Comparing My Machines

I currently have a desktop HP Pavilion 750n:
1.6ghz Pentium 4
512mb ram
32mb TNT2 graphics card.

I want to know how would a Fujitsu S6210 notebook compare for gaming performance:

1.6ghz Pentium M
768mb ram (333mhz)
64mb shared intel graphics

Would the laptop give me better, worse, or roughly the same performance?

I would think it would be better due to the better processor and the bigger and faster quantity of ram. I know the shared graphics card will hurt it however. Any comments?

 

The laptop will give better peformance.
It has a better CPU: 1.6Ghz Pentium M = 2.5Ghz P4
more ram is better and the TNT2 graphics card is 3 years old technology at least, I'm sure the shared intel graphics chip will beat it to no end, even though by todays standards is not great for gaming.
So in all aspects that you mentioned, the notebook beats the desktop.
Even if the desktop has a 7200 rpm drive vs a 4200 in the notebook, the notebook would still win.

Jack

 

I have a correction,
I just looked up the TNT2 card and it came out in early 1999, so it is 5 years old, I'm sure the Intel integrated graphics chip is only a year or year and a half old at most, so the Intel is sure kick butt on the TNT2

Jack

 

I doubt it will kick its but since it is shared graphics, it should be better, but I don't think it will do all that much better.

zx5000 :: 2.4M :: 512 DDR :: 40gb 4200 RPM HD :: 15.4" :: Radeon 9600 Mobilty M10 :: Aquamark3 22,856

 

Thats really great to hear because my problem with buying a Fujitsu S6210 was that it has shared graphics. I am currently playing the UT2004 demo on my HP (as mentioned above) and it is certainly playable. The fact that you guys think the laptop will perform better is music to my ears. Thanks a lot for your prompt and helpful replies.

Do you think I will be able to play Counter Strike, Call of Duty, Doom 3, Halo, etc. with the laptop?

 

I still think it would kick the butt of the TNT2, 5 years is long time technologically. 5 years ago the on board video memory was SDRAM and really slow by todays standards, the shared memory of the Intel graphics is probably at least PC2100 DDR.

As far as playing the games you listed, the Intel shared video will not be too hot as these games are some of the newest games out there and to take full advantage will need the latest in graphic cards. It should work pretty well on pre 2003 games.

Jack

 

What I meant was, do I have to have special features like T & L (transform and lighting).

The reason I ask is because on download.com, some of the game demos require it, and I was wondering if a newer game required, would I even be able to play it, or would it be incompatible since I wouldn't have T&L?

 

I don't care how new it is I was using an old voodoo 4 32mb card and could play cs with no problems on a HP 700mhz with 256 ram. I tried playing on a laptop 1.1ghz with 256 ram and shared graphics and it wouldn't even run over 10fps.

zx5000 :: 2.4M :: 512 DDR :: 40gb 4200 RPM HD :: 15.4" :: Radeon 9600 Mobilty M10 :: Aquamark3 22,856

 

Buying a system with integrated graphics chipsets are invariably a mistake if gaming is the primary reason of buying the new machine. Even the older dedicated graphics chips are better than some of the newest integrated solutions.

One of my older laptops has an ATI Mobility Radeon 320 IGP controller with 64mb of max shared RAM. This is one of the better integrated controllers (and far better than the Intel "Extreme" integrated controllers), and it still could not hold out performance wise against the very mediocer nVidia 4 go 420 with 32mb dedicated memory in a laptop of similar specs. In any computer, dedicated video cards will beat out almost any integrated solution 99% of the time. Many notebooks with the comparatively ancient 9200 are more expensive that brand new computers featuring the latest in integrated controllers. There is a reason for that.

 

yeah pretty much the only exception in the desktop world are the nForce boards which have integrated dedicated chips, but the nice thing is they also have an AGP slot for future upgrades when the dedicated one is too old. Then when the computer is even older you can take out your nice vid card and turn it into a server or linux box and don't even need to use one of your vid cards for it.

zx5000 :: 2.4M :: 512 DDR :: 40gb 4200 RPM HD :: 15.4" :: Radeon 9600 Mobilty M10 :: Aquamark3 22,856

 

Forget about Doom 3 with 32 MB, it needs 128 MB of _dedicated_ video memory.

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by Wyrm

 

this is why John Carmack is so revered and viewed as one of the best in the industry very very efficent coding with great benefits.

zx5000 :: 2.4M :: 512 DDR :: 40gb 4200 RPM HD :: 15.4" :: Radeon 9600 Mobilty M10 :: Aquamark3 22,856

 

To Andrew:
First of all, your info does not say anything about video RAM.
Second, look at the phrase "Current (June/July 2003) high-end systems". This article has been posted a year ago!
Third, look at the current info from gamershell (posted 8 March 2004):
http://www.gamershell.com/news_BDOOM3BSystemRequirement.shtml
or filefront (March 8th, 2004):
http://topic.news.filefront.com/3683;/Doom_3_System_Requirements/
Fourth, still, forget about Doom 3 with 32 MB. [ ]

 

Those articles also say that the game may not be out until the fall, yet ID and John Carmack all said it will be out this summer.
Also, planet doom says that the requirements are geforce 1 for minimum.
http://www.planetdoom.com/doom3/faq/#graphics

There was german magazine that said the requirements were 128mb vid card before and ID came out and said that was false.
http://www.doom3portal.com/info/systemreq.php

zx5000 :: 2.4M :: 512 DDR :: 40gb 4200 RPM HD :: 15.4" :: Radeon 9600 Mobilty M10 :: Aquamark3 22,856

 

To Wyrm:

If you actually looked at the page you would see further down that those system requirements you posted, were dismissed by id Software as being bogus.

The Geforce 1 level was what Carmack said was needed for the DOOM 3 tech to actually work. If the final product will be able to support such low cards is unknown, it would mean running in something like 320x240 resolution with none of the shadowing enabled.

The exact requirements are of obviously - unknown. The page is trying to peice together estimates on what has actually been said - and actual benchmarks that has been tried.

Not blindly quoting a magazine that claimed to have an interview with Carmack, when it later turned out they actually didn't.

 

To daSmirnov: I hope so too cause I am not going to have 128MB either. 320x240 with big square pixels?!? It is gonna be like in good old times running Doom and Doom II!!! [8D]

To Quikster: Am I right that ID was the first company to introduce shooters? I remember playing Wolf, I guess that is where it started from. I do agree they are brilliant programmers, they have basically created pseudo-3D world running on old calculators like 286 and 386 CPUs! [ ]

 

Hovertank 3D (the forerunner to Wolfenstein 3D) is generally regarded as the first, but I think similar style shooters were also developed, but they're hard to track down.

Wolf certainly made people open their eyes and look - DOOM knocked them down.

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by Run1track

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by ReverendDC

 

Really the only time integrated graphics causes problems with games are comptability issues, however, I know Intel tries to release drivers that will allow it's chipset to work with most games. Otherwise, I agree with Andrew, don't let people tell you you can't play games with integrated grahpics.

 

Actually, you do not even need 32 MB, 8 MB is going to be enough. I remember that I played Minesweeper, Freecell, Hearts and many other games with shared 8 MB and they were running fast and I did not experience any problems. Even, Lines runs with 8 MB of shared memory! [ ]

 

i've played age of empires on a 1mb integrated celeron 700mhz [ ]

zx5000 :: 2.4M :: 512 DDR :: 40gb 4200 RPM HD :: 15.4" :: Radeon 9600 Mobilty M10 :: Aquamark3 22,856

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>
1mb integrated celeron 700mhz
<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'></font id='quote'></blockquote id='quote'>

With these specs it was probably running like a turn-based strategy not RTS. []

 

it ran ok, as long as i wasn't the host. when I put in the 32mb voodoo 4 it ran fine.

zx5000 :: 2.4M :: 512 DDR :: 40gb 4200 RPM HD :: 15.4" :: Radeon 9600 Mobilty M10 :: Aquamark3 22,856

 

If you want Fujitsu and a thin & light notebook, you should check out the new E series. For several hundred dollars more, you get a bigger screen, Dothan processor, and the Mobility Radeon 9700. It's bigger, but probably the smallest computer out there with those kinds of specs.

If you are even thinking about playing games, you should steer away from integrated solutions which were created for mainstream users who don't play games. Yes, they'll be able to play to a certain extent, but save yourself headaches and get a dedicated solution instead. You're making a costly investment by buying a notebook already. Don't cheat yourself out by skimping on graphics. Pay the extra $100 dollars and be satisfied.

Compaq Presario 2800T
Pentium 4-M 1.6 GHz - 15" UXGA
512 MB RAM - 40 GB
ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 64 MB
Bought in 2002.

 

Wow, you guys really had a lot of fun with this topic. I was not expecting such a discussion. As you might already know, I got the S6210. I have not done any gaming yet, and do not think I will have any regrets. Thanks.

***************************************************
Fujitsu S6210: 1.6Ghz PM ~ 768MB RAM ~ 60GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
***************************************************

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by Run1track

 

<blockquote id='quote'> quote:<hr height='1' noshade id='quote'>Originally posted by Andrew

 

compare with below jpg...

                            </img>