UPDATED - The Mobile Graphics Card Info Page - Most GPU Qs answered

The Mobile Graphics Card Info Page
By: Chaz

The purpose of this page is to show you how well different GPUs perform in modern games, as well as where they place in terms of performance in comparison to others. I also have explanations for each different class of video card.

Before you read...

Index:

1. Video Card comparison A. Integrated Cards B. Low-End and Midrange Cards C. Performance Cards D. High-End Cards THE BIG CHART​ 2. What kind of GPU do I need? 3. Information about video memory 4. FAQ 5. Conclusion

Section 1: Video Card comparison


A. Integrated Graphics Processors

What are Integrated Graphics Processors (IGPs)? They are a simple graphics controller located on the motherboard. IGPs (with few exceptions) do not have their own memory and cannot play complex 3D games. Integrated graphics cards are not for gaming – office work, DVD watching, and web surfing is near the limit of their capabilities. They can be found in almost any size notebook, from those with a 10.6” screen to 17”. Advantages of an IGP include low power consumption and virtually no heat.

Although IGP performance is for the most part irrelevant, they are rated below from lowest-performing to highest:

The Nvidia GeForce 9400M is the fastest integrated GPU on the market, followed by the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3200. Put in perspective, the HD 3200 is about as fast as a dedicated Nvidia GeForce 8400M-GS in some modern games. The 8200M is also quite fast, almost matching a Go7400 (special thanks to forum member R4000 for submitting information about this GPU).
The Intel X4500 is a new integrated GPU that comes with the latest Intel 'Montevina' Centrino 2 platform. It is noticeably faster than the previous X3100, but still not up to par with ATI's and Nvidia's integrated GPUs, especially when it comes to game compatibility.

Mobility Radeon HD 3200 Benchmarks
Pulp's guides show what IGPs are capable of!
Intel GMA X3100 Graphics Performance Review
GeForce Go6150 Review
Nvidia 7150M Integrated Graphics Card Review


IGPs have no memory of their own – they borrow it from the main system memory. Some IGPs have their own dedicated memory but it is not common.

Back to Index


B. Low-end and Midrange Video Cards

Even if you are a non-gamer, it is sometimes worth it to get a dedicated video card. A dedicated video card can handle high-definition video decoding, significantly reducing the processor's workload. In addition, it is better to have a dedicated GPU for driving external displays and HDTVs since they will have better performance.

Low-end video cards can be found in notebooks of all sizes. If you are looking for an ultraportable (12” and less), then you probably won't get a dedicated card and don't want one anyway since small notebooks with dedicated video cards can get quite warm, and they drain power.

From lowest to highest performance:

Back to Index


C. Performance Video Cards

Now we're talking. Hardcore gamers and those looking for the best visual experience in a 15" or smaller notebook should target these cards. They can be found in anything from a 14” to a 17” notebook, and have ample power to play the latest games at the highest settings or close to it. Power consumption is higher than that of the mid-range cards, but still balanced. It is not hard to find a notebook with one of these cards that still has good (2.5+ hours) battery life.

From lowest to highest performance:

The Nvidia 9500M-GS and the 9650M-GS are not actually anything new, merely die shrinks of the current 8600M-GT and 8700M-GT respectively; everything else down to the clocks themselves are the exact same. They are nothing to get excited about and offer basically no performance increase over the existing cards. Why Nvidia is passing them off as a new generation is unknown.

The 8600M-GT is significantly faster than the 8600M-GS - the main difference between them is that the -GT has double the stream processors. See benchmarks for these cards here. Both of these cards are DirectX 10 compliant. The Nvidia 8400M-GT is in a different class than the 8400M-GS because it has a 128-bit memory bus. It is a fast card, just under the Go7600/X1600.
I have classified the 8700M-GT as a performance card because it has a 128-bit memory bus. A true high-end card has a 256-bit bus.

Back to Index


D. High-end Video Cards

If you are looking for the best possible 3D performance in a notebook, the below cards are the fastest out there. You won't find them in anything short of a 17” notebook. They have considerable power requirements and produce equally high amounts of heat, hence the 17” size notebook is needed to house a cooling system for them. High-end video cards can handle all the latest games at high resolutions and maximum settings.

From lowest to highest performance:

The best single cards are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850/4870 and the Nvidia GeForce GTX 260M/280M. They can handle all of the latest games with ease.


Back to Index

THE BIG CHART

This chart ranks every current notebook GPU's performance from least at the top to greatest at the bottom.

Back to Index

Section 2: What kind of video card do I need?

If.....

....Then you are looking for a notebook with integrated graphics.

If.....

....Then a low-end video card should serve you well. Mid-range will also do, but not entirely necessary.

If.....

....Then a mid-range card would suit you best.

If....

.....Then a performance-class video card is what to shoot for.

If....

....Then you're looking at a high-end card and a 17”+ notebook.

Back to Index

Section 3: Information About Video Memory

“How much video memory do you need?” is a common question these days. Answer – 256MB to be able to comfortably handle the latest games. 128MB doesn't cut it, as modern games use high-resolution textures that need the extra memory.

Most gamers should not have any problems playing games on a 256MB card. For the best performance, look for notebooks that have video cards with GDDR3 memory, which can have significantly higher clocks than DDR2 cards.

Back to Index


Section 4: The FAQ

This is a very common train of thought – more video memory must mean better performance. This is not true – the video card itself matters much more than the memory it has.
Pay attention to the type of memory the video card uses. GDDR3 is far better in terms of performance than DDR2, which is slow.

The minimum needed today to play modern games without issues is 2GB; most games will run fine with that amount of memory. If possible, it is best to go to 4GB for the ultra-modern games (such as Crysis, Borderlands, Call of Duty 4, and so on). Note that you will need a 64-bit operating system to take full advantage of 4GB of RAM; a 32-bit OS will only see about 3GB.

There are several:
- Do a Windows Update manually: Start, All Programs, Windows Update. See what sort of updates are available for your system, mainly under hardware. Post a reply to this thread if you don't know what the updates do.
- Check for updates and patches for the games; Google/ Bing search is a great place to start.
- Update your video drivers

Try this:
-Start, Right-click My Computer, Properties, Advanced tab, under “Performance” hit Settings, Advanced tab. Now under “Virtual Memory”, change it to 1.5 or 2GB. Restart for change to take effect.
-Update your video drivers
-Make sure Vsync is off, both in-game and on your video card as well;
-Right-click Destkop, Properties, Settings, Advanced, and look for the option to toggle it on and off. The location varies, so I cannot give an exact location.
-Make sure Anti-Aliasing and Antistrophic filtering are off both in game and on your video card, see above bullet.

No, it will not. The GPU is the bottleneck in most cases. If the video card is slow, the game will also run poorly because of it. The CPU can only do so much. For example, if the CPU finishes 50 frames and sends them to the GPU, but the GPU can only render 22 of them, then it wouldn't matter if you had a CPU that could finish 100 frames - the GPU can still only do 22. This is the case with most computers.

Listed below are the best cards that can be found in different sized notebooks (all memory sizes listed are dedicated memory, not including shared via TurboCache/HyperMemory):
17"-20"
-ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3870/4870/4850 & Dual-card SLI versions
-Nvidia GeForce GTX 260M/GTX 280M & Dual-card SLI versions

Available in:
-Alienware M17x (GTX 280M SLI/HD 4870 SLI)
-Sager NP9850 (GTX 280M SLI)
-Sager NP9280/NP8760 (GTX 280M)

15.6"
-Nvidia GeForce GTX 280M/260M
-ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4830

Available in:
-Sager NP8690 (GTX 280M)
-Alienware M15x (GTX 260M)
-HP Envy 15 (HD 4830)

14"
-ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650

Available in:
-ASUS N81Vp

13.3"
-Nvidia GeForce 9600M-GT*
-Nvidia GeForce 9500M-G (Dell Studio XPS 1340)


*Available in an LG laptop that is not available in the US, the P300/P310.

There is a utility you can download which will display the frames per second in games - FRAPS:
http://www.fraps.com/
Download & Install, then minimize it and it will reside in the System Tray. The framerate counter will appear in one of the corners of your screen when a 3D application is opened up.
The ideal framerate is 30FPS and over; if you are not getting 30, then adjust settings until you do. I suggest reverting to the lowest settings, and increasing slowly from there.

The hard drive does not affect in-game performance; a faster hard drive will only decrease loading times. A faster hard drive is a great upgrade for increasing overall performance (basically anything that uses the hard drive will see a performance boost), but it will not do anything for your framerates. For gaming, the components to concentrate on, in order of performance, are the Grahpics Card, amount of RAM, and Processor type.

This is a very confusing topic for those not computer-savvy. GDDR3 is the newer memory and it is built on a smaller process. It consumes less power, produces less heat as a result, and can have much higher clocks than DDR2. There can be substantial performance differences between cards with both memory types.
The latest memory type for graphics cards is GDDR5, though it has not found its way into notebooks yet.

99.5% of notebooks cannot have their graphics cards updated. However, you are welcome to try the following:

I will be adding more questions to the FAQ - feel free to post suggestions in this thread.

Back to Index

Section 5: Conclusion

Overall, I hoped this guide has helped clear up some common and more advanced questions regarding 3D graphics in a notebook. Please make sure any questions you ask here in the Gaming/Graphics forum aren't already answered in this guide. Feel free to post specific questions in this thread by replying to it.

Back to Top

Useful Links:
ATI Mobile Cards
Nvidia Mobile Cards

Thank you for reading.

If any part of this article is to be used on a site other than NotebookReview.com, please Private Message me. Thanks.

 

Thanks Chaz. Now we have some link to post when people ask! Great.

Cheers,

Edit: as I can see the links above now, and to clean the thread i removed the links that were here before.

 

very nice

and i find that my x700 fits exactly where u say

15.4" medium sized notebook, portable but can still play all games at decent settings.

 

nice post chaz

i dunno if the last generation of x700s and x600s were shader 3.0 but its nice to see that the x1600s will finally be, used ati for my last two cards and it was just annoying trying to play madden on my 9800pro on my desktop and gettin 10 fps

 

Very useful post, Chaz, thanks.

 

yeah that was cool well done, but do you think that you could add to how the mobile gpus compaire with there desktop counterparts?
i know its in other threads but it would be cool to have it all in the same place

 

It's about time! Great work Chaz!

There seem to be a lot of threads on integrated graphic cards, so you might be saving yourself some future trouble if you add a little paragraph on them

 

You are welcome guys. Yeah veon - tonight, I'll see if I can type up a small section for integrated cards . . not that they really belong in here, but you're probably right that it would save me some trouble.

Redfrog - about the comparison to desktop cards. That could be a bit difficult, but I will see what I can do.

bobz99 - the X700 was a Shader 2.0b card, whereas the new X1000 series is Shader 3.0.

Cheers

 

yea i wasnt sure of that because it doesnt explicitly say that on the ati site but i was sure i read that somewhere that the x700 was a shader 2.0b. thanks for the clarification

 

Good info...the realm of GPUs is getting more confusing everyday...one question though; you left out the 200M...most mainstream AMDs offer that unless you start moving up; is that such a poor performer to not even mention it. Thanks.

 

The 200M is an integrated graphics processor, not a dedicated gpu, so you won't be doing much gaming with it.

See Chaz, I told you

 

tpm12 - yeah, I left the X200M out because it is an integrated GPU. I'll write a small section for integrated GPU's by Monday-Tuesday this week.

 

Integrated GPUs would be a good addition, seeing as many laptops have them.

 

The guide is now updated - I have added in a section for Integrated graphics cards, and a special section on Windows Vista.

Cheers

 

for a comparison

i tried out a few games on my mums laptop. it uses the borrowed memory version of the x200m intergrated GPU....

other specs....celeron 1.5m 256mb ram 60gb hdd

C&C generals - ran 100% fine on medium settings...turning upto high settings still playable but some jerkyness with big battles

AOE3 - ran..just..low/medium settings...jerky with big battles

Quake4/FEAR/HL2/BF2/N4S-MW - pfft forget it, lol...some will run but the frame rates arnt enough for what i consider playable

Doom 3 started and was playable with reasonable framerates on low settings

all 2d, early 3d RTS titles played pretty well (warcraft3/starcraft etc)

hope that gives some insight into its capability


by comparison, my x700 runs them all

 

Hey cbrviper, thanks for the information. Great to get user feedback.

Everybody - I just revised the guide again, this time including a section for video memory, in addition to integrated GPUs and Windows Vista. Be sure to check it out!

Chaz

 

:decision: Very good work on Super Sunday yet (a super write up !)

 

How can one tell if they are getting the X200 with dedicated or the one that isn't. I mean shouldn't they be different model numbers...?

 

It would be stated in the notebook description. If you don't know about a particular notebook, just post it here and we'll tell you.

 

MSI MS1013
if were possible to flick the eff'ing 900 off the 1012's motherboard... that would be sweet.

 

The MSI-1013 uses the shared Radeon Xpress 200M. .

Yeah, the Intel GMA900/950 are really terrible.

 

Good job!

Just one comment. I believe that the X600 shold belong in the low-end group. It is only marginally better than the X300/128 card scoring typically around 3200 in 3DMark03 vs the X300's 2700. The X700 scores typically around 5500. So the X600 is much more similar to the X300 than the X700.

Or if you think that the X600 meets the criterias in performance for joining the main-stream group, i think that the X300 also should go there.

Another aspect is that the X300, mostly found in Dell notebooks, are highly underclocked by Dell at 297/216 while "constructed" for 350/300. Correcting for this, the X300 actually performs equal to or better than the X600.

Regards Sandstrak

 

Thanks for reading my guide.

Yeah, the X600 is just an overclocked X300, same thing with the Go6400 - just an overclocked Go6200.

I see your point exactly, but I need a mid-range section, and when it comes to actual 3D, the X600/Go6400 are noticably faster than the X300/Go6200. According the the manufacturers, the X600/Go6400 are mid-range . .

I'll keep your suggestion noted. I think that I will move those two cards down into the low-end when the X1400/Go7400 become more popular.

Chaz

 

Fantastic guide, ChazMan!

 

OK thanks,

so what is the deciding factor when manufacturers put either chip in, why did MSI decide to put the crappier of two chips in? I can't image price difference being more than 20-30 bucks. Why couldn't the 1013 have the dedicated chip.

Also how much of a difference is there between the two, as in the shared can't play stuff the dedicated can? Or is it more sutble?

 

I'd say that the dedicated one is about 25-35% faster - that's an educated guess.

Considering that the MSI-1013 is not designed for gaming, there was no reason to put in the dedicated version. It would probably run hotter anyways, and in a 12" notebook, heat control is very important.

Any notebook that uses the Radeon Xpress 200M is not designed for games, so don't expect anything but low settings for games.

 

Chaz,

Thank you for a great guide. One thing, I think it's important to mentioned the screen resolution of the laptop along with the gpu's settings. Because if people want to run the games at the native lcd panel's resolution, and they have 1900x1200, then even the higher end gpu solution won't be able to give you a playable framerate with max settings.

thanks

sg

 

While you are right that resolution plays into your user experience, this is a guide of cards only. If it covered every possible configuration, it would be unwieldly and not so useful - as it stands, it is a great guide to link when a poster asks about graphics chips. Besides, changing the resolution on an LCD doesn't have as drastic an effect on gaming as it does on text. It's nice to run games on native res, but not necessary...

Great guide, Chaz. It's a good one to have for a quick hotlink!

 

Yeah, this is a more 'generalized' guide - I didn't get all technical because I want everybody to know what I am getting at . . you can see the breakdown, from low-end to high-end cards.

I'm glad this made it to the front page! Thanks Andrew.

Chaz

 

That was a fantastic guide. Very informative and helpful. Good job!

 

Thanks for a great guide. I myself don't know much about current gaming/media mobile cards, but have been researching about workstation cards.

It could be a good mention about these fireGLs and Quadros since I notice some people might think these are the best for gaming which is not unless modified.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, and for reading my guide. I'm not going to mention to developer's cards in there - not the purpose of the guide. They are very specialized and rare, not something the average person would be looking for [who the guide aimed at ]

Cheers

 

Nice article, but if this hasnt come up to your attention,

I though that the X1600, was going to be ATI's most effecient video card in terms of power comsumption while on battery?

 

You're right - it is part of the performance category though, that is why I posted it there.

It is very efficent at power, but I'd still classify it as 'balanced' in terms of overall power consumption when compared to other GPU's. It is designed for performance.

Cheers, thanks for reading.

 

Wow, thanks for the article Chaz! You said the 200M is 2/3 the card of the x300. I would like to know how much of a card the GMA is of the 200m. Thanks!

 

Great research, Chaz!!

I've been busy with work, so this is my first time back here in awhile. I got my CPU upgraded to the 780 2.26 GHz. I can see a real boost in performance when running multiple apps. My 3dMark05 score jumped from 6661 to 6975.

 

From what I've seen in terms of 3DMark05 benchmarks on the GMA cards, and my own experience with a 200M 64mb integrated, I would say that on average the GMA is 1/2 the 200M at best.

 

Wow! Thanks, if only I would have found something this concise and informative a week ago. Very helpful.

 

Very nice article, though I have to disagree with you on integrated graphics. Yes, they are not as good as dedicated graphcis cards but they are not useless for 3D. I have a Sony Vaio S54B (Japanese model, similar to the S560 in the US) with an integrated Intel 915 GM/GMS graphics card with 128MB of shared memory. Not only can I run the Aero Glass 3D interface in the Windows Vista Beta and programs like Adobe Photoshop CS2 perfectly fine, but I can also run many 3D games on medium settings without a problem. Games I run perfectly are Thief 3, The Indigo Prophecy (Fahrenheit), Civilization IV, Myst V, World of Warcraft, Age of Empires III, Call of Duty, Knights of the Old Republic and I even got Doom 3 and Halo 2 to run on minimal settings (not playable, but they ran). I can run any 3D game from a year or so ago without a problem.

I'm not a gamer anymore (I used to be) so I don't really care about being able to play the latest games, portability is much more important to me, but integrated graphics cards will work fine for casual 3D gaming. I think it's very misleading to say that all integrated cards are useless for 3D. They are fine for more than just basic office applications and will play many current 3D games on low to medium settings and will handle almost all older 3D games without a problem.

For those who want to do a little light 3D gaming every now and then, integrated cards will work just fine.

 

It may be worthwhile to explain that, so noobies and some others do not think that no games can be played with an integrated graphics card.

 

So now the obvious question... What notebooks are available with decent graphics cards for less than a bazillion dollars?

I paid about $800 for my current notebook about 2 years ago, and with an Athlon XP 2500+ processor and 512MB of RAM it more than meets my usual needs. Considering that its specs were quite high for the price at the time I bought it, I just assumed the graphics card would be similar in capability. Little did I know the integrated chip was an absolute joke. I can't even run some primitive 3D games on low settings at 640x480 without wanting to tear my hair out. Burn.

All I want to do with a laptop is very simple tasks like listening to MP3s, web surfing, and email, as well as play games like The Sims 2 and HL2 on decent settings. In other words, I don't need the greatest notebook evuh, just something somewhat basic but with a non-piece-of-crap graphics card in it. Isn't there anything like that out there?

I see lots of affordable laptops in advertisements for Best Buy and whatnot, with completely sufficient specs for around $800 to $1200, but they all end up having a Radeon Xpress 200M. That's a little like a 2006 Ford Focus coming with a built-in record player.

I don't need to calculate global weather forcasts or author high definition video on my notebook, so I don't want to pay $5,000 just to get a $200 graphics card in a machine that only needs to have $800-worth of other capabilities. Any suggestions? Anybody agree?

 

i agree with you but itll still cost a little more for a decent notebook with decent GPU-ness. your best bet is gettting something with a 6600 in it. the big boys (HP, dell, etc) dont have those as often, but smaller builders (quanta, MSI, asus) have some great options that wont destroy your debit card

 

A Compaq V4000T should do the trick for you - it has a 128MB X700 and starts at only $850 on www.HPShopping.com

zoomy ^ has a nice notebook, good deal - Quanta KN1. Be sure to consider that if it fits your needs.

 

Nice review!

This may be a dumb question but if I were to get a notebook (HP DV8000), that comes with a built in ATI Radeon XPRESS 200M with up to 128MB of dedicated memory and 128MB of shared system memory graphics card, is it possible to add/use an external graphics card? USB hookup or something, which can be easily done.

I ask because while the system seems sufficient for my immediate needs I do not wish to preclude some decent 3D ability in the future.

Thanks

 

nope. what you get is what you keep. notebooks dont yet support adding a card later. sure, there are MXM and AXIOMS modules, but their parent companies arent releasing upgrades very often

 

What uses do a grahics card have OTHER THAN GAMING (putting aside the question of Vista)? Are there any? And what differences would the different cards make?

The acticle seems to draw a distinction between multimedia, web browsing, and basic tasks, on the one hand, and gaming, on the other hand.

The article then seems to basically say nothing less than the mid-end cards are worthwhile for games, but you really kind of want the high performance cards for games. And the integrated cards are fine for all other purposes.

So what value do the low-end cards have at all? They don't work for games so well. So why not either get integrated if you don't game or at least mid-end if you game?

In fact, if, as the article says, mid-end cards are okay for "occasional gamers," why even bother with those? How many people are occasional gamers? Aren't people kind of into games or not? So it almost seems like, go integrated if you don't game and go performance if you do. And everything in between (low-end and mid-end) either serves no function for the non-gamer or isn't very useful for the gamer.

Thanks for thoughts on this, particularly regarding uses of graphics card for non-gamers.

 

For uses other than gaming - some people do 3D graphics design, and a special video card is used to render the video for that. Those are the ATI FireGL and Nvidia QuadroFX. I did not include them in my article because the guide was intended to help people understand graphics without being confused by a lot of technical terms. The QuadroFX/FireGL cards take up such a small market that it wasn't worth it to mention them.

Right, I implied that you should not get less than a mid-range if you want any gaming capabilities. A low-end card struggles badly with the current-gen games, and the last gen. For games in the future, a low-end won't work. With a mid-end (performance is highly advisable if you want to continue gaming on decent settings), you at least have some ability to play games in the future.

I suggest getting at least the Radeon Xpress 200M if you don't game - it will be nice for Windows Vista. The GMA900 isn't going to do that for you as well.

Occasional gamers - business people perhaps, I know a lot of people at work who don't play games often, but when they go on trips, they like to run a game and play. I'd also define some occasional gamers as people who have desktops for games, but just want their laptop capable of some 3D.

Cheers, thanks for reading my article.

 

Donking, it also depends of course on what types of games you play. First person shooters are the most intensive. I for one, like real time strategies (Warcraft 3, Age of Empires, etc.) the most on PC and the requirements aren't as high for these types of games...so I'm happy with my x700 that will only be playing demanding games "occasionally." In fact, even my PowerBook's old GeForce 5200 plays Warcraft 3 at max settings. The heavy games...that's what my Xbox and Gamecube is for.

 

ChazMan421, Cygnus311, Thanks for the further explanations and elaborations.

 

If you some of you don’t mind I would greatly appreciate a little guidance before I part with some of my hard earned money.

I was looking at the HP Pavilion DV 8000 (AMD Turion 64 ML-40 (2.2GHz/1MB L2 Cache) but was concerned about its weak graphics card. I am now very intrigued by the latest Fujitsu laptop Lifebook N6410 (Intel® Core™ Duo Processor T2300 (1.66 GHz, 2 MB L2 cache, 667 MHz FSB)) that seems comparably priced with a superior graphics setup. Fujitsu’s Radeon® X1400 graphics card vs. HP’s Radeon XPRESS 200M.

I am trying to future proof my machine as much as practical. I plan some digital video editing, light gaming/DVD watching . Majority use will be Word + some excel and a decent amount of web surfing/research . The machine will mostly be used around the house so the size/weight of the Fujitsu is not an issue.

1) Having looked at the ATI website, the Radeon X1400 seems to be a decent enough card for my purposes, is my analysis correct?

2) Has any one heard any thing negative re the Lifebook series or Fujitsu in general?

3) The Fujitsu offers something I have not seen in a laptop, which is a 2nd memory slot for DDR2 memory. I will go with the 1 GB in the 1st slot. Any reason to put memory in the 2nd slot now? If so, how much difference in performance would be noticed with the different options. Big price jump from 512 MB to 1GB.

256 MB DDR2 667 MHz $30
512 MB DDR2 667 MHz $70
1 GB DDR2 667 MHz $220

4) Lastly, there are two hard drive bays with several different configurations options. Initially I will just get one hard drive. Tech support indicated adding a 2nd hard drive relatively easy.
Note: All are Serial ATA hard drives
80 GB (5400 rpm) hard drive $0
100 GB (5400 rpm) hard drive $50
100 GB (7200 rpm) hard drive $120
160 GB (4200 rpm) hard drive $130

The Question is: when would I really notice a difference in speed between the hard drives?

Thanks.