How is the HD 4650?

I did copious amounts of research. I was looking for a smaller laptop that could play games at a great framerate at around medium settings. I decided to get the ASUS N81Vp-C1.

I ordered the laptop today and recently told a buddy of mine I got it for $1149 from Buy.com. He basically said I got scammed and that I won't be able to play anything on the 4650. He recommends I get an ASUS with a 9800m GS. I've already looked at the benchmarks, and the 4650 is just behind the 9800m GS, so what is he saying? He states the laptop will barely be able to handle Warhammer Online. It may be a recent game, but the graphics aren't top notch.

On a side note, he says the resolution 1366 x 768 is trash for games and even typing up reports. What's he saying here?

Give me some hope that I didn't just waste my money. Honestly, I did a ton of research, and I bought the N81 because it seemed to have the best size to power ratio.

 

You are right. The 4650/70 are better than any G96 Nvidia card, thus arround the 9700M GTS/9800M GS (only owned by the 128bits bus, 256bits one or GDDR5 would be as strong/stronger).

The Asus he's speaking about(G50) has a 1366x768 screen too so... It seems to have become the new 15-16'' standard, replacing 1680x1050.

 

do not let the benchmarks trick you.

the ATI 4650 is still a mid-range (128-bit memory interface) videocard.

the Nvidia 9800M GS is high-end (256-bit memory interface).

there is a huge difference in gaming performance between a mid-range card and a high-end card.... usually two times as much.
.... even huger difference when you increase the resolution and compare framerates between a mid-range card and a high-end card.... its night and day.

 

So did I just screw myself over? Should I get the G50VT X6 for an extra $150? Is it that much better than the N81 and its HD 4650?

 

The N81's main gripe is portability. The HD4650 isn't as powerful as the 9800M GS for sure, but the amchine is far easier to carry around(as the Asus G50 has dimensions coming close to certain 17" machines).

If you want pure performance, then yes, the 9800M GS is the way to go.

The HD4650 certainly isn't a bad card, but it's not the highest power either.

 

Real gaming performance should be up at least 50% with the 9800M GS at higher res. 3dmark06 should be taken with a grain of salt, but feel free to compare vantage scores.

And I forgot to mention that the 9800M GS is a monster overclocker...

 

Yeah, the 4650 isn't the highest end video card out there. Is it as bad as your friend says? Not a chance, in my opinion.

I have the 4650, and I have to say that I am very happy with it. If you are not a hardcore gamer, it will suit you fine. I am a casual gamer, and it works great for me. I play BF2 (all settings high), COD4 (looks nice, but not on a super high resolution. Good resolution, but not great), and Civilization IV (not really a graphically intensive game, so don't really need to worry about that one).

The FPS on all of these games are pretty good. Everything runs VERY nicely. I did a FPS test in COD4 multiplayer, and I got FPS up to 90. Pretty good for a laptop graphics card, if you ask me.

In other words, I don't think that you wasted your money. If you are a serious gamer, you might consider returning the laptop and buying a desktop. If you are just a casual gamer, keep the thing and enjoy it.

I hope this helps!

 

It's a tough thing to answer...if I'm a more casual or hardcore gamer. I'd like to play Sins of the Solar Empire, Warhammer Online, and other future games. How will I be able to run them?

 

Mid range is mid range, high end is high end. It really is apples and oranges.

 

You see if you are talking about playing games on medium settings I wouldn't overly concern yourself anyway. A lot of people slated the HD 4330 that is in this machine; and I myself was not overly concerned as I'm not a huge gamer of anything that would be too taxing.

That said, I tried out Crysis on it and believe it or not it runs perfectly fine in medium settings in DX10 mode. Sure the FPS is not amazing, but it's playable; and dropping just one or two setting down to low brings the FPS over 30 and I can live with that.

I guess my point is that before making any computer purchase you should ask yourself:

1. What are you actually going to use it for?
2. What do you think you'd be using it for in 1.5-2 years time?

Then buy to answer those questions. Don't get taken in by the hype around some technology or talk from those that need to have the latest and greatest to "keep up with the Joneses".

Again, resolution, I myself would have preferred a larger resolution to be available; but I had to ask myself if it was a requirement, or a "would like to have". You just need to do the same.

 

But the thing is, with AMD it's getting closer and closer. Would you consider the 3850 and 3870 high end? Because the 4650 is between those 2. This isn't the kind of gap as between the 8600/8700M and 8800M. The future 4830 and 4860 have 128bits bus, will you call them midrange?

 

Is the G50VT-X6 at Best Buy for $899 a better deal than the Asus N81? The G50 does have the 9800M GS, although it is slightly bigger and the screen is 15.6"

 

Your friend is being pessimistic and jealous. I would question him being a friend.
1366x768 trash?
Then the Asus G50 at Best Buy for $900 is trash with a 9800M GS and 1366x768 resolution? I don't think so. On a 14" screen, 1366x768 isn't bad, but on a 15.6" screen, its not so sweet.
Warhammer Online is not that intensive of a game and I can guarandamntee you that you can play Warhammer at 1366x768 with everything maxed out and get at least 20fps.
A 4650 is almost as good as my 9700M GTS, about 10-15% less in performance, but a little overclocking can get it near a stock 9700M GTS. I would estimate a decent 3dMark 06 score of about 7500 with a nice overclock.
You could even play GTAIV on medium settings and average around 35FPS.
The Asus N81 packs a lot of punch for 14.1" and is arguably the best 14" laptop out right now. Sure a 9800M GS is better, but you get less portability, more weight, and more of a price. (the $900 Asus with 1366x768 is a no go, you would need to buy a new screen, probably 1680x1050, that would fit in the 15.6" frame, but that would probably be $200)
Plus, the Asus N81 is just good looking.
So, your purchase is definitely not wasted, it is a valuable purchase that you will enjoy. I don't think there is any game out right now that can't be played with at least 25 FPS on medium settings at 1366x768. Trust me.

 

Which one?

Show me a vantage bench for a 4650 and 3850 stock. I'll give up the tech life and reside in Nepal if I'm wrong and the 4650 wins. And the 4860 is an entirely different story, it's using GDDR5 and running a very high core clock being 40nm. The 4830 is probably a good match for the 3850. The 4650 is your a-typical midrange card that may just happen to be 20% faster than the 9600 GT, but that's not much to be proud of.

 

Thanks Dude. And honestly, I'd also like to see an upgrade in performance in games from my current system (AMD XP 2800, 6800GT, 1 gig RAM). I mean I know I will, but I just want to get my monies worth is all.

My N81 will also act as a desktop replacement. I'll be watching movies, typing up papers, and of course playing games on it. It's still not too small, right? I really need some confirmation or else I'm going to back out. I thought I did enough research, but now I'm already reconsidering =\

 

yes they will still be mid-range.

the memory interface is how you categorize GPUs (graphics processing units)

even if a mid-range card performs better, it will mainly be for average resolutions (which benchmarks like 3DMark06 is defaulted at).

if you try to run games at high-resolutions (WSXGA+ and higher), you will see how much a 128-bit memory interface videocard will struggle as compared to a 256-bit card.

 

It will be absolutely fine at all of that. What games are you looking at playing? As one of the posters before me said, I doubt it will have any major problems anyway.

 

Honestly I'd like to try some current games. Warhammer Online (which I feel confidant should be fine) but also more graphical intensive stuff such as Sins of the Solar Empire. Frame rates come first, and graphics second. If I can get constantly above 30 fps, I'll be happy.

No Crysis. No GTAIV. Save that stuff for a desktop, imo.

 

As a desktop replacement I might question that. An Asus with a 9800M GS can be flashed to a 9800M GTS and be overclocked to hit near 10,000 in 3DMark06. You would probably get around 20-25% more frames at any given resolution compared to the Asus N81. So around 35FPS at medium settings for GTAIV, you might get 45 max on a 9800M GS at the same res.

And trust me, you will be able to max out warhammer completely, just completely, so much where you will be looking for graphics quality tweaks on the internet for even more quality! i guarantee at least 25FPS, which is definitely fluid, with everything maxed out for warhammer.

But,

Ask yourself this:

Do I need portability?

If you answer no or are more towards no, then I would reconsider. Otherwise, hands down you have the fastest laptop 14" and under. Period.

If you don't need portability and can handle 15.4" reconsider, but don't get the $900 Asus, it has the 1366x768 screen. Try to manage for the Asus G50 from Newegg for $1200 or $1300.

 

But they come with GDDR5 3200/3600, same bandwidth as would have a GDDR3 1600/1800 256bits card.

Don't get me wrong, I know the card is better and that. 128bit bus are limiting the cards, but it's not uncommon to give too much credits on the memory. I was a desktop 8600GT supporter and even though it was bashed like hell, it's still equaled the 7800GT and even the 7800GTX some times, even at high resolution.

 

I will be taking the laptop to and from class, so yes I'd like portability!

And by maxing out Warhammer, did you mean with the HD 4650 or the 9800m GS? How would I fare with the HD 4650?

 

With Warhammer the CPU will be your main concern at 1366 x 768 or whatever res the N81 is. I think it's a T9500 though? That should be more than fine. Just lay off the AA, and scale back any sort of shadow settings if you have slowdown. MMOs are more about the gameplay than the visuals anyway, so I don't see your concern if that's all you'll play.

 

Then a 14.1" is definitely for you. A 15.4" can be a pain and a bit heavy at almost 7LBS, especially if you want a 9 cell battery for longer battery life, which will add almost 1/2LB and take up more space.

And by maxing out warhammer, i meant with the 4650
and you would fare with fluid gameplay completely, everything maxed out at least 20 FPS.

 

Thanks guys. I'm sticking with the n81, my buddy can simply shut up.

 

you're welcome.
you should feel proud about the purchase.
heck im even jealous, you got the "worlds best gaming notebook/worlds fastest" 14.1" laptop

and by the way, PM when you max out warhammer

 

difference in video memory type wont account for too much as compared to the difference in GPU memory interface.

but newer memory type does help.

 

Well AFAIK the memory bandwidth is bus width*speed.

 

I guarantee that you are going to have a little bit of buyer's remorse whenever you buy something so friggin' expensive. That is just a way of life.

Don't let your friend (who just sounds jealous, I have some friends like that) or anybody on this forum tell you what to do. Just read our input, and make the decision for yourself. Only YOU know what is right for you.

Hope this helps.

 

Is that Norm Macdonald in your avatar? Is he still alive?

 

Yep. And he is still alive.

 

a little tidbit for ya.

 

Seconded. Wait till you buy a house, man how the buyers remorse sets in whilst you are waiting for people in chains to shift around etc; that is horrible ;o)

Enjoy your purchase, I'm sure it will serve you well!

 

Thx Gophn very informative....can you give and example of a 128bit bus interface that is suitible over a 256bit bus interface?......cheers

 

128-bit cards are more suitable when you want to less heat and less power usage... for better batterlife.
... not to mention that they are cheaper to purchase. (and to manufacture).

no doubt that a 128-bit card with GDDR5 is a nice boost for mid-range cards to catch up to high-end cards and for a good price.

 

128bit cards can be as good as 256bit cards now days with gddr5.
just look at benchmarks with hd4770(128bit) vs hd4830/4850/9800(256bit), or hd4870/4890(256bit) vs gtx260(448bit)/280(512bit). because gddr5 is actually quad data rate, so 128 bit 1ghz gddr5 have the same bandwidth as 256bit 1ghz gddr3.

 

Well technically a 128 bit memory interface with GDDR5 has the same bandwidth as a 256 bit memory interface with GDDR3 if the clock speeds are the same. This is why the still unseen in any laptop Radeon 4860 is so significant, because it uses this concept to lower power consumption while still having the same memory bandwidth. There are some Radeon 4670 desktop graphics cards with GDDR4 which I believe is like GDDR5, sending 4 bits per clock unlike GDDR3/GDDR2/DDR2/DDR where it's 2 bits per clock. XDR-RAM like in the Playstation 3 (256 MB of it for the system memory, 256 MB GDDR3 for VRAM) if I remember right does 8 bits per clock, however it's very expensive to manufacturer hence high in cost. Oh and also IIRC GDDR5 consumes less power per clock than GDDR3, a really nice feature to have while doubling the bandwidth or with a 128 bit memory bus to really lower the power consumption and heat output

Edit: I see Tianxia beat me to it

 

one way to really show the difference:
- run the benchmarks (like 3DMark06.. I recommend 3DMark Vantage... so you wont see inflated scores) at different resolutions.... increasing of course.

1) one at default (1280x1024) or WXGA (1440x900)
2) increased to SXGA+ (1440x1050) or WSXGA+ (1680x1050)
3) increased to UXGA (1600x1200) or WUXGA (1920x1200)

I wager that a stock 9800M (256-bit) will exponentially outperform the 128-bit card (even if its OC'ed) as you increase the resolutions.... no doubt.

In any case, if one is gaming is with an average resolution (under 1440x900)... then it would not matter which card .

 

yes, that's true, since there aren't any cards with 128bit gddr5 in laptops yet.
an hd4650 gets 4.8k in 3dmark06 at uxga res, still not bad for a card with crippled bandwidth.

 

But that's not what the 4650 is targetted for (high res), what does it get in vantage @1280x1024? Then compare to 9800M GS and this topic comes to a close.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=376816
vantage score for hd4650, alot weaker than a 9800m, as expected.

 

You may be interested on the benchmarks we are collecting ( thread, chart). I'm going to put the scores of a stock 9800M GS later today.