Intel X4500MHD is now surpassing GeForce Go 7400?

According to NotebookCheck.net, Intel X4500MHD Integrated Graphics performance is now surpassing GeForce Go 7400. GeForce Go 7400 was first released on January 2006. 2.5 years later, Intel released X4500MHD on July 2008.

My current notebook has ATI Mobility Radeon 3470 which was released on January 2008. If we follow the same timeline. the performance of my graphics card would be surpassed by Intel no later than July 2010. So, by that time, my graphics performance would be crappy by any measure.

I am not happy about this. I have just bought my notebook on October 2008. I want to keep it for 5 years since it is so expensive ($2000) but if Intel crappy graphics card would surpass mine in less than 2.5 years after I bought it, I am not sure that I would be able to keep it for 5 years.

 

At the pace technology is expanding, things get devalued and outdated very quickly. It's merely a fact of life.

 

that's how things are in tech, it's a fact of life.

 

Only in the 3DMark06 score for which the average score at notebookcheck for the X4500 is helped by one anomalous result of 1896, which is twice most of the others.

However, in broad terms the X4500 is on a par with the 7400 and also includes features such as built-in HD decoding which weren't even thought about a few years ago. Such is progress.

It also means that games which will run OK on the 7400 will also run OK on the X4500.

John

 

Yeah, thats correct.

Im suprised to see that. Would have never guessed.

 

You should check some other sources. Notebookcheck is BS.

I'm not sayng that X4500 isn't better than 7400, but most of the information is just so wrong on that site.

 

You're kidding, right? What did you expect, that your graphics card was going to be top shelf for 2 years? This is the price for buying top-of-the-line / bleeding-edge products, and there's not a whole lot that you can do about it. The manufacturers aren't going to sit on their hands and wait until you think you got your money's worth out of your laptop before the release another model, and at the time of purchase you thought that your laptop was worth the money that you spent on it.

Back in '96 I had a Pentium I desktop that was considered fast. By '98 I had a Pentium II that was also considered fast. In 2000 I had built a Pentium 4 that, again, was considered fast. You see where I'm going with this? It will be easier if you just accept this and move on. Buy it if you think it's worth it, save your money if you don't...

 

Instead of looking at it like your card will be matched by an IGP 2 years down the road think like this:

-Your card will never decrease in power so you still get what you paid for
-Game tech keeps growing to make games more fun!

 

I am not saying that my graphics card has to be TOP of the line for 5 years. I am saying that I have to be able to do BASIC task within 5 years. Within 5 years, I am supposed to be able to do everything but games but given the current trend, it may not happen. 4 years after I bought my state of the art Pentium III notebook, it couldn't even stream video from cnn or msnbc. It couldn't rip DVD to WMV. It won't even run Microsoft Office without severe lagging.

 

As time goes on we will probably see future low-end graphics cards that have DDR7 memory that will be as fast or faster than current 9600M GT's !!!

 

You don't know much about computers do you? If you can stream videos now then you can stream videos five years later, the technology is the same. If you can use Office now without lag, you can use it five years later without lag.

The only thing what changes about video-technology is that there are new encodings, perhaps HD material.
If your old computer cant fulfill the same tasks it could few years ago, maybe it's time to reformat it. Right now people are using netbooks, pda's, iphone/psp to stream videos lag-free (and these machines are weak compared to desktops/laptops).

Videocards are getting more powerful more faster because new games/apps require more powerful hardware. Look at Crysis, when it came out there were no cards to play it max, nowdays (over a year later) you can play it maxed out on a laptop.

 

That's the thing though. These companies are not going to stagnate, and it is unrealistic for you to expect them to do so. Yes, your laptop became obsolete, and you had to make a choice: use software and browse websites that the laptop supported, or upgrade. I had a Pentium III, and had to make the same choice. I eventually upgraded to a Pentium M and was able to more with the laptop. When the Pentium M was not able to complete the tasks that I needed it to I upgraded once again to my current machine. In several years I expect that I will once again have to upgrade.

 

As a matter of fact, I know more about computers than most of the population. The reason that my old laptop can no longer stream video is because cnn and msnbc changed their streaming method from Windows Media Player to Adobe Flash Player. Before they changed it, it streamed just fine. After they changed it, it stuttered every 10 seconds.

When I said Office is lagging, what I mean is newer Office. Not the same Office as the one that I installed when I first bought the computer. Try to run the latest Microsoft Office or Encarta with a Pentium III 700 with 256MB RAM and you know what I am talking about.

And I always keep my system clean. I reformat at least once a year and I don't install junk software, at least not in the same OS that I use on daily basis.

 

Then what do you propose is the solution to this problem?

 

Ask the laptop manufacturer to be more flexible. Makes building a laptop just as flexible as desktop. Desktop is much slower to become obsolete than laptop, especially if you build your own, because you can pick and choose any component you want. Not so with laptop. There is no laptop out there that will do everything I want, even if money is no object, since such laptop doesn't exist.

For example, I like Alienware. They are the one you should buy if you want performance. But Alienware has horrible build quality. And they don't have 16:9 screen, which I must have. Sony has 16:9 screen, their screen is the best in the market. Their build quality is much better. Their screen size to weight ratio is excellent. But the slow GPU that come with Sony laptops make them unsuitable for gaming.

 

If you're looking for longevity, you shouldn't have bought a card as weak as the 3470. It's already scraping the bottom.

No, Alienware is not.

 

Wrong.
You may like Alienware, but have you ever used one to say it has horrible build quality?
Also, who brainwashed you into thinking that only Alienware uses high-end components? =.=

 

I am aware that 3470 is at the bottom, but the thing is if I want a faster card, I have to sacrifice other features. Sony offers faster 3650, but they coupled it with a screen that has 1920x1080 resolution cramped in a 16.4" screen. I much prefer 1600x900 in a 16.4". It is my personal preference.

I could have bought a laptop with even faster card from Alienware, but they don't have 16:9 screen. Their screen is also inferior than Sony XBrite Hi-Color.

 

They have no incentive to do so. The laptop manufacturers are able to produce a product that they can easily troubleshoot without having to worry about a bunch of custom components, and that you will be forced to upgrade every couple of years. They are in a pretty sweet position as far as I can tell, and would be loathe to change I imagine.

 

Just take a look at Alienware forum. People have problem with their Alienware making crackling sound at the hinge. Some parts came off. Gaps between the chassis. It feels cheap.

Just take a look at their spec. They use Dual ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3870 with CrossFireX enabled or Dual Nvidia GeForce 9800M GT with SLI enabled, C2D 3.06GHz. Those are high end components that most other manufacturers don't offer.

 

People are vocal about they don't like... it does not necessarily mean that the product is cheaply made. Go into EVERY manufacturer forum and you're bound to hear the same thing.

 

Take a look at every other forum. Every brand has it's own problems.
People come to forums so they could complain, ask for help. People who don't have problems don't create threads how well they are doing.

Oh is that so? Ever heard of Voodoo computers? Or MSI computers? They have mobile 4850 also ready in a month. Maybe Sager? Gateway?

Do some research before you claim something like that.

 

Sony does have its own problem, just not the build quality. I have bought Sony laptops since 2001, they are very good and sturdy as far as build quality as concerned.

 

Grow up...
With in few weeks or months, Nvidia launches new series...
so in 2.5 yrs, I dont know if you laptop could run the games in high settings with great FPS

 

it sounds like you are looking for a clevo / sager machine.

desktop replacement, upgradable chassis, high build quality.

 

First, you paid 2k for a machine with a 3470?

Second, any mid-high range machine should be able to last you several years if all you use it for is general office work and web surfing and the parts don't break. Your video card has little to nothing to do with that and is more dependent on your other components. For gaming, yes, it will be obsolete rather quickly, especially if you buy a low level video card. Buy a nvidia 9800 card or better and you'll be more future proofed.

I don't see why you are complaining so much, tech always improves, but its not like your machine is rendered useless in 2 years. If it is, something is wrong with the machine, or with how you use it.

 

You paid $2K for something with a HD3470??? I'm sorry but are you daft???

 

Business notebooks cost around that and usually they don't have gaming cards avalible.

 

Well business laptops have added value like magnesium casing, rollcage, defacto to make them as solid as possible, but he bought a regular mainstream laptop so.... I checked the HP business machines and for $2k you get 8gb of ram and a beefy cpu and gpu.... In that price range you get mobile powerful workstations... So $2k for a HD3470?No, just no... I've just been on Sonystyle and found a 1080p xbrite the AW and FW come with respectively the hd3650 and the 9600m GT and you can configure them to quite nice levels for quite a bit less than $2K.

 

Prices vary alot in diffrent countries.
In most EU countries Sony, Apple, Dell XPS laptops cost around +500$ USD more than they cost in the US, I've checked it myself.

 

It costs 2k after sales tax because I added Blu-ray burner and T9600 which significantly add to the cost. I could have bought identical laptop with 3650 but Sony couples it with [email protected]". I much prefer 1600x900 for 16.4" screen.

 

Whats funny is that the expensive blu ray technology in your laptop could very likely be replaced by digital media downloads in the next few years

 

I wonder if Intel is going to branch off and have its own GPU brand, very possbile I hope it happens

 

I would rather have a go 7400 then an intel graphics card.

 

Until we can download HD movies at 1GB/s for $1 a pop, movie download will not replace Blu-ray. Apple charges $5 a pop for HD movies 720p while I can rent 20 or more Blu-ray at 1080p for $18 from Netflix. That's less than $1 a pop. Not to mention that Netflix collection dwarfs Apple by a huge margin.

 

Well isn't integrated gfx already got hd3400 like performance aka HD3200 on 780G/HD3300 on 790..?

 

Off topic: Sieg Zeon!

Back to the topic: Why didn't you go for FullHD?

 

Yes but I feel more comfortable with ATI Blu-ray Acceleration than Intel one.

 

Because I don't want to squint my eyes all day long while reading small fonts at such high resolution with a 16.4" screen. I don't even like to read with 1920x1080 with 18.4" screen, let alone 16.4". I tried to enlarge the font and I don't like the look. And I don't think I would be able to discern the difference between 1080p and 900p with a 16.4" screen.

 

This thread has gone very off topic and is full of arguing, so I'm closing it. If you want to address some of the other questions brought up in this thread, feel free to make a new thread.