Nvidia GeForce 9500M GS 512MB in new Asus laptop...

Well, the 7800GTX GO is not a bad card AT ALL ! But a 9th series card should blast away older series` cards...
Seing as nvidia keeps the # straight, the 9500M GS should be better than the 8500series,but less powerful than the 8600 series and 8700. Theoretically, the 9500M GS should be every bit as strong asthe 7800GTX from the 3dmark06 score, which shoulb be mainstream then.

So today`s enthusiast is tomorrow`s mainstream.

 

Dont forget about the DX10.1 standard, Free 4x AA via on-board chip. In essence this alone makes it better than an 8600m GT if these cards are indeed comparable.

 

I still remember when ATI was in the 9000 numbering...9000, 9200, 9600, 9700, 9800 etc...Now here we are with Nvidia! I find it quite amusing myself

 

Hey, 1st post here.

Hehe, I still have a beloved 9800 pro in my desktop, I remember the days when it was king.

Anyways on this subject, as fabarati said, the 9xxx series is just a die shrink with few architectural changes like the 3xxx series. In fact as the naming schemes are going, the 8800 GT (G92) should have been called a 9800 since the 9800 GX2 is just two G92s. Thus I don't really consider the 9500m GS as much of an upgrade... or even worth it as I hear nvidia might be skipping dx10.1 altogether and going straight to dx11 ( http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5081&Itemid=1)
note: the GT200 is nvidia's next gen chip, unlike the 9xxx series.

So overall I don't think there will even be a 9800 chip besides the 9800 GX2 and the next enthusiast mobile chip will be based on the next gen GT200, whatever that is going to be called.

However I do have some hope for the 9600m GT as supposedly the desktop 9600 GT is just a cut down 8800 GT which retains the 256bit bus!! Hopefully they'll keep it that way for the mobile version.

Jimmy

EDIT: I know that there will be a desktop 9800 GTX but I think that'll just be an 8800 GT with more shaders/higher clocks which will replace the 8800 GTX and the change in series number is just there to stop any confusion.

 

I want a lappie with a 9600M in it!

 

OMG!!!

I was killing my self to get an 8800m card

Now ........ 9xxx is what im looking for

If it is able to play crysis at high + 1280x800 + (30+ fps) that would be awesome....

Cant waaaaaaaait...

 

Seriously hope that the 9600m would be mxm type 2, then it'll fit into my acer 5920g, it'll make everyone happy this way.

Considering Nvidia's take on the 9600 GT performing 90% better than the 8600 GT, it'll be good if the 9600m performs 90% better than the 8600m. Just a thought though.

 

I wouldn't get too excited about this. I don't think there's going to be that much of a performance increase. The 9600m will probably just be a die shrink of the 8600m, and stock clocked at 8700m speeds due to the increased cooling. It may also have a bigger memory bus. Performance will probably be slightly better than the current 8700m GT.

Please note that none of what I said can be proven since nvidia hasn't announced anything, it's just my guess given their renaming of 8-series parts to create their 9-series. It seems like it'll basically be the same thing that ATi did going from the 2900 to the 3870.

 

Ahhh... well, I still think that it'd be cool, for me, I guess, since the 8600m GT I have now is the insanely crippled GDDR2, having the 9600m would be a godsend, wouldn't have to deal with overclocking and artifacts no more.

 

Is the 8600M GT DDR2 really that much worse than the GDDR3 version?

 

Not really, the difference is the memory speed (400 ddr2 VS 700 gddr3), which at a resolution such as 1280x800 gives only a marginal boost of 3-6 fps. These are rough numbers from what I have read on these forums.

Also it seems that an increase in the resolution or enabling high AA/AF, the difference in performance seems to increase.

 

3-6 fps compared to what base fps?
3-6 fps added to 20 fps or less are a great improvement....

 

There's about a 10-30% performance difference between the two, depending on the game. The difference is more apparent in newer games or when AA is turned on. The DDR2 version can be overclocked pretty easily to beat the GDDR3 in performance, but the GDDR3 can be overclocked as well.

 

Yes, only on that range (~20 fps) is useful. And I don't remember even if they mentioned the base of reference, if I find anything I'll let you know.

 

a high end 9 series is not gonna happen in a while, the 9500gs cant do anything in terms of gaming

 

I can't really agree with that, if overclocking only did such a small performance boost, I'd rather not do it.

Well, I can't really give out numbers on these (cept for 3d benchmarks which sometimes are inaccurate) but if you try playing Gears of War max on every setting with no O/C, with shadows on 1280*800, chances are, you'll be getting FPS sometimes lower than the 20s.

With O/C 600/500, the FPS boosted over to 30s and 40s.

 

Yes, because you also overclocked the core clock and not only the memory clock, which is the difference between DDR2 and GDDR3.

 

>_>
Wikipedia has an article up already about the 9 Series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series

 

looks ugly

 

So should I buy the Asus M51Sn? It's pretty cheap and since Bestbuy Canada has apparently sold out all the Gateway P-16831fx notebooks within the last two weeks this is the only choice I have. I just want something that could handle games better than my ageing laptop (sig). Should I wait until the 9600M series come out and pay the extra cash or just go for the Asus M51Sn with the 9500M GS since it's almost a steal at that price?

Plus from the benchmarks it seems to be in pair with the 8600M GT (DDR2) and perhaps even a little better.

 

if you're willing to wait, wait for the Gateway, however this is a pretty good laptop at the price. No one has seen specs on the mobile 9600, although if you compare it to the desktop counter-part, it's possible it could be a bad ass card. then again, it's possible it could be just a smidgen faster than the 8700. no one *really* knows.

 

Does anyone know what the gaming graphics score is with vista on this graphics card.
Thanks

 

I get 5.3 for both Graphics and Gaming graphics category at stock settings, but hers an image of my peresent score:

 

My nVidia 8600M GT (DDR2) get's Vista Graphics (5.5) and gaming (5.4).
But how close are these? 9500M GS versus 8600M GT?

 

Could somone post a print screen of the scores on vista please. Im thinking of buying this laptop so i want to make sure im getting the right one.
Thankyou.

 

Here's an SS (I think its OC'd) specs in sig.

 

many thanks mate

 

The Graphics score is weird, it various depending on the notebook. I've seen 8600M GT with a score of 4.6 in that category. Likewise you can't depend on Windows Vista Index score is pretty much useless in my opinion and someone shouldn't making a decision on the score given, but rather the hardware information displayed when making a purchase.

 

Hehe, I'm in the exact same boat as you .

 

True.
But I'm also using lapopvideo2go drivers and have overclocked a little.
My friends 8600 GS got 4.5 Gaming, so I think it's normal to have 5.5 with GT.

 

That's my WEI score, all my other components register 5 and over on my stock clocked DDR2 8600GT. I don't bother with clock speeds and technical information since posting on this forum allows me to gauge my system's performance with others, my games still play at reasonable settings at 1280 widescreen (the newer ones).

 

Here's mine...don't use these settings all the time