9600M GT vs. 9800M GT/S at diff resolutions

I'm considering the HP dv7t notebook because it's one of the few that offers 1680x1050 displays (my own personal preference)s, but I'm just a little disappointed with the GPU. Can someone here tell me how the 9600M GT on 1680x1050 compares to a 9800M GT/S (not GTX) on a 1920x1200 display? I'm talking about gaming at native resolution.

 

the 9600gt is about half the performance of the 9800gt, dont expect to play anything new on native res unless you are dropping the settings to very low. while the 9800gt should handle 1920x1200 on at least medium

 

9800m gts handles every game except the most recent (crysis all high, don't know anything about Far Cry 2 or Fallout 3 or GTA IV) at max settings 1920x1200 res

 

Is that considering them running at the same resolution? There is a significant difference between 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 from a processing workload standpoint. The latter has nearly 25% fewer pixels to render, and as I understand it, that doesn't translate directly to a 25% performance difference, as there is more of a cumulative or exponential increase in processing requirements the higher you push the resolution.

I was just wondering how much closer in terms of gaming experience that difference in resolution brought the two. I was thinking that it might be close enough to put them at least somewhere in the same ballpark.

 

The massive bandwidth of the 9800 cards (about 51 GB/s) gives great performance even in 1920x1200 res. The performance drop from 1680x1050 shouldn't be that big at all. Not only that but with twice the shader processors you can see that performance might be much better at 1920 than a 9600GT at 1650.

 

I can tell you for a fact that the 9600M-GT will not be able to play modern games at 1680x1050 with very few exceptions. It maxes out around 1440x900/1280x800 with medium-high settings in most games.

On a side note, there's nothing wrong with not gaming at your native resolution. As long as you keep the aspect ratio, the game will look fine and the distortion will be minimal. While playing the game, I doubt you will even notice it. Go for the highest resolution you can.

 

There's not a significant difference between the two, play at a resolution your machine handles well without cutting on the performance.

 

As Chaz noted, most 128-bit memory interface cards like the 9600m GT choke themselves over 1280x1024 (1440x900 wide) as they just plain flood their memory interface.

Given the low prices of the Gateway and ASUS models with 9800m GTS and 9800m GS, I do not really see a point at this point in time in getting a 9600m equipped machine if gaming or price/performance is among your primary concerns.
(If other considerations are higher the 9600m GT is still a decent choice, it just can't compete with 9800m GS or 9800m GTS at these prices.)

The refurbed 7811's for under $800 are just too good to pass up if you are buying now and gaming is on the top of your list.

 

Tell that to the anally retentive streak in me. If there is *any* distortion at all, it would probably bug me.

Really, my main concern is trying to avoid the 1920x1200 displays. I just think that's too high for a 17" display, much less a 15.4". I could enjoy it in games and watching movies, of course, but when I had to actually get back to working, I think it would counter-productive for me.

 

Oh, I also wanted to thank everyone who has weighed in on the topic. The bandwidth issue makes perfect sense. That's why I come here to ask the experts.

Like I said, I've just alway thought 1920x1200 was just too much resolution for a laptop. Did anyone else also feel that way before actually using one? I haven't ruled them out, necessarily, but they're not my first choice.

 

If you like lower res then i would strongly recomend: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9050279&type=product&id=1218012519873

 

Thanks for the suggestion. That looks like a lot of value for the price, but 1366x768 might be *too* low. Honestly, I'm kind of set on 1680x1050 as a minimum. I'm just not sure if I would like working on 1920x1200. Besides, I don't remember seeing 1366x768 as a resolution option in most of the games I've played. If the game doesn't offer it, I'd have to play at an even lower res.

 

just like Chaz said, you can always scale it down a bit.

 

True, but that works much better in games than on the OS desktop. In Windows, I don't consider anything but native resolution as even an option.

 

I have a 1920x1200 17" display and scalling it down does just fine. But I work in OS on 1920x1200 anyways. It took me about 1 hour to get used to it.

 

One thing you could do to figure out if you would like or be okay with a higher resolution is to calculate the Pixels Per Inch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixels_per_inch