Mobile Graphics Cards Benchmark List!

Hey guys, I know a lot of people here have disputes over what graphics card is better. For example the 8700GT vs the 7950GTX. I found this site while looking around google, and its a great site to settle disputes.

It covers 3dmark01-06 with most of the mobile cards on there. I hope this helps everyone when deciding on GPU's for their notebooks, and I hope you guys use this to settle disputes easily As of now it covers 97 GPU's, which is a fair amount.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

Please keep on posting on here to keep this thread high up, since I know it will be helpful for a lot of people buying notebooks.

--Thanks

 

One thing interesting to note: It seems that the 8700GT SLi is actually quicker then the 7950GTX SLi. That seems kind of odd, since the 7950GTX is a faster card.

When the 7950GTX are SLi'ed on that site, it says the bus is still 256. However, on the 8700m it says it is 128x2 which is 256. Can anyone confirm this? I'm going to go check it out now.

 

Thanks for posting the link. However, that website has already been posted numerous times here on the forum.

 

notebookcheck has the habit of being very inaccurate and only doing tests once

 

The reason the 8700GT has 128x2 is because it uses Dual Rank memory bus width.

 

dual rank not dual rank has nothing to do with bus width

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...pdf+dual+rank+memory&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIMM

 

Not to discourage you, but notebookcheck is the most unreliable source of information about GPU for obvious reasons...

 

The problem is, one person could post the 8600M GT 3dmark scores from a Dell with a Core 2 Duo T5250 and 1GB ram, another from another laptop with a T7800 and 2+GB ram. The scores are going to be pretty different. Notebookcheck is a ballpark figure, really.

 

they take purdy pictures though

 

They have very good reviews... layout/tests/benchmarks/pics...

However, their GPU table is crap...

 

Important to note that the links you use refer to intel motherboards and not necessarily to Nvidia GPU graphic RAM.

Dual Rank 128-bit memory might very well mean something different to Nvidia than to Intel.

That being said...
Let's face it, 128-bit dual rank is at most a little better than the 128-bit we all know and "love". The 8700GT does indeed outperform its 8600GT brethren, but most of it seems to be the 30% clock difference. Whether the difference is "nothing" or "very little", I don't think it is worth touting.

 

Check out tomshardware and look for "sibling rivalry".

The 8700GT SLI does indeed outperform or perform similarly to the 7950GTX SLI when resolutions are below 1280x1024.

 

but 3dmark is a good indicator of GPU performance. Yes CPU is taken into account but can has very little influence on the final result. I can vouch for this as I underclocked my E6600 and overclocked it and ran the test and there was only less than a couple hundred point difference.

 

3DMark might be a good indicator of GPU performance only if you knew details like the specifications of the systems, used resolutions (that's important)...etc. Not to mention that there are different versions of the same GPUs, which perform differently...

Notebookcheck has just a table, full of weird numbers, that means nothing...

 

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2007/10/15/sibling_rivalry/

Read that for a bit.

 

That review never really came to a conclusion. It sat on the fence still at the end after all those pages. Basically they said "depends on the person buying it which one its better for them" which we knew before the review even started.

The M9750 was also using Windows XP, which has substantially better SLI support, not to mention more mature drivers. Also they tested them price vs price, not part vs part. So the M1730 had a 2.8Ghz Core2 and the M9750 had its 2.33... how you can properly compare benchmarks of the graphics in games on systems with such a large difference in CPU speed im not sure.

I'm not sure how much better the 8700's perform in XP, no DX10 but thats not an issue if you were testing DX9 games as this article did. Come to think of it not sure how much worse the 7950's in SLI would perform in Vista either.

NVIDIA's own benchmarks showed the 8700 out-performing the 7859 incidentally. But people dismiss 3Dmark as a poor test of overall performance. There is no doubt that the 7950 is better at higher resolutions, with AA and AF. The question is how this might change in future, with games that perhaps are more shader intensive... that might take advantage of teh strengths of the 8x00 and put it ahead in some key games.... who knows.

EDIT: There was one interesting result in that review, Oblivion was much better on the M1730, even the 7950's 256bit bus couldnt make up. Now thats probably down to the CPU speed, but it does show how some games can be limited in other areas and how some games could demand other aspects of a GPU or System.

 

You can see that the CPU in the M is a X series Intel so you can I guess attribute to much of the power might be sent to the CPU then the GPU itself for graphics intense games.

But it does come all the way down to what system do you want to use. The M1730 is a powerful multimedia platform and the M9750 in the AW is based around playing games.

You wanna play games at this res with these settings? Get an AW.

You wanna watch a Blu Ray movie? Get the Dell.