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

i never knew that 7600 comes with only 128 also i was under the impression that only 512 and 256mb dedicated memory versions exist

 

Still, that card shouldn't have been "crippled." I admit that's a very low amount of dedicated VRAM for the 7600, especially since the 7600 doesn't get turbocache, but it still should have performed decently, with good drivers.
Out of curiosity, what computer was it?

 

The Sony VAIO FE series has the 128MB Go7600. It scores around 2800 - 3000 in 3DMark05 under WinXP which is low compared to the 256MB version. However, the only way you'll take a performance hit with the 128MB version is in games that actually require the use of more than 128MB of video memory. In games that do not use more than 128MB, the performance of the 128MB and the 256MB versions should be exactly the same if the clocks are the same.

 

Please read the GPU Guide guys...cards (and the minimum/maximum amounts of ram that lead to effective performance) are detailed there.

The 7600 is a mid-high-range card, so yes it should have 256MB to be more effective. Lower end cards like the 6150 cannot even effectively use 128MB, so it doesn't matter for them.

 

I got around 1300 for 3dmark06 and around 1900 for 3dmark05... which is quite weird besides the fact that the scores are pretty low. I'm using an Toshiba A100 with vista as well as updated drivers. And btw, I believe my go 7600 does use turbocache since it shares around 500mbs of RAM ... unless RAM can be shared without being turbocache...? lol

 

Yes, Vista allows the graphics cards to share RAM.

Those are low scores for a Go7600. Check your PowerMizer settings to make sure that the laptop is not on batter/reduced power mode when you are plugged in.

 

I say I'm totally amazed by the ways that vendors choose to cripple the GPUs.
Lowering the bandwidth,Lowering the V-Ram because of less than $50.There was some guy in the 3DMark table thread (from Japan) which had a 7600 Go with totally normal Clocks/Bandwidth.All was correct in the benchmarks.I either suspect some serious fluctuation in clocks or disabled pipelines...

 

How well would the Asus G1 play Battlefield 2142?

 

Mid to max settings at 30+ FPS. Battlefield 2142 is also heavily RAM dependent, so make sure you have plenty of RAM to complement the video card and processor (the G1 comes with 2GB and a T7200, so you should be fine).. Check the G1 reviews floating around the forums.

Here's another interesting tidbit that I got from the Asus forums:

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/127306

It says "Nvidia Geforce 8400 128 MB VRAM", but then it also says near the bottom "TurboCache Supported to Max 896 MB." So ... that's 128 dedicated, 768 shared. Somehow that doesn't seem possible to me.

 

I heard the G1 was supposed to be upgrated to have the 8600 done how many MB it has though, but I was gonna wait till I could get it with Santa Rosa and the 8600 and the only game I will probably play is BF 2142 so I jus want to make sure it will run good.

 

The new Go8600 version of the G1 should run BF 2142 very well indeed.

 

How many megabytes of memory its GPU has is generally irrelevant. Rest assured it will have 256MB or more.

 

Good choise Noahb, same thing I am going to do. I really want a DirectX 10 notebook, especially for Crysis, UT2007 and Supreme Commander (DX 10 patch is soon to come).

 

Can any1 gimme some benches of their 7700go? because I recently overclocked my x1700 [486 core/940 (ddr)mem] and want to see if it is up to par yet with the 7700 thanks.

 

You can see the 3DMark table in my siggy.
It's a sticky too.

 

which is better ? 6800 go , 7300 go or 7400 go ?

 

The 6800 is old, but it ain't a slacker. The 7400 is still weaker then the older 6600.

 

6800 is considered high-end since it has a 256-bit memory interface.

the others are just mid to low-end (w/ 128-bit mem interfaces)

 

Go 6800 is old (two generations behind), but it still has a lot of power, comparable to a Geforce Go 7600.

 

Sorry - title is wrong - not the 7400, the 7300 GS!!

I'm looking to buy a new laptop, and the Dell 6400 seems like a tough value to beat. The only video cards offered are the x1400 and the geforce go 7300 GS. They are very similar in price, the 7300 being slightly more.
I don't do a lot of gaming, however I do like flight simulator. My current dell laptop is about 3 years old (Inspiron 8000?). I think it has a 128MB ati card in it, honestly not sure, but it runs FS2004 fine, but I tried the new Flight Simulator X, and it was horrible, unplayable.

Will either of these cards on the 6400 run the new flight simulator?
Are there other laptops around the same price range (under 2K) that have better cards? The dell laptop is also a little.....boring...to look at...

Thanks!

 

Hello and welcome to the forums
If you are talking about DELL Inspiron 6400, it's either 7300 or X1400 and 7300 is weaker while costing more.
You can get ASUS G1 which has 7700 (twice as powerful as X1400) and G1 has a great value for money.You can also consider E1705 (if you want to go for a 17") which is at least four times as powerful.
(You can see the 3DMark Table in the stickies)
But it'll be the best if you fill the FAQ and post it in the "What notebook should I buy section".

 

That's some pretty nasty marketing by Dell, because the Radeon X1400 is actually much more powerful than the Geforce 7300. Even in a Radeon X1400 to Geforce 7400 comparison, the X1400 still comes out slightly ahead.

Go with the X1400. The new Flight Simulator is pretty demanding, but the X1400 will be able to handle it at low-medium settings with anti-aliasing off.

Dell's marketing schemes get a chuckle from me.

 

That Asus G1 looks nice! But it may push my budget a bit. The only thing it is really missing from what I was looking at on a dell was the 'n' wireless.

With all the 3d scores for graphic cards........it seems like every time a new card comes out, it is like 50% + better than the last card. Are these differences exagerated, in terms of what someone will notice in real world use???
I mean, if I'm using flight simulator, is the difference between a x1400 card and the geforce 7700 card that mind blowing??

 

As I said the 7700 is at least twice as powerful as X1400 and it's really the GPU which limits the performance in gaming [we call this "bottleneck"].
As for the wireless, it's not the final N version.It's the draft version and you can use express card or upgrade the network card when N-Wireless becomes popular.

 

FSX is a very graphics intensive game. Trust me, you'll need a Go7600 or higher, at the very least.

 

Don't worry. The "N" wireless is coming out standard with Santa Rosa laptops, being released May 9th. Asus is refreshing their main lineup, including the G1, to be done probably by the end of May, and at the latest by June. The new G1's will have the Santa Rosa platform 802.11a/b/g/n wireless, as well as the Geforce Go 8600GT. If you can wait for your next laptop, you may want to consider a Santa Rosa G1. You might also want to do some shopping around when June rolls around, when all the major companies have new Santa Rosa lineups out. Some companies may make entirely new laptops, like the Thinkpad T61, while other companies like Asus might only refresh certain lineups.

As mujtaba said, the difference between a Geforce Go 7700 and a Radeon X1400 is enormous. The Go 7700 is over twice as powerful, and as the graphics card is the bottleneck in nearly all gaming, having a better graphics card means you'll be able to run the game faster and with more "eye candy" enabled.

 

FSX needs a very good cpu and gpu to play smoothly, trust me, I know.

 

Im searching for a laptop that would have good dedicated graphics and for my budget (around £650~$1300) i found that these two graphics cards are the best i can get for my budget. But i would like to know which is best for playing games.

ATI Radeon X2300 supporting 512MB HyperMemory
or
NVidia GeForce Go7300 supporting 256MB TurboCache

I will probably be running on Windows Vista Home Premium

 

I'm pretty sure the Mobility Radeon X1300 performs a bit better than the Go 7300 and since the MR X2300 is just a renamed X1300 (ATI considers the "2" to be more Vista friendly), the X2300 would be the better choice.

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

according to this the x1300 isnt as good as the 7300 GO

 

Well, for low end GPUs the real life benches should be taken into account too, because 3DMark is not designed for them.

 

The x2300 is the better choice, it's a newer graphics card which performs better in gaming than either the x1300 or the Go7300.

 

Have you checked out the Asus A8Jp? It comes with an X1700 graphics card, which is more than twice as powerful as the X2300, and can be found in the states for $1300.

 

in fact what is this x2300 card comparable to ?

 

You can see the 3DMark table for that purpose.

 

It's in between the X1300 and X1400 (or for Nvidia, Go 7300 and Go 7400). The X2300 is just a refreshed version of the X1300 core.

 

I added the MR X2300 to the list, it fits above the MR X1300/1350.

 

Thats £100~$200 more than i can afford

 

Where? It's no longer at newegg, and as far as I know it's never been available anywhere else (new, at least) in the states. If you have some other information about it, I'd like to know, otherwise I wish people would stop suggesting it.

 

Well, it seems to have been replaced by F3Jp.

 

At newegg, at least, I think they decided to replace it with the A8Jm, which is odd since the 'm' is an older version of the A8j series (it won't even support Merom processors). The F3jp was always there, though they have added a lower end F3jt with a AMD processor, as well as picking up the new A8jr, of course. I just hope Asus releases a successor to the A8jp which is similarly priced in their DX10 lineup. Rumor has it they'll be a 14.1" DX10 version of the G1, though I imagine that'll be even more expensive than the A8js.

 

The A8Js is less expensive than G1, how much does it cost in the place where you live?

 

How come X2300 isnt Directx10 compatiable when its meant 2 b vista friendly? Does this mean i wouldnt b able 2 play Halo 2 on it?

 

It's a revised version of X1300, it is [EDIT : not - sorry for the typo] an R600 or DX10 GPU.Take a look at the 3DMark table for more info.

 

and does anyone know how the 7300 Go compares to the 7300 GS and GT 4 PCs?

 

The 7300GT on a desktop is probably about as fast as a Go7600 in a notebook. While the desktop 7300 and the notebook Go7300 share the same name, their respective performances are quite different.

 

The desktop 7300GT has GDDR3 memory, which makes a huge difference when you're talking about memory bandwidths. The 7300GT can handle higher memory loads. It has similar pixel pipelines to a Go 7600 (eight). All of the mobile Nvidia cards have GDDR2 memory.

 

I live in the U.S., where the two are roughly the same price right now. (Sure you can get an A8Js for $1500 on newegg.com, but if you outfit it with everything that comes with the G1, the costs are about the same)

The x2300 is not DX10 compatible.

 

OH SORRY.
I meant to say "it is not an R600 or DX10 GPU" [sorry for the typo I was half asleep when I typed those]

 

will graphics cards that arent directx10 compatiable be able 2 play halo2 (directx10 games) or will they play badly?