How much an x1600 or Go7600 will make my laptop future proof???

I'm gonna buy a new laptop with either x1600 or Go7600 with 256 MB of memory.

I was wondering how much my system will be future proof with this class of graphics card? will I be able to play current games like FEAR at full settings???

 

I have the Go7600 512 MB and theres not a chance in hell I can get near full settings on FEAR. To get playable frame rates the settings need to be a little below medium

 

Listen if I can predict the future I would... oh never mind

 

what would you do Luar .... tell me.

I have the option of e1705 with 7900 GS but I dont like Dell at all. I'll stick to HP. and thats max that HP is offering.

Should I get that laptop with one of these cards????

and what about these cards being future proof??? that was my original question. will they be able to play future games at med settings or something like that????

 

GF7600/X1600 can run FEAR with ALL to max (except soft shadows) and AA&AF x4 with average over 30fps at stock settings and 1GB of ram. With little overclocking, good drivers and 2GB of ram it will get 40 easily.

 

If you're buying a 17" laptop then do try and get one with a 7900GS if you are wanting to "future proof". The performance increase is very significant and will be worth it in the long term.

 

if you want long term gaming, and not have to upgrade for a few years, you really should wait for the second generation of dx10 cards

 

That depends on what resolution he will try to run FEAR at on the laptop. If you're running a lower resolution on a smaller screen like your Asus 14" then yeah but if he has a 17" screen and trying to run 1920x1200 then no way.

 

though technically those 17" dtrs are future proof they're not portable in any shape or form..and tend to be expensive too..with the e1705 as the exception..but for the 12-15" don't expect too strong of a gpu..just too much heat in that form factor

 

I found that you need an extremely powerful video card to push playable framerates in resolutions over XGA in FEAR. An X1800/Go7800 would be best.

I run FEAR Combat at 1024x768 with all maximum settings, 8X AF at XGA with no problems, it is perfectly smooth on the Go7600 256MB. My X700 couldn't do that.

 

this is the comment i second. dx10 will be vista-only (iirc) and these cards will hae pixel shader 4.0. The current ones with PS 3.0 will only last a few years, and then it wont play the latest games.

 

Why would anyone want to run a game at 1920x1200?? There is absolutaly NO GOOD REASON to do that..as by doing so you will have to turn off alot of the eye candy on all but the most powerful cards.. Running a game at native resolution at max settings is by far all you need to enjoy a game to its max!

 

if my notebook's screen resolution is WSXGA+, then can I paly games at lower resolution like 1024x768??? or i'd have to play it at native resolution???

does widescreen affects gameplay in anyway???

 

a 17" laptop with a uxga screen has a native resolution of 1920x1200, thats why the hell someone would have a VERY GOOD REASON to want to run it at that resolution

read and understand the whole post, and leave out the name calling, it doesnt do anybody any good

 

Yeah, I can max our FEAR aswell, but not shadows.

 

Well thats not really what in was getting at.. Playing any new game like FEAR or similar at such a high resolution is stupid as it will cripple you card and you wont be able to put most of the eye candy unless you have an extreme card which 95% of people dont have. So i dont see a reason for people coming on here and complainaing if a certain card wont play at such a high resolution as 1920x1200 with effects on as it doesnt apply to the vast majority of people and the laptop gpu's simply arent designed to play at such a high resolution (even the high end ones) And most 17inch laptops have 1440x900 which will look amazing on any high end game and if you play on such a resolution (or even on WXGA 1280X800) it will look better as you will be able to switch on pretty much all of the eye candy (7600/X1600 cards+)

And iv heard of people on this site saying how they prefere to play their games at maximum resolution while keeping the effetcs/eye candy levels to minimum!.. and i cant understand why!

 

it pretty much boils down to personal tastes, I prefer a balance, my laptop is not a gamers best friend, it only has an x1300, I tried the prey demo, and I could run it pretty well, at lowest res, with all the effects and detail on high, and it looked like crap, at the low a res, all the high details get turned to a blurry mush and looks like it was colered in by a kid who just figured out what the lines were for, as I've said before, if your a hardcore gamer, you need a desktop, or really really deep pockets

 

Not really deep pockets, for only $1282 I got my system which can max out Pray, BF2, and run Oblivion Medium-High. All you have to do is look into all possible options before you buy.

 

cool man...! from where did you buy that Asus laptop???

Were that some sort of deal or what??? Please tell me the place...

 

all the midrange and up cards today will handle todays games, the title of the thread has me thinking he was asking how well it might perform in the next several years, in 2 years time AA and AAA titles are gonna put a major hurt on the x1600, and then theres dx10, and how hard microsoft is going to end up pushing it on us, hell the radeon 7000 in my old hp can run several current titles, the overall gaming experience is well, not really worth the effort, I still say if your looking for a machine to fulfill your gaming needs long term, you need to wait a while, I'd say your best bet would be mid to high end 2'nd gen dx10 card, or get a system that has guarenteed graphics upgradability

 

I would say the current X1600 and 7600 with 256mb of GPU mem, should be fine for no more than 2yrs maximum.

Unless DX10 and Vista scew us over.

 

The reason why people like to play at higher resolutions is because the more you increase the resolution the less aliasing there is so you don't need to turn on as much AA. Another reason is that at a high resolution like 1920x1200 you can see a lot more going on around you in the game then you can if you are playing at like 1280x800.

 

I used to have the e1705 with a go 7800. It could handle playing Far Cry at 1920x1200 with quite a few of the details on high/ultra. I'm sure current games may require a little down-turning of detail settings, but I would think the go 7900 GS would take you a long way.

If you're going 17" and gaming is important to you, I would recommend going with the go 7900 GS.

I also think that the x1600 and go 7600 cards should be OK for gaming for a couple of years--even if you have to turn down setting with the more demanding games that are on the horizon.

 

but if one gets an expensive laptop with say 7900 GS, it'd still be in jeopardy when dx10 and vista arrive...

Besides, these laptops are really expensive. e1705 might be an expension but its outlook is so pathetic...! and then there is the problem of heat generation by these machines. can they be used as "lap" tops???

 

If you wait for DX10 to arrive in notebooks, you could be waiting for some time. The game makers aren't going to abandon DirectX 9, I imagine that all games should have a DirectX 9 version for at least a year - year and a half after DX10 is released. Hardly anyone is going to have DX10 hardware, the adoption rate could be pretty slow.

 

Not really, it'll be another generation before the games industry really starts to take advantage of DX 10 and you see it become more popular. HDR is still making inroads into graphical engines, despite the technology being there for a good two years.

About 2 games I believe so far are going to be Vista only, Alan Wake and Halo 2. Crysis will probably be the first 'proper' DX 10 engine, but I do not believe that it will be DX9 only. Many of the in real time in game footage you have seen so far is actually run on DX9 cards. (ATI X19xxx series)

Only those with lots of money and little idea about the technology behind it other than "newer means better" will be running out and getting DX10 graphics card and Vista when it comes out. The rest of us will sit back and wait for the second wave of DX10 cards to come in before taking the plunge.

(btw, that was a reply to the post above Chaz's. Just incase of any confusion)

 

ok, thats a very logical reasoning....

so, my question now is that, should one spend some 300+ extra dollars for getting 7900 GS instead of 7600??? or 7600 is enough if one is NOT a real hardcore gamer, but a moderate one who does play games often???

and also, for me the main concern would be to use the laptop as a laptop. I asked about the heat issues in the previous post. Is it really an issue. especially in machines like XPS or e1705???

 

I am very impressed with the Go7600, it's a fantastic card and I doubt you would be disappointed with it. It can handle just about any game at 1280x800 with max settings and a bit of AA/AF.
Remember that if you get a Go7900GS or similar high-end card, you will need to get a 17" machine. A Go7600 can be found in a 14" or 15.4" machine like the Compal HGL-30 and Alienware Area-51 m5550.

 

Yes Chaz, thats what Im concerned about. that is, if I do get a 7900gs with 17" screen, would I be able to use that laptop for normal use, like the way its meant to be, besides gaming. I'll repeat the same issues: Heat and portability.

Anyone with their experiences???

 

go to a local computer store and check out the 17". They are massive, i wouldn't recommend carrying it around much.

 

Laptops future proof will be not.

Seriously

If you keep up on new games and like eye candy, count on upgrading every couple/few years. The 7600 and x1600 are fine and dandy for current titles, and will be a bit strained on future ones. Then they'll fade into being "old cards" and only useful for "old games". My card I find is just good enough for me to enjoy playing Oblivion. I could go a lot lower on graphical settings, but I wouldn't want to.

 

Toshibia. p105-s9312.

Nuff said. Thin and light for a 17" desktop, love the 7900 GS.

I do have on thing to say, you can play the waiting game with hardware components forever. there will always be something better. Its just a risk you gotta take.

 

my x1600 > your 7900GS.

 

Too much exageration dude

 

I'm sorry to say that the screen of your TOshiba is not good....
I've seen a Toshiba with 17" XGA screen and that was pathetic. I played NFS Underground on it and I couldnt even enjoy the game. Whats the use of 7900 when you cant SEE and FEEL it..!!!

 

Meh, the 1440x900 isnt so bad. Its a step down from my old 1680x1050 But i dont have to burn up the card trying to get native res on a huge fracking screen.

And how does one feel through a LCD?

 

well, thats true... but still i guess its quality, not resolution, is not that good. its just my thought, and it may be wrong....

and it takes some aesthetic sense to understand how does one feel through an LCD ... dont take it personally. i know there are many ppl who dont care about it....

 

i have a question... do we have to play games at native resolution???

cant we play games at lower resolutions? if yes, what are its effects?

 

Well when a game is playing at native resolution. 1 pixel = one pixel on the LCD... when running at a lower resolution, one pixel now equals 4 on the screen. The size of the pixels do not change on an LCD panel.

 

You don't have to play games at native resolution. Playing outside the monitors native resolution means the image will not be as sharp, but in all honesty its not something that you are going to notice when gaming. Most of the games i play at this laptop are outside the native resolution, but it doesn't detract from the game I find. As long as you keep the aspect ratio the same you'll be fine.

 

ok... thats good. and if I have a monitor, I can always play games on CRT display. I guess game palying experience will be much more pleasant on a CRT than on LCD.

 

Regarding your question about whether or not 17" is as useful as smaller sizes. I think that 17" laptops are great because they give you the option of more powerful components, particularly GPUs.

If you're not a hardcore gamer, than you don't really need a 17" The additional size may make you think twice about taking it around as much as say a 15.4" or 14.1" system. Especially since you're planning to use an external monitor.

 

Im not worried about size as much as Heat they'd produce... still no one has guided me in that aspect. I've used my frnd's laptop for some time and I think it's really difficult to use a HOT laptop. I'd prefer to use my laptop while lying in bed or putting it on my lap. and if it generates heat upto the point of getting uncomfortable to use, then its worthless.

Thats why I keep on asking that those machines with 7900GS are usable under such conditions or not, WHEN NOT PLAYING GAMES. If they do heat up while playing games, then thats acceptable coz i can make special arrangement for game playing. but during normal use, my laptop must be comfortable to use....

 

Mine stays cool even when gaming.

 

Which one you've got???

Any specs...

What about XPS M1710, e1705, and HP nc8430???

 

'shibia p105-s9312

T2500 2.0 gHz
2 gigs @ 668.9 mhz FSB Dual cahn
200 gig hdd
17" 1440x900
7900gs 256 meg

all in a package thinner than an mx1000 mouse and just over 7lbs

Plus some **** fine harmon/kardons.