GT 735M vs Intel HD 4400 (or both?)

Hi! I consider to buy a new Sony laptop that was introduced at IFA: The Vaio Flip-PC in 15”
You can purchase a i7-4500U (which includes the Intel HD 4400 iGPU) and there is an optional Nvidia GT 735M for the unit.

I like the thought to use that lightweight machine for some gaming, but after checking some benchmarks, I found out that the 735M is very weak ( due to a crippled memory interface) and does not even outperform the HD 4400.
But on the other hand, the ULV-CPU throttles fast, so is it maybe an option to buy the dGPU of Nvidia just to reduce the throttling problem? I imagine the CPU could do it’s job better since the iGPU-potion is not working as long as the 735M is doing the graphical computations instead.

Don’t panic: I would buy the machine for work purposes (thanks to the digitizer), I just ponder about the possibilities to use it for entertainment too. Convergence baby!
Do you think a GT 735M allows a satisfying gaming-experience or is it garbage anyway?

 

GT 735m murder HD4400 in every aspect. You information is wrong...

For a light gaming gaming at 720p GT735m is fine (should be same performance as GT640/645m).

 

Undyingghost is right. The HD4400 is very much below even the GT-435M. Only Iris graphics have a chance of fighting dedicated GPU's, even low-end ones.

 

The hd4400 is slower. Intel HD Graphics 4400 - NotebookCheck.net Tech

NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M - NotebookCheck.net Tech

Scroll down both reviews and look at the fps or frame rates. 30fps is considured an absolute minimum. So a lot of games will be unplayable, but many will be but only on low settings.

 

Hehe, i saw these benchmarks and thought "both bad" xD

Borderlands 2 (medium) for example:
HD 4400: 25 fps
GT 735M: 37.7 fps
GT 750M: 63.9 fps

The thing is, everything under 60fps is suboptimal and therefore i considered 4400 and 735 as ~both bad *lol*

But of course you are right, the 735M is a stronger than the 4400.
My thought is: The Intel iGPU can't work on full load if the CPU-part is on full load too. One of the components has to throttle (or both) in games, so a dedicated GPU makes sense anyway. It's just frustrating that the low memory interface (64 Bit) of the 735M is still a huge bottleneck and the performance is really crippled compared to for example the 750M

I am playing games with a 4-years old i7-860 and Radeon 5850 on my desktop atm. The 735M is a huge downgrade for gaming purposes here. But on the other hand: The Sony device is very thin and light and there is no magical solution to fit a big dedicated GPU into the chassis with working cooler... *sadface*

 

Very thin and light and modern high fidelity gaming rarely work out in acceptable solution

I'd agree with your thoughts that the 735m will enhance gaming, and it is faster than the igp HD4400, but it's all still relative. I'm not familar with the laptop you are considering, but if it has decent thermal cooling then the 735m should allow the cpu to run at its full potential since the TDP isn't split between the CPU and on die HD4400.

Having said that, your "both bad" assumption is pretty spot on as well if you are expecting a great modern gaming experience. Neither will give you 60fps at 1080p in modern games, or even come close. As a primary gaming machine, consider older games to be the sweet spot.

By comparison, I do happily game on a HD4000/4400/4600 and the Intel igpu's have come a long way, but I'd be disappointed if it was my primary gaming machine. For very light and portable and on the fly experiences however it's awesome. If this is to be a laptop you want to legitimately game on with 60+fps in new games, I'd look elsewhere... there are quite a few fairly small packages that offer the 765m, which is a huge step up, but not aware of any with an active digitizer.

 

there are you just have to pay more

 

Are you saying from your own expierience that anything below 60fps is suboptimal? While, I agree, actually I think minimum is 70fps, you have to make compromisses. First, most notebook displays max at 60fps. Second notebook gpus are not as powerfull as a desktop, and they cost more. so, with exceptions, most say 30fps is playable. Some like faster frame rates in multiplayer games though.

If you want faster fps, you can get notebooks with a 750m, 765m, 770m, and 780m, those are Nvidia, you can get a range of AMD gpus as well. Top end right now is the 780m. And you can even get a notebook with two 780m gpus. Those models would come with a faster cpu as well.

Of course bigger gpus and cpus need more cooling and bigger batteries. So you don't find them in ultrabooks. Much as I like ultrabooks, what good is it if it won't do what you want, i.e. play games. If you are will to move away from ultrabooks, you can get more power, in fact some aren't much bigger then a ultrabook. For example the Razor Blade.

 

lol 60fps? 70fps? Depends on the game entirely. But the HD 4400 is ok for older games at 720p nothing more.

 

What were NVIDIA thinking making a 735M with 64bit that is weaker than the 730M with 128bit? This is madness! This is NVIDIA! :S

 

730M needs 33W, 735M only 17W. But yeah, the fps-loss is still quite significant and why should i use a GPU that does not really make games playable. Ok, except old games - but the Intel HD could handle that too if the game is old enough.
Decisions, decisions

 

I am a gamer, and I like all the graphical effects in games. It is neat to see how realistic they are becoming. So for best graphics, I wanted the top end.

Remember, each year games become more and more demanding. So, look at the games you play, and the ones in the future that you will play, for as long as you expect to own the laptop.

If games aren't too important, then that may not be a deciding factor. I hope that helped one way or the other.

 

Hi. I am also considering to buy the Sony VAIO (multi-flip) 15A. I won't play games on it and will mainly use it for inking in OneNote, studying, productivity, that sort of stuff.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I am wondering whether there could be any noticeable difference in lag in inking between the added GT 735M and the HD 4400? To add the GT 735M costs €130. Would this be money well spend?
Also will there be any noticeable lag in inking between the Core i5-4200M and the Core i7-4500M? To upgrade to the i7 costs €200.

 

The 735 beats the Iris Pro, hands down. Nevermind the 4400.

 

In inking in OneNote you aren't going to see a difference between the HD4400 or the GT 735M. By default it is only going to use the integrated HD4400 and it will ink beautifully power wise. Much bigger question will be Wacom or N-Trig differences, I'm not sure what the Sony uses, but on my Surface Pro 2 with Wacom, inking is perfectly smooth with the i5 HD4400; it's more than powerful enough. During these mentioned tasks, the GT 735M will remain idle and won't be used or needed, and is simply overkill.

If you are going to game with any new games spring for the GT 735m, but if it's purely office, studying and inking OneNote you'll be totally happy with the i5 w/ integrated HD4400.

And, for what it's worth, the HD4400 i5 can in fact run some games quite well, just not the latest and greatest. Most games from a year or two back play just fine. But yes, it will play BF4 on low at 720p if you don't mind cutting way back on graphics.