Quadro NVS 140M/GeForce 8400M Screenshot thread

Given the usefulness and popularity of these types of threads, I've decided to start one to dispel myths of how much the title cards suck. There are slight differences, so if everyone could post which specific card they have and the specs. To start off, the ThinkPad T61's Quadro NVS 140M has 128MB dedicated GDDR3 memory on a 64-bit (ugh) bus.

Game: Command and Conquer 3
Settings - Medium-ish, with VFX/Shader detail to low but texture/model/terrain details maxed out. 1440x900, No AF/AA
Framerate is a constant 30 (the cap), something I strive for so the game runs as fast as possible. If you don't mind your stuff building and moving a little slower, you could make this game look very nice indeed.

 

Next up: Counter-Strike: Source
Settings in first picture. Conveniently, CS:S has it's own framerate counter, check the bottom-right corner. As you can see, my framerate is very consistent, and though I spike up to 100 in very low-impact areas, I've never experienced a drop below 25 - though I've only played bot matches so far.

Sorry about attachments, imageshack isn't working. As such, I'll wait on posting more (Bioshock, UT2004, and F.E.A.R. coming tomorrow!), but this is a good start.

 

Keep in mind that the 3 8400M-G cards are extremely different. The NVS140m/8400M-GT is a pretty capable performance card for current and older games. The NVS135m/8400M-GS is an okay mid-range card and performs well in older games. The NVS130m/8400M-G is an entry level card which is not well suited for even casual gaming.

 

I also started a thread with TONS of 8400m screens here the other day.. I would repost but... It took an absolute age the first time around:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=163623

 

Sorry to get a little off topic, but what laptops have the NVS-140?

 

The Thinkpad T61 and the Dell Latitude D830 are the ones I know of.

 

Here's some more, starting off with UT2004:
Settings - 1440x900, Full everything, 8xAF (through config file)
Framerate never goes below 29, typically hovers in the high 40s/50s. This is a large, open Onslaught map; deathmatch performance is consistently above 60fps, often above 100fps. You can probably see how this game is losing relevance as a benchmark, but it still looks fairly decent and is great fun.

 

Next up, F.E.A.R.:
Settings - 1440x900, Medium across the board, shadows/particles/shell casings on, Volumetric Lighting and Soft Shadows off, 2x AF/0x AA. Looks fairly decent, framerate stays consistently above 30 fps, with no dips below 20. Benchmark results 20/34/67 Min/max/avg, with 9%/54%/37% spread.

Sorry about continuing to use attachments, but imageshack appears to still be down, or my internet isn't getting along with it or something.

 

The nvs140m is much more like the 8400m gs than the gt. The 8400 gt has a 128 bit memory bus, while the 140m and 8400 gs have 64. All three have the same pixel shaders and vertex shaders.

 

The 8m cards do not have any vertex shaders or pixel shaders, they have a unified shader system. However, you're correct in that they both have the same number of stream processors. While the NVS 140m may have a 64-bit bus, it's based on the 8400M-GT chip, and performs much closer to the 8400M-GT than the 8400M-GS.

 

Actually, the NVS 140-M performs somewhere between the 8400M GS and GT, leaning towards the GT side. The reason is that the NVS 140M has higher clock speeds than the GS and uses GDDR3 RAM. In synthetic benchmarks it actually rivals the 8400MGT, and it can do as well in real-world performance as well, until you get into high resolutions or start applying anti-aliasing, at which point it falters because of the 64-bit memory bus.

Edit: I see odin beat me to it, sorry.

Edit #2: An update on Bioshock. I only have the demo, and for the life of me I can't get it to take screenshots. Printscreen copies the desktop, for some reason, and I tried binding F8 to both "Shot" and "TakeScreenShot", but no dice. I'd use fraps but it cuts about 5fps off to have it running, though I may have no choice. The basic is that you have your choice between 1440x900, but minimum settings and barely playable framerates (I'd say 40 max, 20-25 avg), or 800x600 with almost all eye candy on, including DirectX 10 mode (I know, I was shocked myself, bad pun intended), with fluid, never-below-20, average-above-30 framerates. If you can stand the jaggies, go with 800x600 (or 960x600 with slightly lower settings, if you want the widescreen aspect). If not, well, 1440x900 is an option is you can stand the ugly textures and frequent sluggishness. Myself, this game makes me glad I have an 8800GTS in my desktop.

 

Is there more than one version of the Nvidia 8400m GS ? I know Dell states that they use an Nvidia 8400m GS in their 1330 XPS notebooks and promote is as 128bit GDDR3. I just purchased a new Sony Vaio SZ680 and really curious about what kind of card it is. Sony states it as an Nvidia 8400m GS only. But I have heard that it is only a 64bit card ? What kind of RAM is it using? Is there a lot of difference between the Dell 1300 and the Sony SZ680?

Sorry to ask, just I heard the XPS 1330 uses the most powerful GPU for a 13.3" notebook, and I really would like to know more about the Sony's GPU and how well it could compare.

Thank you.

 

There is only one version of the card, which is a 64-bit version. However, it can come with differenty amounts of dedicated memory, I believe the M1330 uses 128MB dedicated, while the SZ6 uses 64MB dedicated. Performance differences will be minimal.

 

So the Sony SZ6 series should be running Nvidia 8400m GS with 64mb dedicated RAM and 64bit memory bus with GDDR3 RAM? And only differer from the Dell XPS 1330 with a smaller amount of dedicated RAM 128mb vs 64mb ?

 

I believe so, yes. Clock speeds may be slightly different, I'm not sure. However the only difference in the cards is the amount of dedicated memory.

 

Thanks for the help

 

Very Thx

lowlymarine: Please your score in 3DMark 06 (driver + resolution)? Thx :smile:

 

Well, my 3DMark0 5 score is 3421 at the default 1024x768 resolution, with the 163.44 drivers from LV2G. I haven't yet run 3DMark06, as I generally dislike it as a comparative graphics benchmark due to a) the inclusion of processor performance in the score, b) the default resolution being too high, resulting in a wide discrepancy among scores, and c) the registered version can't be obtained by holding down one key until it fills up the "Registration code" box (hey, I'm cheap). Nonetheless, I might run it later today if I have time. I've heard around 1800-1900, though.

 

Thx

Pls Colin DIRT??