Are there currently any 13'' notebooks that has a video card in it?

Or what are the minimum graphics display I should be looking for in order to run Left for dead 2 at a smooth FPS on med-high settings?

 

Your best bet may be the Asus UL80vt. It's got an HD4500 integrated card and a G 210M for gaming (around the performance of a 8600M GT). It's a pretty feature-rich laptop for ~800 bucks, though it's 14" instead of 13.3"

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220602&Tpk=ul80vt

Some guy actually just posted some benchmarks of L4D2 on this machine, whadya know

http://www.expertlaptopreview.com/?p=96

And 10 hours real battery life, pretty slick

 

I'm pretty out of date with the performance of the latest generation of Nvidia cards, but from my understanding, the G210M only has 16 SPs, whereas the 8600M GT has 32 SPs. Wouldn't the performance of the G210M be far worse than the 8600M GT as it only has half the number of SPs?

Anyway, there's the LG P310, a 13" 1.65kg notebook with the 9600M GT. There's also the Sony Vaio Z series with a 9300M GS in it. (far weaker than the 9600M GT though)

 

No, as the 210M has a better architecture and a higher clock speed I think.

 

I'm kinda skeptical that Nvidia has managed to increase the efficiency of their stream processors by almost double...can anyone else confirm that the G210M is close to the 8600M GT in performance?

 

Uhh, the Asus UL30VT has switchable G210M graphics, and its a 13".

 

Acer Aspire Timeline 3810TG has an Ati 4330 and an integrated 4500MHD that are switchable. 4330 for gaming, 4500MHD for long battery life.

 

It's closer to the 8600m GS than the GT.

 

bookmark this site, I visit it all the time to help reference mobile graphics.. It's near the 8600GT and GS, right in between according to this site and I find this site is very accurate. It does, as stated above, have a higher core speed, shader and memory. Which makes up for the lower bus etc it lags behind the GT.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

8600GT ranked at 77, the 210 at 80 and the 8600GS at 82. So take it for what it's worth, it looks to be a decent card if an 8600GT performance is what you want. But the ATI 4330 is way behind the 210.

*edit*
taken from the benchmark article posted above

These are the exact settings I run MW2 for Multiplayer to achieve a 60FPS I have set for max. It can go higher than that, but considering this is what I've chosen to play at, I'd say it's decent.

 

That's basically it -- the 210M is an update for the 8600M GS. With clock speeds in the core/shader/memory format:

8600M GS: 16 shaders, 128 bit bus, 600/1200/400 (DDR2) or 700 (GDDR3)
210M: 16 shaders, 64 bit bus, 625/1500/500 (DDR2) or 800 (GDDR3)

So they upped the clocks, but cut the bus in half. It should be better, but quite similar. The 8600M GT is a different animal:

8600M GT: 32 shaders, 128 bit bus, 475/950/400 (DDR2) or 700 (GDDR3).

The clocks are lower, but it has twice as many shaders so the performance should still be higher by more than 30%. The 2X0M update of the 8600M GT is the 220M, not the 210M.

 

Little tip about notebookcheck, it's great for technical specs, but do not rely on its ranking system. Look at no. 16 and 17 or 23 and 22. For example. 17 scores higher in all areas, yet it is ranked lower. In addition, these are user submitted samples with varying CPUs, which in turn affect the 3dmark scores.

 

point noted, but I've still found it to be very useful.

 

I owned a Macbook Pro 15" with a 8600 GT with only 128 MB of ram. The Nvidia 210 out performs the 8600 GT 128 MB significantly. I think part of it is that the 210M is on a 40nm fabrication, where the 8600 GT was on a less efficient size. I believe this is true, can someone else confirm that?

If the 8600 GT had more vram it would have out performed the 210M by just a little.

I can concur that the 8600 GT with 256 MB is going to out perform the 210M by just a little, though the 210M is definitely a capable card for its size/power use.

 

The title of this thread is awesome- I would hope 13" notebooks have video cards.

 

Notebookcheck is helpful when you analyze the individual results, but taking those 3DMark averages as gospel is dangerous - since the CPU, RAM, and drivers change, performance results can vary wildly.

 

The Sony VAIO SR series with the Mobility Radeon HD 4570 isn't too shabby either.

 

It appears the Vaio CW has a GT 230m in it.