Raedon HD 2600 256mb DDR3 VS Nvidia 9500 512mb GS DDR2

I am deciding between these two laptops... I would be fine with either a 15.4 inch laptop or a 17 inch laptop, no need to mention the difference.

Asus M51Sn-A1
Intel Core 2 Duo T5450 (1.66GHz)
15.4" WXGA (1280x800)
3GB DDR2
250GB HDD
Nvidia 9500M GS
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium
$950
3DMarkScore 3693 no overclocking at 1280x800 resolution

or

ASUS A7K-A1
AMD Turion64 X2 TL60
17.1" WXGA (1440x900)
2GB DDR2 Memory
160GB HDD
ATI HD2600 DDR3
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium
$1,050
3DMarkScore 3234 no overclocking at 1280x900 resoultion

I found these benchmarks on this website from 2 different users.

I know the 9500gs is about a 8600 gt ddr2 card, and that ddr3 is supposed to be significantly faster than ddr2. I also know that the 8600 gt ddr2 is slightly better than the hd 2600 ddr2 but hd 2600 ddr3 is supposed to be noticeably better than the 8600gt ddr2 card.

So with that being said I just wanted to know your opinions on the two cards gaming performance, and why the 9500 gs has 3dmark score almost 500 points higher than the hd 2600 ddr3 card. I know 3dmark is not everything, but it counts for something. I really dont know much about how resolution/screen size affects 3dmark scores or gaming performance. Could the higher resolution and 17 inch screen on the A7K-A1 be the reason for such a lower score. I have also heard that the hd 2600 ddr3 card is really underclocked at its stock settings. Any information or opinions on these two models would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

Thats weird. I would think the ATI card would out run it. Im not sure, wait for more replies.

 

Ok this is very strange...

I came across a review of this setup

F3SA-A1
Vista Home Premium 32
T7500
2GB DDR2 667 (Factory installed is 1GB)
160G
ATI Mobility HD2600 512MB DDR2

and the 3dmark score for it is 3129 on 1200x800 resolution

the ddr2 hd2600 card only scored 100 less than the ddr3 card. This is kind of annoying to see because i really thought the a7k-a1 was at a great price for having a ddr3 card and being a 17 inch. i have heard a lot about how underclocked it is though... maybe this is the reasoning? i dont really get it. if someone could give some info that would be great. thanks.

 

Well, also the processor in the first ATI laptop is worse than the intel one. And, 3Dmarks don't define real world performance in games. And, the resolution is higher, not by much, it is running higher than the other two.

 

So would you say the hd 2600 gddr3 card is superior to the 9500gs ddr2? It sure doesnt look like it.. i really dont know much about gpu's though, other than the general ranks of them. Maybe the overclocking abilities of the hd 2600 are really good. What would you guys say about which card is better/which laptop is better overall.

 

I'd go with the less expensive laptop. While the HD 2600 may perform slightly better in games, the less expensive of the two is a more well rounded machine.

 

Asus hardly puts GDDR3 in anything (unless its the G series), so I don't think that HD2600 is GDDR3. I would go with the M51s.

 

The M51 is MUCH better in so many ways, more ram, better cpu, more Hdd space, cheaper...

I have no idea why Asus is selling the M51 so cheap, I would get one myself if I didnt already have a C90. Its almost like stealing its such a good deal.

If you like 17" and want super high performance tho, wait Asus has a new model just around the corner that will have insane stats that will blow the M51 away (but it will cost more for sure) I think its under NDA still so I cant talk about it yet but just mark my words this thing is a gamers dream and puts other super high end gaming machines to shame.

 

Thanks for the advice... link1313 its defintly the ddr3 version i called asus to confirm. But im pretty sure i will be getting the m51sn-a1, there are a ton of resellers that have it i stock and several that have it under $1,000, seems to be very competively priced. the benchmarcks for the ddr3 card are still odd to me but its no worry anymore really.

 

You also can't judge a card based on it's 3DMark scores, especially nVidia vs ATi as that program is really dependent on how well drivers are optimized for it not to mention it doesn't give one single hint on how the cards will do with real world performance.

 

I second that you cannot judge it on 3dMark scores. The Intel laptop has more RAM, which can provide a boost, especially when running Vista. The AMD CPU is definately not worse than the Intel, in fact it is faster, but that will have little effect on the 3DMark score, seeing as they are both good. I am partial to ATI, so since the two are comparable I would choose the HD2600 because I have always found the ATI to outperform Nvidia in the same class. If it were an 8800 or even 8700GT I might choose it over the HD2600, but you can probably find a more speedy Core 2 Duo (than you are looking at) Toshiba laptop with HD3650 that will blow you away for $1300.

 

Ok so now it is interesting because i found this laptop...

Model A7K-X3
Operating System Windows Vista Home Premium
CPU Type AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56 1.8G
Screen 17" WXGA
Memory Size 2GB DDR2
Hard Disk 160GB
Graphics Card ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 256mb DDR3

Priced at only $900 dollars on newegg.com. It is pretty much the same exact thing as the A7K-A1 except with a TL-56 cpu instead of a TL-58, not much of a difference. At this price does the A7K-X3 take lead ahead of the M51sn-a1? And is 2 gigs enough for playing games on windows vista? Also does anyone who has a raedon hd 2600 gddr3 card know how it runs cod4? Thanks.

 

2 gigs of Ram is enough. It runs CoD4 on max with like 1280x800 res. The intel is better efficiency wise altogether