Intel GMA X3100 vs Nvidia 8400M GS

I'm like going to be purchasing a cutomized dv2700t SE notebook notebook from HP but I am going back and fourth between the graphics card.

First off let me say that I will not be using this machine for gaming (aside from a random flash game here or there). I understand that the 3100, is useless for that and the 8400 isn't really a gaming beast as well so that is not what my concern is. I have a desktop and a 360 for gaming.

I will however be doing alot of photo/video editing often on the battery so battery life is important. I will also be watching lots of dvds and video as well. I'm also concerned about heat. So my questions are this:

Generally, how much battery power will I sacrafice by upgrading to the 8400 over the intergrated 3100?

Will the 8400 generate noticably more heat than the 3100?

Is the 8400 worth the the $80.00? Will it make videos noticably better, photoshop faster, ect...?

I would like to upgrade the 8400, because it would be nice to know I have dedicated graphics if the need arises, but I'm not sure if I'm willing to sacarafice the battery power or how much heat the 8400 generates.

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

It worth 80 for sure, but if you don't use it for light gaming then it's no need I'd say.

 

The 8400 won't make your videos better or your photoshop faster etc.
Seeing as you are quite concerned about battery life and don't care about 3D performance, I'd recommend you get the integrated solution.

 

graphics card doesnt affect photoshop and dvds depend on the quality of the dvd not the graphics card. you screen is a more important factor for enjoying movies

and for better battery life go for the x3100, absolutely no gaming right?

 

I woudlnt say it will take that much of a hit on battery life going to dedicated gpu

You do get HDMI out and better graphics support. Id definately go with 8400m GS if your gonna do video encoding stuff. I get an average of 1hr 20mins (6 cell battery) on mine on high performance profile. Id say about 2hours on battery saver mode

Battery life of dv laptops werent that great to begin with. Vista sorta adds into the battery drain too

 

2 hours? Seriously? Sounds like if you're concerned about battery life you should stay away from that notebook all together.

 

HP's Consumer laptops (Pavillons) are not really well known for their long battery life or solid build quality. However, they should be sufficient for consumer use. Anything higher grade would be HP's Business range (Compaq), but they do cost quite a lot more.

If you are editing videos/graphics for a professional career, then I would recommend you either get a Mac, or a business grade laptop such as an HP Compaq, Lenovo Thinkpad, Dell Latitude, etc.

 

Sorta off topic question. Why do graphic designers preffer macs than PC?

Is it because mac's has better photoshopping programs?

 

There's probably a legitimate reason, but a lot of its marketing hype (Macs HAVE to be better at something for people to buy them, right?)

 

If you're serious about your graphics work you will get a dedicated gpu, and here is why. A serious a graphic designer/photographer/etc will be concerned about color accuracy. No screen is worth much unless it is calibrated. Any professional or likewise someone wanting accuracy will calibrate their screen, and you need a dedicated card to hold the profiles. intel integrated chipsets aren't up to standards and you'll have issues. It's that simple.. but true that you don't need the dedicated card to run photoshop. If you don't care about accuracy and don't plan on calibrating then it prob won't be worth it. However if you are now, or think somewhere down the line you might be then it is essential.

flipfire: Most of the programs that people use to edit graphics, although work on a pc, were actually designed for a mac. Mac has a superior screen. Also well built, superior operating system, and excellent customer service. This is why I think macs are ideal for graphics work and some of the reasons why my peers (people who work with graphics) believe so as well.

 

Yes ive read somewhere that Photoshop only used to work on Mac's before (Back in the g4 days). I thought this is why graphic designers choose mac's over PC.

 

Mac has better screen? I thought it is opposite , these HPs have amazing screens , I never known that people use macs for PS or CS3 stuffs.........

IS there any DXO in mac land?

 

The Apple Cinema displays are very high quality, as reflected by their prices. The high resolution screen on the top range MBP is also very good. HP Compaq laptops can also have high quality screens, but they do not come by default. HP Pavillon laptops have consumer grade panels, like the MB.

Also, applications such as Final Cut and Aperture can only be run on Macs.

 

Maybe past IGP chipsets with fixed display settings, however the X3100 has far more advanced calibration (individual color calibration, gamma, contrast, and savable schemes/profiles). With proper adobe gamma settings, my notebook has even more accurate color reproduction than my desktop with a 8800GTS (also partially due to the aging monitor). IGP simply has already caught up in color accuracy so your argument that a dedicated card is necessary for photo/image editing is null.

 

I'd still recommend a dedicated GPU in case you want to output your images onto an external monitor with very high resolutions. Although your top concern should be your screen itself. Doesn't matter how true the colours your GPU can output are, with a screen that can't display true colour it's useless.

 

The X3100 can output a max resolution of 2048 x1536 and in DVI on certain notebooks (Macbook and certain models of Thinkpads). Fairly impressive since my 22in displays in 1680x1050.

Otherwise, completely agree. The screen is generally the most important factor in any form of graphic work. Sadly, screen quality on notebooks isn't as clearcut as say processor model numbers so it's a hit and miss. You either have to rely on user end reports from reviewers or go safe and just get a Macbook/pro.

 

X3100 doesnt have hdmi and if you try really high res, it will probably lag

 

For 2D graphics there is no lag for supported resolutions. Ever. Please, unless you know about it, don't post it.

GMA 950, 1920x1200 and 1280x800 dual monitor, no lag for 2D. Gaming is another matter entirely.

 

I wouldn't say ever. It really depends what kind of 2D work you're doing and how much needs to be rendered. Even on a Mac Pro with a quad-core and dedicated GPU there's still some lag when panning through or zooming in and out of Illustrator images containing hundreds of objects. They dissapear and take time to re-render in the correct size and position. With an IGP it would increase the time. However that's kind of specific... if you're not dealing with gigantic pieces like that on a daily bases then an IGP would be fine. If you are, you probably should be doing it on a dekstop anyway, but on a laptop you'd be better off with a mid-high range dedicated GPU, and a powerful processor. That's dealing with vectors though, for pixel based images an IGP is perfectly fine.