GeForce Go 7200

Recently I've pretty much abandoned the idea of a 17-inch notebook, and have also come to the conclusion that with what I play, the processor performance is more important than the graphics card performance. And while I'm certainly considering getting a fairly high-end card like the 8600M GT or more moderate one like the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600, I'm also considering just getting one that'll be better than the one I have right now if the price is significantly cheaper.

In terms of price for processor performance, one of the best deals I've seen is the HP dv6000z. I can get a high-end AMD processor for quite a low price, with all the other options I'd like except the ideal graphics. That seems to be a problem pretty often with AMD processors - they tend to be paired with lower-end graphics cards (why the X1600 can't be an option with more configurations I'm not sure).

So my main comparison here is my current nVIDIA GeForce4 MX440 with the GeForce Go 7200. I'm looking for practical results on the game I play, which are:

Civilization III and IV - MX440 handles these great at any setting - not too highly demanding.

Battlefield 1942 - MX440 handles these fine at maximum settings and 1280x960 resolution (avg. of 30 FPS), so again don't need improvement.

Battlefield Vietnam - Haven't benchmarked it, but I'm limited to low settings right now. Would like to get it up at least to medium.

Age of Empires III - Looks pretty good right now - I think I'm using Medium settings but haven't played for awhile. Some of the options are disabled, so it doesn't look as good as in the best screenshots.

Halo: Combat Evolved - Planning to get this, the demo version looks quite good right now (much better than on a regular-definition TV).

I'm not especially concerned with how future games will play - most of what I like is the strategic games without high-demanding graphics, and I don't buy new games especially often - I don't think I've bought a new one in 18 months.

So will the GeForce Go 7200 make the MX440 look like the 5-year-old card it is, or will I be getting the exact same performance I used to? Here's the rundown on the two cards:

GeForce4 MX440 (February 2002)
GPU: 275 MH
Mem: 400 MHz DDR
Bandwidth: 6.4 GB/s
nanometers: 150
Memory: 128 MB (dedicated)
Fillrate (MT/s): 1080
DirectX: 7
OpenGL: 1.2
3dmark03: I've heard around 900, but haven't run it myself

GeForce Go 7200
performance class: 4
series: GeForce Go 7000
codename: G72M
pipeline: 4 pixel-pipelines and 3 vertex-pipelines
clock: chip: 450 MHz, memory: 350 MHz
memory: DDR-3, maximum upgrade: 64MB, bus: 32Bit, Turbocache
Memory: 64 MB dedicated, 192 shared (in config I'm looking at)
directX: 9c, Shader Model 3.0
features: PureVideo, + 192 MB TurboCache (from RAM) = ges. 256 MB
application area: small and light-weight notebooks
other infos: 90nm, 112 Mio transistors, PCI-E
3DMark03: 2700 points
3DMark05: 1450 points
3DMark06: 674 points

Besides the pure hardware specs, my current card has no pixel or vertex shaders, which I believe the 7200 does, and is only DirectX 7 compatible. I'm not sure how much a difference these will make.

If I do go with this option, I won't be expecting huge longevity on the graphics side - two or three years at most. It's a money-saving option that I think might be worth it if the performance is good enough for what I have now.

And if HP is coming out with the 6500z anytime soon, I'd like to know - I'm not up-to-date on the HP news.

 

If the MX440 is making you happy then the Go7200 will too, but you may actually get worse performance with the Go7200 in some games. Here's why - the MX440 is only a DirectX 7 part - that means no special shading effects. The Go7200 is a full DirectX 9 chip and does have the capability to do shading effects. In games that have shading the MX440 isn't rendering those effects because it can't. However the Go7200 will because it can, and it will be slower at it (shading can take a lot of power).

The Go7200, new chip or not, is not much of an upgrade to your MX440.

I would suggest a Go7400 or X1400, no less. Have you completed the FAQ recently? Post a link and we'll see what is in your price range.

 

The GeForce Go7200 in the dv6000z is approximately infinitely faster than the GeForce 4 MX. The GeForce 4 MX is a rebranded reject GeForce 2 - the worst of all possible dedicated cards from its era by a large margin. There's a reason so many games have the requirement "GeForce 3 or above (excluding GeForce 4 MX)". If you've gotten by this long with a GF4 MX, than a Go7200 ought to last you till the end of the decade, at least, unless you develop a sudden interest in really modern games. For the ones you've listed, however, you're looking at playable framerates at high settings and native resolution.

Word of advice: you'll probably want to wipe your machine and reinstall with XP - nVidia's Vista drivers are pretty lacking right now, especially in the mobile department.

 

the 7200 should have no problem, my X1600 breezes through all of those at full settings(minus BF1942/BFV) I don't have those 2. And I know halo will run no issue.

 

I think Chaz is being rather pessimistic. The Geforce 7200 should make a good upgrade. It'll handle Battlefield Vietnam a lot better and your current games will look much more fancy. Some of the newer RTS games like C&C Generals would run well on there.

 

Basically all I'm saying is that you're jumping from yesterday's low-end to today's low-end. Yes the Go7200 will definitely be an improvement but I stand by what I said. Running in DirectX 7 code, even on the 440MX, is not that hard. However running through DirectX 9 code for a low-end card like the Go7200 is tough.

If you want a really nice upgrade you'll go for a Go7400/X1400.

 

I can't speak for the GeForce4 MX440 or the games listed above, but I just bought the very laptop you are considering. The Go 7200 is running basically on par with the 128MB dedicated version x200m in my old Compaq R4000 with XP (35-36FPS in Once Upon A Knight bench).

The 128MB shared version x200m in the Compaq V5000 in my sig gets 21FPS in that same bench. The 3DMark06 scores vary wildly, and are not really indicative of the performance differences I am seeing (or lack of).

In a nutshell, the Vista driver support is not that great and when coupled to a low-end GeForce 7 Series gpu it leaves you with a pretty abysmal experience. As for the Turion X2 TL-58, it seems to be a decent little powerhouse (edging ahead of some C2D T7400s in Gophn's wPrime test thread). Not too shabby for a "budget" cpu.

My only regret was not waiting for the 8400M GS to show up in the AMD model refresh, as I'd imagine it is many times more powerful than the Go 7200.

 

Wow, surprised there are so many responses already. Checking notebookcheck's benchmark table, the Radeon Xpress 200M scored 1100 in 3dmark03 vs. the 7200's 2700 and 140 in 3dmark06 v. the 7200's 674. moon_angel or R4000, have you played BFV with that card (your post/sigs indicate you both have it)? Does it look halfway decent? I'll try to get some pics of for comparison to what I have now.

Right now I'm looking to see what I can get with a C2D T7500 or AMD Turion X2 2.2 GHz for a decent price. The d6000z seemed to fit that fairly well.

R4000, you say you get 21 FPS with the x200M, but that the performance is "pretty abysmal" with Vista. Or am I misinterpreting?

Sorry if it's a bit rushed; I'm limited on time right now.

 

The problem with comparing 3DMark scores between the two gpus is that the x200m has no Shader 3.0 support, so it automatically forfeits some tests (allowing the Go 7200 to gain a healthy point advantage over it). In reality, the Go 7200 is probably not strong enough to handle Shader 3.0 at acceptable performance levels anyway (IMO).

The Go 7200 performance in Vista seems abysmal, as the dedicated x200m seemed to have little problem keeping pace with it. I thought the performance margin would be much bigger. The Go 7200 even failed the 3DMark Vista Compatibility check, while the x200m passed. lol

 

Well I've been playing games with sub-low settings with my GeForce MX420. It just stopped working with new games about 3 months ago when they all required Shaders.

 

The basic point to be made here is that in those games you've listed, the Go7200 will perform much better then the Mx440 and should run Battlefield Vietnam at high settings also.

If you're sure you won't be playing anything else, then the Go7200 will do exactly for you what you're looking for. Newer games though, it will start to fail.

Also regards the Geforce 4Mx being based on the GF2 core, yes, that's true, but it also has new features and controllers and realistically, despite that tag sticking to it, it performs a hell of a lot better. Comparing a Geforce 2Mx to a Geforce 4Mx, in real term, the difference is large. I have played Dawn of War and Day of Defeat Source on both, getting about 40fps difference in both games at the same settings with each card.

 

Would this upgrade apply to me as well, in a Dell Inspiron 8200. My knowledge of old GPUs isn't great. Is the nVidia GeForce 4 MX the same as a GeForce 440 Go?