Comparing graphics cards

I am comparing graphics cards for gaming.I need to know which is better.Some of these graphics cards may not be fore gaming,but I just want to see which is better.I will most likely be playing America's Army alot.Also if you can give me a name of a site where I can see how each card is ranked that would be good.

1. ATI RADEON XPRESS 200M IGP with 128MB DDR or 256 MB NVIDIA® Quadro NVS 110M with TurboCache

2. 256 MB NVIDIA® Quadro NVS 110M with TurboCache or ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 128MB GDDR3 memory

3. 256 MB NVIDIA® Quadro NVS 110M with TurboCache or 256MB Nvidia Go 6800(Not Ultra)

4. ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 128MB GDDR3 memory or 256MB Nvidia Go
6800(Not Ultra)

5. ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 128MB GDDR3 memory or ATI RADEON XPRESS 200M IGP

 

The integrated graphics cards (200m IGP) are generally not much good for anything other than light gaming, and the lack of onboard memory means that they eat into your system resources. They are a good low-cost solution, but a few more bucks for a better chip will get you better performance.

The quadros are great cards, but they are optimized for workstations and CAD/CAM work as well as OpenGL, they are generally slightly slower than the "normal" version of the same card in DirectX games, but faster in OpenGL gaming (for the obvious reason).

The 6800 is probably the fastest card on your list for gaming, but the x1600s aren't bad, either will probably run America's Army well.

 

Graphics Comparison, but it doesn't include quadros, unless they were added since the last time i looked at the list.

 

Doesn't 3dmark05 rate graphics cards,isn't there a site I can go to

 

Tom's hardware does graphics reviews, and they have reviewed notebooks with some of the cards you mentioned. 3dmark is one benchmark yes, but it is one of several synthetic benchmarks and opinions are divided as to how accurate a predicter synthetic benchmarks are of performance.

 

Is the 512MB NVIDIA® Quadro® NVS 120M TurboCache better than a 256MB Nvidia Go 6800

 

Nope. The 6800 has much more power.

 

Ok is the 512 quadro better than the ATI X1600 on macbooks.

 

Look, like I said, the quadro's are professional cards for doing 3d-rendering and CAD/CAM work. They aren't really intended for gaming, and I forgot to mention that they occasionally have driver issues when gaming, if you want a laptop for gaming then you are better off with a mainstream card, particularly if you don't know much about troubleshooting, because you are more likely to have compatibility issues with the quadro.

The quadros are usually much more expensive for the same performance level, so from a price/performance level they only make sense if you need them for what they are optimized for.

The 6800 will be faster than the x1600s, but the x1600s are fairly respectable.

 

Oh ok thanks, do you know a good site that shows the level of alot of graphics cards without me keep bohering you.

 

Surprisingly, the vanilla 6800 isn't that much faster than the X1600. At least, as far as my research has shown. The current generation's mid-range notebook parts are very close to being as fast as the last generation's high end.

Never thought I'd see the day that notebook graphics would evolve better than their desktop counterparts did.

 

Do you know a site where I can see see how each cad ranks in gaming?Also does dell make a 15 inch with a 7900gs

 

x1600 > all

 

You aren't going to find a site that does just notebook graphics chipset reviews probably, this is because unlike with desktops you can't just pull the cards and swap them, and performance depends on more than just the graphics card, so comparing several notebooks isn't necessarily going to give you their graphics card comparison.

Tom's hardware does review notebooks and does do some very exhaustive testing of the graphics cards in them, they are probably your best bet for getting a feel for this.