Meaker's Notebook graphics charts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_NVIDIA_Graphics_Processing_Units
Nvidia GeForce Go 7900GS

256 MB GDDR3 VRAM
450 MHz Core Clock
1320 MHz effective memory
20x1x7 Shader setup
9000 MTexels/second
42.2 GB/s peak memory bandwidth
256 bit memory bus
9.0c - DX version (Shader Model 3.0 support)
2.0 - OpenGL version

 

Core:
450mhz = 788 vert/sec
xmhz= 656 vert/sec
x = 375 mhz

Mem:
660mhz = 42.24 GB/sec
xmhz = 32.00 GB/sec
x = 500mhz

Numbers from neeyik and Nvidia, the site is wrong, its reporting DESKTOP clocks :/

 

Oh? Ulgh, no site has all the right information or w/e. Neeyik doesn't even have "notebook" GPU specs. It's all desktop versions........and for exact numbers, I don't really trust it.

 

Neeyik is from my other forum, his clocks ARE right. The other numbers are from Nvidia for their mobile numbers. Neeyik knows far more than me

 

Well you can just keep dreaming then Dreamer.

 

the stock clock of the 7700 go is 450 400

I got the core to 520 and ram to 497 overclocking.

 

The list on page 1 says
x1700 = 12 PSUs, 5 vertex units, 4 ROPs, 128 bit mem (?/?) SM3 [x1600 with Avivo (video) support]. 3DMark06 reports the clock speeds of the X1700 in my Samsung X60plus as core : 405MHz, memory 445.5MHz. The memory appears to be 256 + 256. The 3DMark06 score was 1,831 which is very similar to the X1600. If ATI http://ati.amd.com/products/MobilityRadeonx1700/index.html is to be believed, the X1700's main claim to fame is lower power than the X1600, rather than an increase in performance.

John

 

Unless they moved it to 80nm then there is no difference in power consumption between the two unless one is clocked differently or has different voltages (which will affect the clocks).

Both claim lower power consumption with powerplay 6.

 

The Radeon X1700 is still a 90nm chip:
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3202
It uses a strained silicon technology, which helps reduce power consumption.

 

Mobility Radeon X1900:

X1900 = 36 PSUs, 8 vertex units, 12 ROPs, 256 bit mem (?/?) SM3

It's propably quite fast.

 

I wonder what the power consumption is on the MR X1900 with 36 PSUs, it will probably be quite high. It sounds super fast. Thanks for the info + link.

 

When you say "256mb useful" for the mid-high and mid range cards, does that mean they can use more than 128 but less than 256, or can some of them use slightly more than 256mb efficiently? I'm particularly wondering about the 7700, 7600, and x1700

 

They can use up to 256mb, anything above that is unlikely to help much. I'll add the x1900.

 

A little tester for DX10, I think I will separate the two.

 

Any idea what the difference is between the x2300 and the x1450? Their tech spec pages on ati.com appear to be exactly the same.

 

You say the x1600 is a 128mb card and yet many manafacturers advertise it is 256mb. One I contacted said this was as the motherboard had 256 dedeicated graphics memory. What does this mean for the x1600 in these machines....they are effectively 256 card?

 

You are getting confused between the width of the memory interface and the ammount of memory.

The number of bits is the width of a bus, 128bit means that you can move across 128bits of data in one cycle while 256bit is double that, having a wider memory bus means that you get more bandwidth for the same frequency (hopefully twice as much).

Therefore memory running at 500mhz on a 128bit memory bus is pretty much the same as 250mhz on a 256bit bus. There are fairly obvious pros and cons I wont go into here. As far as the consumer is concerned the higher the width the better.

This is completely separate the the amount (MB) of memory there is to store data.

As for the x2300 issue, I will clear it all up when I get more information, it looks to be a DX9 part in which case it is likely similar to the x1300 etc.

 

The X1400 is anything but low end... and it has 256 MB, and it runs games at the same rate that an ATI X800xt (I think that is the Desktop version you had on there, If not, then it is equivalant to the first Mid-Range ATi card you had.) I know this because my friend has that card, and my computer runs the same as his on the same settings, if not better. I dont think you give the X1400 enough credit.

 

Let me break it gently, the x1400 is a supped up 9600 with shader model 3 support and higher clocks. If an x800xt was doing worse than it, then the x800xt had something wrong with it.

Your card is a 256mb hypermemory card which means you have 64mb or 128mb of dedicated ram and the card "steals" the rest from your main system ram instead.

Now I am not saying the x1400 cant run anything, it can and outperforms any integrated solution and is one of the better low end cards, but dont get the illusion it is highend.

 

Yup, any serious gamer should skip when buying a new notebook, any system which states HyperMemory or TurboCache or Hybrid Video System. On the other side any dedicated card starting from native 256Mb x1600/7600, is more than decent these days !

 

We've now got a report for the ATI Radeon Express 1250 IGP in the Samsung R20 giving a 3DMark06 score of 470.

Where does that put it in the charts?

John

 

That's pretty decent. That's roughly equivalent to a 7200 isn't it? Not too far behind the 7300 either.

 

great help cool guide

 

Isn't the Quadro FX 350M based upon 7400? According to Wikipedia, both the NVS120 and 350M is based upon 7400...

 

It is listed in
Mobile Professional GPUs Performance Chart by Dreamer
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=80145
as based upon GF7300

In notebookcheck.com is listed as GF7300 based too
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Grafic-Cards.130.0.html

 

Hey guys, I have a desktop x1250 based machine, if any of you are interested I could run my own benchmark?

 

That would be great! 3Dmark03/05/06, Some games (HL2, Quake4, Battelfield2...). I don't know if Desktop & notebook releases have the same performance

 

Well its the same chip so I would assume so. I am in the middle of exams atm, give it a couple of weeks and I will do it.

 

Fine bit of pestering there.....

 

Ok updated some of the integrated specs (6100s have 1 ROP not 2) Also added the x1250.

 

hey just thought id let you know the core and mem for x1900
(398/468)
...its supposed to be dependant on the supplier of the notebook...but seeing as xi1554 and alienware version are the same and they are the only notebooks to this day that have it that people have heard of (plus im 95% sure i read the readings for it for alienware aswell)...

 

Added

Wee more text to make the board happy.

 

You don't have the FireGL v5200 (x1600) or v5250 (x1700) listed.

 

Added known info on the 7050.

 

Here's a bit of info

 

Posted 8000 series though I am dubious over 8600 GS and 8400 GT ROP count.

 

It looks about right,128bit and 8 rop's.
well,i was thinking ,There is no reason to buy a 8600m gs over 8400m gt for higher money (if its higher of course)..

 

If it's 8 rops then the number of different chips they are producing is a bit odd, they have 32/8, 16/8, 16/4 and 8/4 chips :S

Thats a lot of different chips to make just for your mobile line. They only have 2 in their desktop line.

 

If I had to guess, I'd say they're making so many different chips because they're making them for specific manufactures.

 

I'm still not convinced but ill leave it like it is. Also what happened to stikies?

 

They were so sticky, they got stuck together in a single uber-sticky thread...

 

*Looks suspicious*

This was your doing, wasn't it?

 

You silliessss

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=122340

 

I thought there was going to be more controversy over my positioning of the 8600GS, you guys obviously agree with me ^^

 

Is a 8400M GT comparable to a 7600 or a 7700 ?

 

Reserving judgement on that one i'm afraid, I have an idea but its only based on the specs.

 

and that would be .. ?

 

No, I'm afraid not. I think that both the 8600GS and the 8400GT (being essentially the same card with lower clocks) belong in the mid range section. I guess I will have to wait for more benchmarks to confirm this.

 

I agree.. and the 8600GT should be pumped up to the high-ends

 

Hmm, that is pretty arguable. It comes pretty close to the Go7900GS, but it will likely be blown out by the 8700M/8900M/MRX2900. I think to be qualified as a high end card, it needs a 256bit memory bus, which the 8600MGT does not have.