Can't decide between two cards

The model number is the same for both cards which is NVIDI GeForce 8400M GS the difference though that one is Up to 1407 MB (128 MB dedicated), while the other is 1023 MB (256 MB dedicated). I am so confused and dont know which one will give higher performance. I hope someone can guide me benchmarks are appreciated as well.

 

Are you planning to play games? Becuase I would recommen at least an 8700M GT for decent games out there.

 

Seriously? An 8700GT? I have had no problem running all games on high, (aside from Crysis) with an 8400GT. An 8600GT is quite a bit more powerful than the 8400GT, too. You don't need "at least" an 8700GT, but he the 8400GS is a little low for most games. I mean, it will "play" the games, but it won't be as enjoyable as other, higher-end cards.

 

I'd take the higher dedicated memory almost any day. It could prove a useless upgrade depending on other system specifications, but if that's the only difference (including price), then go for the 256 MB one.
Cheers!

 

If you linked the computers someone here could probably give you a better idea of exact performance. But with the info you gave it looks as though both cards should give almost the exact same performance since the only difference between the 2 is the amount of dedicated memory, 128mb vs 256mb.

And yeah if you want to run new games at a resolution of 1280x800 or higher I would consider a 9500gs/8600gt/HD 2600/HD 3650 if you can afford one and you don't mind a computer 15.4in or bigger.

 

Can you list some of the games that you play?

What resoultion do you use?

 

COD4? GRID? FSX? Test drive: unlimited? AOC? rainbow six vegas 2? need for speed pro street? Resident Evil 4?

 

To answer the OP's question, the dedicated memory is all that is important.

With that being said, which games do you plan on playing? The 8400m GT is not a HORRIBLE card, and if you are just looking to play WoW you should be fine.

I would suggest at least a 8600m GT if you can swing it. But usally you would be looking at a different laptop.

 

Thank you for that highlight, Nirvana.

So KGann, my notebook sports better specs that yours. I want to know what games you are playing because I've barely got Crysis to run on medium @ 1600 resolution that gave me 12fps; AOC on high gave me 14fps. 8600 GT for a desktop is near uquivalent to an 8700M GT for a laptop, but you are running an 8400M card for a notebook.

Nirvana, you run Crysis?

 

the 8600gt is curruntly the perfect solution for notebook gamers.

 

The thing is, the 8700 isn't available in many notebooks, especially in a retail store (if the OP is going that route). Also, if Zee had an 8600, I'm sure then IT would be the minimum card to have for most games.

Also, the OP never even stated that he was looking at different cards, the choice was between the two 8400s, and to that I'd say just go with the 256mb version.

 

Thanks for all of you! I am actually considering between two hp notebooks. They both got same processor (C2D T9300). However one got more disk size and RAM but less on the dedicated graphics card.


dv2860ee (first notebook)

dv6899ee (second notebook)

So I was wondering if the "up to" difference of almost 400 MB make up for the dedicated memory difference, or the higher dedicated card will always have a heads up. Also I wanna know if the more dedicated memory card is better, is it a huge difference that is worth dumping the extra disk size and RAM for it?

P.S. The 128 dedicated card is on 14" inche notebook while the other is on a 15.4" both same resolution of 1280x800.

 

I've read many people claim that a card as powerful as the 8600gt cant effectively utilize more than 256mb of memory. And from my experience the 128mb of memory my 128-bit 7600 had never held the card back, and its more powerful than the 8400gs. Side note but hell even the desktop 6600gt a few years back had a 128mb variant.

So I'm gonna guess that if both cards are clocked the same the extra 128mb won't make that much difference and since both computers have the same processor (2nd most important component for gaming) I would choose the one you like better. IMHO get the 14" computer, its smaller, lighter, and is just as powerful.

EDIT: Go to the HP section and see if anyone there can confirm that the cards are clocked the exact same since I'm just assuming they are.

 

do look at the shared memory, thats just marketing. for a 8400gs there isnt even much difference 128 and 256 as the card will not use the full 256mb. if the price is the same go for the 256m version, if not its not worth the extra as there are almost no difference. as in what game you can play with a 8400gs, you can play anything up to date on low to mid settings
just my experience
NFS carbon 800x600 mid above 60fps game cap
call of duty 4 1280x800 low ~20 fps
WoW 1280x800 maxed everything ~40 fps

 

They are both the same price

 

Alright-

Call of Duty 4- 1280x800, all high, no AA/AF- 40+ FPS (Screens already shown in past threads)

Unreal Tournament 3- 1024x768, medium/high, no AA/AF- 40+ FPS

Crysis- 1024x768, medium/low, no AA/AF- 25+FPS

Age of Conan- 1440x900, all high, AFx16, no AA, Shadows Low, Draw Distances 30%- 30+ FPS (Outdoors, slightly higher indoors)

Oblivion - 1280x800, medium/high aside from shadows, no AA/AF- 30+FPS

Never played a lot of the games like Grid, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, etc. I never said the 8400GT was the most uber-leet skillz card in the world, and OF COURSE the 8700GT buries it, but saying he needs at least that, is still absurd. Now, if he would have said he wanted to play Crysis at high detail, I never would have questioned your post.

Calm down guys. A lot of you ride "E-net Ego's", where you sit atop your high horse because your GPU is more powerful. It's obvious. You're not shamans, foreseeing things we never knew.

I still say an 8700GT is not a minimum card to get.

Nirvana- thank you for pointing that out. I meant it as "I have had no problem playing my games on high", but obviously I worded it wrong. Thank you.

 

you can't run call of duty 4 with all the options on high (and the tick on / off options all set to on) and get 40+ fps at 1280x800...

i run CoD4 with everything set to high at 1024x640 just to get 30+ fps, and i have the gddr3 8600m gt

 

I meant all "texture" options. I guess I'm not very clear. No, I don't have depth of field, or glow on. (I understand now why everyone gets annoyed with me... I'm an idiot! )

Look, we can sit here and point out my typographical flaws all day, and listen to what I can and cannot do, or we can just settle this real simple.

8700GT is better than the 8600GT, which in turn, is better than the 8400GT. We good now? Anyways, back to the OP, and sorry for the hi-jack-

What games are you looking to play?

 

I would say the 8600 is the bare minium to play the newer pc games you can play them on medium/high depending on the game if you are going to play older games then the 8400 should be fine.

 

Perfect? Until you can run current games on high settings, I wouldn't use the word perfect.

I'm not trying to put myself as the standard. Even though 8700M GT is good, I am still not satisfied. For good graphics with good performance, the 8700M GT is just above the bare minimum, so anything below it is going to struggle. High graphics on low resolutions just doesn't cut it.

Touché, KGann. I guess at those resolutions that does seem reasonable.

 

I'm going to answer the OP's question:

Get the 256MB one.

 

It's perfect when you consider it's price. It's much more cost effective for what you pay.

 

Glad we got that settled! I really hate e-net squabbles!