ATI x700 vs. ATI x1400

I know the x700 is a better card than the x1400. But, would the upgrade in memory speed (667mz), chipset (945), cpu to duo core centrino be enough to put the laptop equipped with an x1400 above or at least even with a laptop equipped with an x700 and last year's chipset (915), cpu, and ram speed (400mz)?

 

Not really, because games, especially a high resolutions depend a lot more on the gpu than the other components of the computer. Sure an x700 on an p3 with sdram memory would not do as well as a new computer with the x1400, but the differences u speak of (533 ram vs 667, newer chipset and core duo vs pm) are not that great.

So the x700 will still do better in higher resolution games.

 

Although the X700 is the faster card (the chipset doesn't make much of a difference, and the memory speed doesn't either as posted), I would be inclined to recommend a newer notebook with a Core 2 Duo rather than an older one with a single-core Pentium M.

 

Why would you choose an X700? It is old. notebooks with an X700 cost about the same as ones with the X1400, yet they have older technologies in them.

 

That is hardly a ironclad argument. Many newer notebook use older chipsets as well as CD/DVD drives, HDD, LCD screens. Price quality ratios can only be assesed on a notebook by notebook basis.
Although I have to admit I have not seen the X700 on a recently released notebook and I also agree that going dual core and if possible 64 bit is more important then having a slightly better performing graphics card in the overall performance of a notebook (even in games).

 

There are a few places that still carry some older model Asus laptops with the x700. The price is a couple hundred lower, and I'd be getting a laptop with better performance than the x1400. The notebook I'm talking about is the Asus V6Va vs. the V6J...

 

The ATI X700 is much faster in games. Also, other components will not make a big difference when gaming, but when it's processes, the Core Duo would have it's advantage.

Daniel

 

actually, made a mistake, the Asus V6J has an nVidia 7400 TC. i'm guessing this is worse than the x700 too, right?

 

Anything under a Go7600/X1600 is going to have lesser performance compared to the X700.

The X700 has a lot more power at its disposal - 8 pixel pipes compared to four for the Go7400/X1400, eight ROPs compared to four, and six vertex engines vs. two for the X1400 and three for the Go7400. See more information in Meaker's charts:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=70254

 

Nah, I think the Graphics chart you made is much more clear and easy to understand and reference.

 

Go with what you want

X1400 for great graphics.

X700 for decent graphics and great performance

If your a gamer, go with the X700.

 

Don't forget the V6VA has IPS (amazing viewing angles) + vivid colors which is a better screen than the v6j. The v6j has a better cpu with future upgradeability to Merom (core 2 duo).

The choice is yours...

 

The x700 can still provide great graphics. Check out my Oblivion screen shots. Way better than anything the x1400 can provide. It'll push higher FPS too. I think the x1400 will have more longevity than the x700, but for the next several months the x700 will stay the superior card in most aspects.

 

The X1xxx series has a higher vertex and pixel shader, which instatly means BETTER GRAPHICS. they may be laggy, but they can be pushed much higher.

Try running this on a x700, then try it on an x1400
http://www2.ati.com/misc/demos/ati-demo-toyshop-v1.2.exe

 

There are a few gateways with an x700 and 64 bit turions floating around at some Staples and Bestbuys. You could probably pick one up for real cheap. Honestly I would go with whats cheaper. You look at it, you've got an x700 which is a faster card (and to be honest not really that far behind along the lines of the latest technologies, just down a few pixel and vertex shaders) paired with a 64 bit processor (single core) which can be considered inferior to a dual core. Your x1400 is paired with a dual core, but its a bit slower (yet up on few pixel and vertex shaders). I personally like any dual core system more than anything else, but in the end it pretty much evens out.

 

That demo doesnt run on an x700.

In real world gaming performance, for today at least, the x700 is still the superior performer. The x1400 cant be pushed as high as the x700 in the newer games. The x1400 may have newer models of vertex and pixel shaders, but there arent enough of them for it to compete with the x700 easily.

In another several months, I do think things will begin to turn around. As graphics become more advanced, the older model shaders in the x700 wont be able to render the graphics as well as an x1400, but it'll still be able to push the higher FPS.

 

Well this is the deal. On most modern games of course.

X700: Games med-high 1280x800 at least + 2-4XAA and 8xAF

X1400: Games low-med 800x600-1024x768 + 0-2XAA and 4xAF

These are REAL, not made up by me.

 

Oh yeah, the only thing that the X1400 is more superior than the X700 is the support or Shader Model 3.0 which includes HDR in it.

Daniel

 

No it does not mean better graphics. I assume you are reffering to Shader Model 3 which is present in the X1400, to SM 2 which is in the X700. Shader Moder 3 offers no visual benefits over SM 2, SM 3 has the same set of shading effects that is in SM 2, but is able to complete the effects in fewer passes over SM 2.

And before you try and say HDR, HDR is not a part of Shader Model 3. "True" HDR is done in by FP16 blending and filtering, this is not a part of Shader Model 3 (though it is a requirement). The X700 can do HDR, but not through FP16 blending.

 

Unless you have a minimum of an X1600-level card, then HDR probably won't be an option for you. I agree that SM 3.0 support doesn't gurantee better graphics - it may mean the potential to have some added visual effects, but if the card isn't powerful enough to do them . .

 

I don't really know much about ATi, but my 6800GT runs the HL2 engine all maxed out, AAx2, and HDR Full at about 70FPS. I am guessing my shader model is SM2, being as it came out a little after the X700. I almost purchased an X700, but after benchmarking one I ordered from Newegg... I returned it for the 6800GT. Much better performance at high-end graphics.

 

6800GT is shader model 3

 

yup thats why ati were kinda critisized in the last generation, all there gpus were still sm2, while nvidia had jumped ahead to sm3.

its a shame, i think that nether company in this gpu war can pull ahead, kinda like what intel has done to amd, would make things a lot more interesting.

 

As long as they're both making great cards, there'll be market competition leading to price wars, which is good for us consumers

The 6800 has SM3. In my experience, in real world gaming the x700 and 6800 play very similar. The 6800 has slightly higher FPS, but not by a whole lot. And I keep the settings very similar between the two. Either I've got a bad 6800 or my x700 is actually an x800, lol

 

Yes, that is kind of odd. My 6800GT completly outran the X700... but too, each system is different.

 

Well, the 6800 is in my desktop which has an Athlon XP and 1GB of not even DDR RAM. So its not like, hardware wise, the systems are on the same level.