Confused about Nvidia's videocards

Dear All,

I am EXTREMELY confused in terms of performance of the nvidia mainstream graphics cars offered by HP/Dell/Toshiba

My research is based on info. on notebookcheck and these laptop vendor sites..

Here are the following 128-Bit videocards in my range sold by these vendors:

Core Mem Speed
GT 320M 128-bit 500 MHz 800 MHz
GT 230M 128-bit 500 MHz 800 Mhz
GT 330M 128-bit 575 Mhz 1066 Mhz
GTS 360M 128-bit - 2.0 GHz

and the one from ATI:

HD 4670 128-bit 675 MHz 800 MHz


I would be very grateful if you guys could tell work out the order of these cards ranging from BEST to WORST from the list above.


Also, please specify if based on your opinion on the performance of these cards, should i go for a low resolution screen to achieve higher FPS in games or should I try to get the max. native resolution offered by the vendor.

I have tried playing games at lower or higher resolutions than the native res. and I didnt quite enjoy it.

Thanks a TON in advance.


Please take a note: I cannot go for gateway/asus/sager/clevo/msi because none of these brands have service centers or stores in this country and if i do have to send in the notebook for repairs, etc it would have to be couriered @ $100 per trip, cheapest. So for this reason, I'd like to buy from Hp/Dell/Toshiba/Sony/Apple because of their physical presence in my country, plus I wont have to pay anything to ship.

Incase you are wondering, I am in Pakistan..

 

That would be like this:

1. GTS 360
2. HD4670 and GT 330 (similar performance although 4670 is probably a bit faster)
3. GT 230M (48 CUDA cores)
4. GT 320M (not listed on nVidia site but rumored to be 32 CUDA cores)


The difference between HD4670 and GT330M may be nonexistent if GT330M comes paired with i.e. Core i5 while HD4670 with Core2 Duo.

For anything other than GTS360 I wouldn't go higher than 1377x768. With GTS360 you could probably use 1600x900 or similar.

No chance for HD5650 where you live?

EDIT: Question about HD5650 didn't imply that it's faster than GTS 360- it isn't- but it is faster than the rest of them (although comparable with HD4670 in most cases it is sometimes faster and it is 40nm card that has DX11 capability and overclocking potential)

EDIT2: OK 4670 is comparable in some games any way faster in others (i.e. Bioshock 2) than GT 330 is- so it should take the second place. My bad.

 

1. GTS 360M
2. HD 4670
3. GT 330M
4. GT 320M = GT 230M, based on your specs. I could not find the GT 320 in notebookcheck

The GTS 360M, being similar to the performance of the GTX 260M, is a huge step from the HD 4670.

The weaker the card the lower the native res should be, unless you love watching blu-ray movies on your notebook, or you are planning to not play any new games. Playing below native resolution kinda sucks, I agree.

 

You can check this site for a general reference: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

Also, forget about the clocks on the cards, it is difficult enough with the names.

Now, from worst to better: 230M~320M > 330M > HD 4670 > 360M

And... for all these cars I´d say with a resolution no greater than 1280x800 or 1366x768 you should be able to play the games at med-high settings with reasonable high fps. Personally given the performance and mainstream cards I´d go with the HD 4670 or the 360M, nothing lower.

 

The order for will be something like this
1. GTS 360M
2. ATI HD4670
3.GT 330M
4. GT 230M
5. GT 320M

But they're still not that good... ATI 5870 mobile or GTX285M are way better options but IMO , 5870 is best... DirectX 11 and very fast...