wouldn't know, but I'll try to pick up an ASUS M51Sn with the 9500M GS some time this week and I'll perform some tests on it myself.

 

It`f funny that the 9th series showed up in the notebook world faster than in the desktop one
The 9500M GS , judging by figure is not bad at all. Makes me more optimistic about 9800M GTX

 

I'm pretty sure the 9600 GT showed up before the 9300m/9500m.

 

The 9300 & 9500 are rebranded 8600 and 8400 though

 

or to be more correct 8400 and 8600 i just wonder - if these are gs versions... when shall we see gt ones

 

The 9500M GS is actually little bit faster than 8600M GT, not much but better.
Compare the M51SN and F8SV:
Asus M51SN-A1:
1280X800
GeForce 9500M GS 512MB DDR2 400MHz
T5450 1.66GHz 2MB 667 FSB
3GB of RAM
3DMark06: 3693


Asus F8SV-A1:
1280X800
GeForce 8600M GT 256MB DDR2 400MHz
T7500 2.2GHz 4MB 800 FSB
3GB of RAM
3DMark06: 3314


Now we know processor does not improve anything in performance on this level of GPU, RAM and GPU matters, both unit runs at same resolution so the performance result is pretty accurate.

I ran the benchmark on 9300M G already on VX3, the performance is not so good as expected :

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=221306&highlight=Asus+VX3

Exactly, the new 9300M is the same card just like 8400M G, at least the benchmark score is almost the same. also same performance as ATI X1600, GeForce 7600 and both card was the best at it's class in 2006.

 

Well its nice to see laptops being sold with the 9500m now, do you guys know of more models with this card? maybe even a ddr3 version?

 

Those are some crappy scores for running at 1280x800. I would expect the same scores running at 1280x1024.

I'm still very disappointed with the scores of the 9500m GS. Is the DDR2 version downclocked like the DDR2 version of the 8600m GT? Otherwise, I would expect it to hit the same score, or slightly better than the GDDR3 version of the 8600m GT.

Edit: Just saw the clocks. So I guess so.

 

Lithus I still don't see why you're complaining about the 9500M GS benchmarks. It's not a Geforce 9600M GT or a 9800M GTX. Sure its performance is not drastically high as expected from Geforce 9 series, but it's not bad for its class. Plus the 3693 isn't that far off from the minimum of 3700 you placed for 8600M GT (DDR3) 3Dmark 6 score (unless I misunderstood something here). This is a fairly new arrival and whether it's similar or not to the 8600M GT, there's still room for improvements in driver support. It will run most of today's games at relatively good settings and thats what's important. On top of the slight advantages it provides in comparison to the 8600M GT it also comes in quite an affordable package with the price tag of just above $1000. In my opinion these points alone mark the Geforce 9500M GS a winner for a mid-range graphics solution.

 

1. I'm not complaining, I'm wondering. When you bake two cakes with the exact same recipe, you expect them to taste exactly the same. I'm wondering why the performance of the 9500m GS is lower than what it should be considering it's specifications. Please don't take this as me bagging on a new GPU, I could care less about fanboyism.

2. nVidia uses a unified driver system. The drivers are the same for the 8600 and 9500.

What I expect from a 475/900 clocked 9500m GS is the exact same, or slightly better than a 475/900 clocked 8600m GT (GDDR3). I expect a 400 clocked 9500m GS to have the exact same, or slightly better performance than a 400 clocked 8600m GT (DDR2).

 

Will the 8600M GT (DDR3) does have the DDR3 advantage against the DDR2 equipped 9500M GS, so I doubt it can achieve what's expected from it in comparison to the other card. And GenTechPC has shown that the 9500M GS does infact perform slightly better than the 8600M GT(DDR2) while both clocked the same (and practically the same card). Maybe the Geforce 9500M GT will provide satisfactory results above the 8600M GT (DDR3). Just not sure if that card is planned for the notebooks and what actually comes after the 9500M GS is 9600M GT instead.

 

Yes, I just realized they did the same thing with the 9500m GS, in which they downclocked the DDR2 version, which explains the score somewhat. I'm not exactly sure what it's supposed to score in 3DMark06 at 1280x800, but I expect around 3300 at 1280x1024, which may or may not equate to 3600.

What I do know is that the F8SV has an 8600m GT with a crippled 64-bit memory interface, which explains that score and why it got its butt handed to itself.

 

Well that certainly isn't totally true. In 3D Mark at least, the CPU will effect the score no matter what GPU the system has. No no, those results aren't really comparable.

 

Yeah the CPU helps a little bit but not too much, at least for these two cards I've tested.

I am not only running benchmarks but I also tested with games and I've post some actual game play video in the 9500M GS performance review.

Both card was tested at same resolution but the 8600M GT with F8SV has faster processor.

 

uh...intresting results, I didn't expect the difference would be this much:

GeForce 9500M GS 512MB DDR2 @475/950.400 no overclock
3GB DDR2 667
Windows XP Professional:

3DMark06 @1024x768:
M51Sn-A1 with T5450 1.66GHz 2MB 667FSB: 4375
M50Sv-A1 with T9300 2.5GHz 6MB 800FSB: 4715