Tell me more about these video cards

I'm checking on Newegg for a new laptop, because my 8600M-GT just won't cut it. Some have graphics cards I can find in the sticky that has all the cards listed in performance order, but some cards aren't on the list. Here are some cards, which is the most/least powerful?

nVidia GeForce GT 130M (from HP HDX 16-1370US and ASUS F50SV-A2)
nVidia GT 220M 1GB (from ASUS F50SF-A1)
nVideo GT 240M 1GB DDR3 (from ASUS N51Vn-X1A)

 

You have it listed from least to most powerful right now.
But if you're upgrading because the 8600M GT isn't cutting it, don't go that low on your upgrade. Looks like you're sticking to nVidia, so shoot for a GTX 260M.

 

Although, just to confuse things, the 160M is more powerful than all those listed in your original post.

 

Well, I'm really just trying to shoot for $1000 and under range, so I just checked Newegg, and these are the ones within the range. 260M GTX will undoubtedly be more powerful, but I don't think a 2.53GHz processor will utilize much of the difference between 260 and 240, 220, or 130...

 

Just saying, you're upgrading much earlier than people with say 8800GTSs or even 8700GTs in their system are because you went for the midrange. If you set yourself into the midrange again, expect to be buying another laptop in another 2 years or less. If that's your plan and you're okay with it, then by all means, you're on the right track. BTW nothing wrong with the midrange, it's where I tend to buy as well. But lately I've been seeing a lot more value in the very high midrange/lower high range (ie, instead of getting an 8600GT, I went up to an 8800GTS... almost up to that 8800GTX in performance, just so much lower on price... also it's going to last a lot longer than an 8600GT would have)

 

I thought 220/240 were considered high end cards? If 220's better than 130, and 130's on almost top of the mid end chart, 160's in middle chart of the high end list, and 260 is towards the top, shouldn't 220/240 be considered mid/high performance high end cards? Where do they fit in performance-wise with all the other SLI, GTX, and Radeon X cards?

 

If you don't mind only having one year warranty...
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9366651&type=product&id=1218092150636

 

That Asus is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.

 

Actually, the 220M is weaker than the 130M. It is a rebadged 9600M GT. The 130M is between the 9650M GT and the 9700M GT. The 240M has 50% more shaders (48 vs. 32) than those GPUs I've listed above. Since all the cards are 128-bit GDDR3, they are considered only midrange/mainstream.

160M and 260M are 256-bit cards and hence high end/enthusiast GPUs, with the 160M being a 55nm 9800M GTS (some 9800M GTS are supposed to be 55nm while most are 65nm), which is the bottom of the high end, while 260M is among the top of the high end.

SLI means two cards and is pretty much only in high end models. GTX is the top of the high end, GTS is the low/middle of the high end, GT is the mainstream, and G is for the low end/budget GPUs.

ATI's equivalent cards would be the x8xx (ie. 4850) for the high end, x6xx (ie. 4650) for middle class, and x4xx/x3xx (ie. 4330) for low end.

 

Good exlplanation...+ rep

 

Why don't you invest in a new desktop instead of a new laptop? That way when a component no longer delivers the performance you desire, you can upgrade that component without having to buy a whole new computer.

That component would typically be the GPU. While your CPU & RAM might not bottleneck you for a couple of years, your GPU might after just six months.

 

Looks tempting!

Ok, thanks for the wonderful explanation!

Because I don't have the money right now to buy all the PC components and I have no clue how to put it together.

 

Definitely consider the G51 from Bestbuy it comes with a top-of-the-line card (for the moment) and has a very good price/performance ratio. If the CPU is too weak a couple years down the line you can always upgrade to a higher end T or P series.

 

yes , the asus G51 is great but it has overheating problems.. if your'e willing to spend $200-300 more get an MSI GT725, GT729 which has a ATI 4850 which is better according to some ppl than the GTX260M... and also 15 inch screen and quad core processor... so MSI GT 725 or 729 is better than asus G51 but its gonna cost more... the G51 from best buy has weak dual core and underclocked GTX260M which is owned by the 4850 and also very bad heating problems...

 

The GT725 with the HD4850 is a 17" laptop, not a 15". The 15" MSI is the GT628 which houses a GTS160M, which is slightly weaker than the GTX260M(not sure by how much considering the GTX 260M in the G51 is undercloked).

 

Have you ever used any of the G51 series? The temps really aren't that bad. There's no overheating problem, just it has slightly high temps. Sorry for the mini rant, I'm just tired of people always saying the G51's have overheating problems. The only close thing to an overheating problem would be the G71's downclocking at 85C, but that was promptly adressed and now no longer happens

 

high end is like 2x 280M GTX

 

The fact is that the G51 has always been hotter and other laptops with similar configs in fact it has been way more hotter whether you like it or not.. it has high temps... 102C for a GPU is what i saw and that is scary... unless you do a massive undevolt on both CPU and GPU you get a lot of problems... i would prefer having an MSI laptop which would have no such problems...

 

"way more hotter"?

sean, he COULD simply undervolt...You are forgetting the g51 is a 15"...which means a smaller cooling manifold...which means higher temps.

...for a 260 in a 15", 100 C plus is normal (unless we're talking Sager). AND LIKE I SAID..UNDERVOLT!

Go for the G51..its a steal.

 

There are always things that can be done to make the G51 cooler. Since it's bought at Best Buy, you're not eligible for Asus' 2 year warranty. While that does suck, it also means you can mod your laptop like hell(see copper mods and other such things in the Asus subforum) and it won't void the nice warranty you don't have

 

Off topic... 8600M-GT vs. 9700M-GT vs. 9800M-GS, how much performance difference is there between each and every one of these cards? I can run Call of Duty World At War at roughly 20FPS (no AA) at 1280x800 on my 8600M-GT, how well would you predict the 9700 and 9800 can do?

 

triple+ performance from the 9800

 

From the link in my sig:

9800M GS - 64 shaders, 256-bit
9700M GT - 32 shaders, 128-bit
8600M GT (slower 9600M GT) - 32 shaders, 128-bit

Just from those details alone, you can see 9800M GS is much better (especially at high resolutions).

 

Does that mean 8600M-GT and 9700M-GT are roughly the same?

 

The 9700M GT performs better, but they're in the same performance level/bracket yes.

 

But how much better? If it doesn't improve much from the 8600M-GT I won't bother getting a computer that has the card.

 

It's not worth buying a new computer with it IMO if that's what you're asking. If you're going to go for a performance upgrade, I'd go with the next level of performance i.e. a 256bit GPU.