The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    GMA 950 question.

    Discussion in 'Gaming (Software and Graphics Cards)' started by HavoK, Oct 28, 2006.

  1. HavoK

    HavoK Registered User

    Reputations:
    706
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Right, before anyone wastes their breath with "The gma sucks for gaming", I already know that. I just have one basic question:

    Is the differences between the GMA900 and GMA950 enough to provide a difference in games?

    Thanks. Might be getting a Freevent for college, comes with GMA950, was just curious if its any better then the GMA900 in real time and if the technical benches allow for noticable differnce.

    Have used both myself but not with the same games so I couldn't accurately say - would love to hear from someone who has seen both chips running the same game.
     
    HavoK, Oct 28, 2006
    #1
  2. lappy486portable

    lappy486portable Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    10
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Im not sure, but I think it would make a difference. It benches 3x more than the GMA 900, on 3dMark 05.
     
    lappy486portable, Oct 28, 2006
    #2
  3. usapatriot

    usapatriot Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    3,266
    Messages:
    7,360
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    206
    The GMA 950 is better, but still not good at anything but basic use.
     
    usapatriot, Oct 28, 2006
    #3
  4. moon angel

    moon angel Notebook Virtuoso NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    2,011
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    56
    I believe the 900 is around 2.5-3 times worse than the 950 which from what i have seen scores similarly to the x200m.
     
    moon angel, Oct 28, 2006
    #4
  5. RedSensiStar

    RedSensiStar Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    178
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Still, both awful cards.
     
    RedSensiStar, Oct 28, 2006
    #5
  6. HavoK

    HavoK Registered User

    Reputations:
    706
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55

    This is exactly the kind of crap I asked people not to post when I started the topic. :(

    Thanks everyone else for the useful replies, appreciated.
     
    HavoK, Oct 29, 2006
    #6
  7. Dreamer

    Dreamer The Bad Boy

    Reputations:
    2,699
    Messages:
    5,621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    HavoK, I'm not sure whether it will be helpful but since we have discussed that issues before I found some links in my browser's history ...

    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipsets/display/i915g_9.html
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2269&p=18
    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821811,00.asp
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-900.2178.0.html
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-950.2177.0.html
     
    Dreamer, Oct 29, 2006
    #7
  8. salihozturk

    salihozturk Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    i think 950 is enough for an ordinary gamer i can play most of recent strategy games ,soccer games
     
    salihozturk, Oct 29, 2006
    #8
  9. HavoK

    HavoK Registered User

    Reputations:
    706
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Great thanks Dreamer, unfortunately from those benches it seems in terms of real term gaming its just as weak as the GMA900 even though 3dmark is similar to the x200 and 3 times better then the 900... - thanks for the links, really appreciate it.
     
    HavoK, Oct 29, 2006
    #9
  10. Dreamer

    Dreamer The Bad Boy

    Reputations:
    2,699
    Messages:
    5,621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Actually, the GMA 900 and the GMA 950 are very similar. The GMA 950 is higher clocked and have few core optimizations. The difference in benchmarks is rather a result of the better CPU and RAM than improved gaming performance. So, I would not expect something significantly different as gaming performance between these two cards.
     
    Dreamer, Oct 29, 2006
    #10
  11. sionyboy

    sionyboy Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    100
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Main differences are:

    GMA 950 has core speed of 400mhz to the 900s 333mhz. (pixel processing is 1600Mpixels/sec to 900's 1333Mpixels/sec)

    GMA 950 has better support for video decoding and dual display

    GMA 950 supports Vertex Shader 3 through software.

    GMA 950 will support Vista Aero, Intel have no plans to develop WVDDM drivers for the GMA 900.
     
    sionyboy, Oct 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Charles P. Jefferies

    Charles P. Jefferies Lead Moderator Super Moderator

    Reputations:
    22,339
    Messages:
    36,639
    Likes Received:
    5,091
    Trophy Points:
    931
    A huge bottleneck in both the GMA900 and GMA950 is the lack of hardware T&L support, so there is not going to be much of a difference between them.
    Their performance is so low to begin with that even a marginal boost in performance (20%) would be hard to perceive/would not make much of a difference. Neither one is capable of holding a stable framerate, which is a big factor in a games playability.
    That's the primary reason for going for the GMA950.
     
    Charles P. Jefferies, Oct 29, 2006
    #12