Mobile GPU Gaming Performance Chart by plasma.

Here's a the first draft of my performance chart. This is intended to give newbies and experienced members alike an idea how their GPU would play the latest games. I've only spent a couple of hours so far and have only compiled a small number of games, but that will increase. There is also no section for older nVidia cards (7000) or the various other IGPs.

Remember, this will never replace the "Can my Notebook Run it?" thread as your CPU, RAM and HDD does not come into play. Someone with a 9600M GT but a QX9300 could probably cramp a couple of settings up while a 8800M GTS owner bottlenecked by a T5500 might have to go lower in some games.

I've attached the spreadsheet and you are free to make sensible changes and add more sections.





plasma.



To be added:
World of Warcraft DONE
Intel X3100 and X4500 DONE
Unreal Tournament 3
Fallout 3

Please comment if you see something wrong.

 

you forgot the 800m GTS though ..

good job +rep

 

Nice job, could turn out to be very informative and helpful.

One thing I noticed right away though...no that I'm especially caught up on the new mobile graphics cards, but can even 9800m GTX SLI'd cards handle Crysis with very high at very high resolutions? I could consider that all settings very high @ 1920x1200? I find that hard to believe since GTX260's SLI'd can't handle that.... http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU2OSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Other than that though, nice work... and yeah, no love for 8800m GTS?

 

Hmm, I think a lot of this varies with the amount of FPS your willing to sacrifice, but all in all, great job. +rep too.

 

Nice chart! A few suggestions though from personal experience:

First off, the 9500m GS performance should be in between the 8600m GT DDR2 and GDDR3 variants rather than below the DDR2 version.

The midrange cards 9500m GS/8600m GT have better performance in some areas:
-They can max CS:S and HL2 (with a decent amount of AA) at well over 60 FPS at 1680x1050
-Left4Dead is roughly correct
-Can't say definitively about COD4/5 but I ran COD4 demo at high/1280x800 at 30+ FPS
-Same thing with Crysis; I ran the demo at medium/1280x800 at decent FPS

Note that these suggestions are with a C2D T9300 if that makes any difference.

 

Well John and hooper both got their np9262 and OCZ WB (respectively) to play Crysis at WUXGA and very high with 20 something fps.

 

Does the 9800M GTX SLI really play Crysis well on Very High resolution and settings? I mean, it took some youtubers 3 GTX 280s in SLI to get 40-50FPS?

 

Didnt know that my cards could play Crysis on max resolution/settings with AA enabled

Too bad its not true

 

Ahh whatever. The systems I was looking had Qx9300s and were overclocked. You know, the ones getting 16000+ in 3D06.

See, this is hoop's Nagamaki from ages ago. He's probably achieved even better scores.

 

That makes more sense since ATI's performance depends on CPU

 

so you're saying the 9800M GT runs crysis better than a 8800 GTS 320mb desktop card? most people on here say the 8800GTS is way faster, which i have, and i can run crysis smoothly only on 1680x1050 /medium settings

i hear that not even the top of the line desktop cards right now can't even run very high settings smoothly, im skeptical

 

Well look at the image i provided a post before. 17fps average on Very High and WUXGA for Crysis. And that was the OCZ Whitebook with 3870X2.

Ok whatever. I'll fix it up.

 

Yeah the ATI cards' performances seem a bit inconsistent. I mean, for example, the HD2600 scores better than the HD3650 when the latter is based off the former yet tweaked and bettered.

 

Any other game requests?

 

Game lists look good, don't want to add too many.

Just a note, the 9600M GT GDDR3 will max out all source games with some AA.

 

Yea, HL2 and CS:S easily runs maxed with 4x - 8x AA.

TF2 runs well with 2x - 4x AA.

I can run L4D with all settings high except shaders set to medium, and 2xAA.

 

Good job on this chart, but I must say the table for the 8600m GS DDR2 is a bit inaccurate. I play CSS all the time and I'm running everything maxed out, 1400x900 res, x2AA, x16AF, and getting around 30-50 FPS constant.

I run Left 4 Dead at 1280x800, everything maxed out except shadows which I have on medium, x2AA, x16AF and I get 25-40 FPS constantly.

 

I think everyone needs to remember he does not own everyone of these cards, and it is more for noobs to glance at and see what settings their cards can be around. Obv us more advanced users can figure this out for ourselves.

 

I have a very important recommendation.

these charts need to not just reflect the total 3DMark scores.....

they need to reflect the SM2.0 and SM3.0/HDR scores

the CPU score should be not be a factor when comparing videocards.

 

It's very... rushed

For example i play half life 2 on my 8400m GT MAXXED with 16x AF and 8XAA @ 1440 x 900 with a minimum of 40 fps, usually 60+ with fps dipping into the low hundreds... while your chart suggests i play it on medium settings at a low-medium resolution with no AA.

Also you suggest a HD2600 DDR2 can play crysis on low-medium settings at a low resolution while the GDDR3 version can play on medium-high settings at a low-medium resolution...
You tried a little to hard and broke it

A+++ for effort though
I'll try to make more helpfull suggestions when i have time.

 

I agree with gophn, with 3dmark06 either just list the SM2.0 and 3.0 scores, or note the CPU used with the test.
(cpus within the C2D generation add 200-250marks per 200MHz due to the CPU-only test bias)

Also, 3dmark06 scores are pointless without the resolution the test was done at...

EDIT, I don't want anyone to think I am ripping on the OP, other than a few little things, this is quite useful.

 

Nice post. +rep too. Anyways, about the ATI cards; ATI still hasn't provided mobile support for their cards so nobody really knows what, for example, the 3870 in crossfire can do. Just something to keep in mind.

 

Just so you know, I have the ATI 2600 DDR2 512 GPU on my laptop and I put everything max except 0 AA and I get a 50 solid fps at 1280x800 setting. even in intense situations

 

And that is on what game?

 

But all the resolutions you guys are talking about are medium or lower ones.

Very High: WUXGA
High: WSXGA+
Med-High: WXGA++
Medium: WXGA+
Low-Medium: WXGA
Low: Whatever 1366 by 768 is called.
\
I could just eliminate the 3DMark06 bar alltogether.

 

I've tried crysis time and time again with numerous different configurations and there is no chance of running it 1920 x 1200 with everything on High. It will run quite nicely until theres any action, but then it judders down a low FPS that really affects the gameplay. In crysis you need to be precise with your actions, and you cant when your computer struggles every time action breaks out. In my opinion you've got to run it on high otherwise it becomes quite an ugly game, and as a result i've uninstalled it. This kind of guide could affect peoples purchasing decisions, so I'd suggest either getting it right or binning it.

iiRob

Kobalt Comanche SLI
Core 2 Quad 9550
9800M GTX in SLI
4GB RAM
64 bit OS

 

Low: 1024 x 768

Get rid of 3Dmark and DDR2\GDDR3 variations for now. Just add in a line about GDDR3 versions of cards being (slightly)faster in memory intensive games ie. games with high res textures and big environments. Also tell people to leave replies with how their cards perform in the listed games with settings, resolution, framerates, drivers and of course full system specs.

If you pm me the file i'll try to "refine" it a little(too lazy to make up my own graph )

Also link the thing in your sig will ya?

(listen to iiRob, too much misinformation)

 

Ok, fine. I will when I get on my computer and off my iPod.
I'm going to be doing some formatting tomorrow so the changes are up to you Willy

 

Very nice charts! Thanks for the effort.

 

Thank you Chaz, it's awesome to get praise from someone like you

 

add the hd2400XT in your list. it scores 1900 in 3d marks 06 1280x800

 

All of the scores are based on what I consider the standard res; 1280 by 1024.
But I will add the Hd2400XT Asap (tomorrow).

 

8600M GT (GDDR3) average 3DMark06 should be around 52xx, and if overclocked then it's possible to have over 62xx.

8600M GT DDR2 average 3DMark06 should be around 43xx and if overclocked then it's possible to have up to 51xx.

Otherwise it's good.

 

Really? 3 of my friends have 8600M GTs (GDDR3) in their laptops with faster CPUs than yours and are getting scores in the 3300 - 4000 region.

 

That would be at the default 1280 x 800 for the free version of 3Dmark06.
The 3Dmark scores on the chart were(presumably) done at 1280 x 1024.

The 2400XT is just a little slower than the HD3470, so basically the same performance(maybe 5% slower)

 

If you have a resolution higher than 1280 by 1024, the default res in the free version of 3DMark06 is not WXGA but 1280 by 1024.

 

Well, it depends quite alot what drivers they are using.
Also, here's a thread with 52xx 3DMark06 with 1280x1024 : http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=239827

There have been numerous people reporting over 5xxx with 8600M GT DDR3 and there was once a thread where someone managed to get over 6k with it.

I've gotten over 6k with 1280x800 so it would be around 5400 with 1280x1024.

 

Overclocking shouldn't be taken into account

 

Well, then 4300-4900 is normal score.

 

on both of my laptops, the free edition of 3d marks 06 runs at default resolution of wxga. on my pc it runs at 1280x1024. they are both the free and basic edition. don't know why they run at different resolutions. can't change the test settings because its free..

 

Your laptop has to be at least WSXGA+ to run at default settings.

 

Because your screen can't physically display 1280 x 1024, if it could the test would run at that resolution.

 

i'm a lil confused about the maybe and no AA with L4D , with my rig i play the game 1440x900 everything high Vsync off and 4x aa with multicore rendering on and i never get below 50 FPS (only happened once, it was random and i didnt know why it happened), so it should go yes from 8800GTS and up

 

but thats a medium resolution. I doubt you could turn on 4xAA at WUXGA.

 

To kill confusion and debate, you should list the specific resolution a card can handle (WXGA, WSXGA+, etc,..), instead of using the Low to V.High format.

 

There is no an overclocked 8600M GT DDR2 can get scores that high at 1280x1024. Even with a very generous overclock, members reported barely break the 4000 point barrier.

There is NO WAY a stock 8600M GT DDR2 card can get an avg 43xx score. See this for more info: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=214982

I agree; Using WXGA, WSXGA+, etc avoids ambiguity.

 

Wow, | crash| when did you become a mod?

Ok, I'll try and get everything done.

 

fixed some stuff up.

 

This morning, actually.

Thanks for your hard work!

 

If i upload some screenshots of my 8400m GT playing HL2 @ 1440 x 900 MAXED with 16x AF 8XAA, basically as high as i can set the thing, will you edit this to reflect some factual information plz?

Your crysis chart is a little better, though you do have the 9800m GT performing the same as the 9800m GTX sli The 9800m GT can play it on high @ WXGA+(with some lag), definatly not WUXGA.

Maybe cut out the "AA" and add a DX list for cards to play a game in DX9 or DX10. Even though it's only applicaple to crysis atm.