New Laptop GPU vs. Current Desktop GPU

I have an ATI Radeon 9700 in my current desktop, and I'm pretty sure I'm getting a T61. How does the 9700 compare to the x3100 or and 140m? The desktop GPU is in a VAIO with 2ghz pentium 4 and 512 ram, if that helps. The t61 will probably have t7300 and 2gb ram.

 

I say the Radeon 9700 is quite a bit better than the x3100, but may be on par with the 140m or a teeny tiny bit higher.

 

Unless you go pretty far back in terms of GPUs (thinking early Nvidia TNT), dedicated is almost always better than integrated.

That said, those are the most powerful integrated chips available. They won't top a 9700, but it might do some things a little bit better.

 

nvs 140m is definitely faster than your desktop 9700

the integrated part is definitely not. i disagree with the above- i don't think it will do anything better than your 9700 will.

your processor is maybe 4x as fast, and you have 4x the ram also.

 

The NVS140 isn't better than the 9700. The 9700 has a 256Bit Memory bus compared to 128. The 9700 is 8 pipes verses 8 pipes. But the memory bus will kill the NVS140 the second you crank AA. Also the 9700 Suffers next to no drop in FPS when you crank AF, the NVS140 isn't close.

 

first off, memory bandwidth isn't the be all end all. second, here it is:

the 9700 pro with its 256 bit memory bus earns it 19.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

an 8400m with a 128 bit memory bus earns it 19.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

the memory is clocked almost twice as fast. it uses gddr3 instead of ddr memory.

the 9700 has 8 pixel pipelines and 4 vertex shaders. it doesn't use them both at the same time. the 8400m has 8 unified shaders (according to you - ill trust). they can do pixel or vertex or geometry. the 9700 pro has 0 geometry shaders.

not to mention that the core is clocked almost twice as fast. (over 500mhz for the 140m i hear? vs 325mhz)

plus, 3 generations later, you know it is getting way more per clock, the shaders are more efficient, more efficient feature sets, more efficient types of anti aliasing...

if you crank up the aa, the 140m will pull ahead more. the memory bandwidth is very comparable despite 128 bit interface (twice as fast clocked memory) and the 8400m has more efficient styles of anti aliasing than the 9700 pro. that is because it is 3 generations later. 9700 pro (ati) is replaced with x800/6 series, replaced with the 7 series, replaced with the 8 series. and here we are. its been a long time...

the fabrication size being half as large should be a good indication of whats going on. 80nm for the 8 series part vs 150nm for the ati part.

 

Put it this way - if you are looking for a big step up from your Radeon 9700, the NVS 140m isn't the chip that is going to do that for you. I would estimate that you will get comparable performance, perhaps better performance in the latest games. But most likely nothing drastic.

 

agreed. its not leagues ahead or anything. i do think it will handle new games better, though, and old games will run well on both.

 

the 9700, is of coarse better.

 

You can't decide on power through memory bandwidth.

NVS 140 is better.

 

this isn't a case of 9 series vs 8 series.

ati's 9 series is from back when the geforce 5 series was around.

then: ati x vs geforce 6

followed by: ati x1k vs geforce 7

and now: ati hd 2k vs geforce 8

we are comparing a geforce 8 card against an ati 9 series card, obvious

 

The NVS140 isn't better. If anything it's on Par with the 9700. The 9700Pro was the fastest card of it's day and the 8400 is the slowest.

The NVS140 is even slower than the 8400.

Compare 3DMark Scores. The best you'll manage is around 14000(3D01) with the NVS while you'd get about 18000-20000 with the 9700. Those scores are cut by a factor of 3 using 3D03. Once you start throwing in PS3 support the NVS140 scores higher because it supports it but raw power wise the 9700 has the edge.

The 9700 will beat it, not by much but it will. The 8400 is jammed packed with goodies such as VideoSoap and PS3 support DX9b support(PS3).

Based on the numbers I've seen for the 8400 it's about Par, but I'm willing to bet the 9700 will have better picture quaility.

 

you kinda missed some stuff.

nvs 140m is dx10 pixel shader 4.

you really shouldn't be using 3dmark to compare these cards. it isn't good at deciding performance across even 1 generation of tech, much less 3...

and if we were going to use a 3dmark, it shouldn't be 3dmark01, unless that is the last one supported with 9700.

the fact that the 9700 can't run pixel shader 3 games at ALL is a great indication that the nvidia 140m is more powerful. splinter cell double agent, rainbow six vegas, those games WILL NOT RUN on 9700 hardware. they will run acceptably at low/medium settings and lowish resolution on the nvs 140m.

that should be the end of the argument, right there. pixel shader 3 is starting to be required tech now. that sets the bar.

in older games the performance might be close, in newer games, the 140m will pull ahead; or the game just flat out won't run on the desktop 9700.