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

Can anyone give me a comparison between the x1400 and the nVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M?

 

Unless a card is DirectX 10 then it cannot process DirectX 10 code, there's no way around that. I would guess that Halo 2 for PC will have a DirectX 9 mode because virtually no one has a DirectX 10 video card.

 

A short note about DirectX 10 graphics cards - I won't be updating this chart until I have a good set of solid benchmarks for each of the new card (Nvidia 8-series Mobile, ATI HD cards).

 

Same here
EDIT : At least I'm going to wait for some sites who are kind enough to post 3DMark05 scores [not only 3DMark06 scores] after cleaning the rigs and using stable drivers.

 

They're not from the same generation, first of all. I'm quite sure the NVS 140M is a DX10 card that's based off the Geforce 8400M core, which means that it is faster than an X1400. We don't have real benchmarks, though, so I can't give you exact numbers.

 

There actually are some benchmarks of the NVS 140m in the Thinkpad T61. I can't find the link right now, but I believe PCMag had the numbers in their review. The NVS 140m was about twice as powerful in 3dmark06 as the x1400.

 

PCMag review (T61 with NVS140):
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2127468,00.asp
3DMark06 score is similar to GF7600 & ATI X1600

 

Will it be a new thread, because I just noticed that this one is no longer stickied at the top. In a few days it may end up buried, and a good amount of info still exists about the current cards here.




Mike

 

I don't think so.
It's just the fact that the drivers that the laptops are being reviewed with are not somewhat finalized.
Plus, while the synthetic benchmarks are a good measure, they are not sometimes are not accurate at comparing the GPUs [the integrated GPUs are a living example].And since the GeForce 8000M series use a new architecture, the correctness synthetic benches should be established.

 

BTW I forgot to write that in PCMag T61 review
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2127468,00.asp
thre are bechmak not only for QuadroNVS 140 but also ATI X2300, X2600 and intel GMA-X3100
(and GMA-X3100 is slightly better than ATI X1250 in that benchmark)

 

The GMA X3100 should see a noticeable performance gain when there is proper driver support.

 

I know that x1700 is better, but how much better? Sure there are always benchmarks, but lets say for a game like medievil II: total war or oblivion, how much of a difference will it be between those GPUs. Is low setting really that much worse than high settings?

 

I suggest you get the x1700. I own the x1400 and at times frame rates get really choppy when I play Age of Empires 3 on lowest settings and Medieval 2 is even more power hungry than Age of Empires 3.

 

Take a look at the stickied post at the top of the page.

 

I have taken a look at the sticky, the benchmarks, the "what type are you?" thing. But I am unsure as to which option I am. But just reading about benchmarks and low high settings doesn't really help you "see" the game. How big is the difference between performance, Do the change in settings really affect the game that much? etc

 

the x1400 is a joke compared to the x1700. thats comparing a low end mobile gpu to an almost high end mobile gpu. there is no debate which one u should get, unless price is a concern. and as far as settings, yes low settings look so much worse than high settings. in oblivion u wouldnt believe the difference from medium to high. now just think of the jump from low to high. oh and i wanna say that MTW 2 is more stressful on ur overall system, rather than just ur gpu.

 

Benchmark-wise, the X1700 is over twice as powerful as the X1400.

What does that translate into in an actual game? An extra notch of settings (i.e., medium settings to high settings) with perhaps a bit of AA turned up to 4X, with 10-20 more FPS.

 

Also a jump in resolutions - the resolution can be taken up a notch or two as well with the higher-end card (perhaps without the AA - AA is a feature best left to the ultra high-end cards).

 

The x1400 will play oblivion, but to ensure that there is not choppiness, you really have to turn down the resolution (think 800x600 or possibly even lower). Or you can play at higher resolutions such as XGA, but you will notice choppiness at times, sometimes severe. I would strongly recommend getting the x1700 if you can.

 

Ok, here's my analysis for the new Nvidia cards:

- 8400M G and GS are both 64bit so they are definitely low-end and with only 3,200 fillrate they are under a 7600 (3,600 fillrate and 128bit) and we can safely assume they are a 7400 refresh !

- 8400M GT (3,600 fillrate and 19.2 GB/s bandwidth) is a 7600 refresh but cannot beat the GT version (6,000 and 19.2 Gb/s) and the 7700 (5,400 and 16 GB/s), so it is definitely a mid class card !

- 8600M GS (4,800 and 22.4 GB/s) well... kind of the same as the 8400M GT and let's say.. a 7700/7600 GT refresh !

- 8600M GT (7,600 and 22.4 GB/s) beats the 7800 (6,400 and 35.2 GB/s) at the fillrate but cannot compete with the 7800's great bandwidth ! 7800 is still a high-end card, so we can just say that could be a 7800 refresh while still being a mid range card !

 

where should the nvidia 8400m and the 8600m be?
are the High-end or medium? whould you recommend then for notebooks? for gamimg notebooks

 

There are not enough benchmarks on 8600/8400.And Chaz sorts the GPUs based on some reliable benchmarks.So the GeForce 8000M GPUs are not included ... yet.

 

i just said earlier Fore.. the 8400M G and GS versions are low-end because of the 64bit bus width and the 8400M GT and both 8600M cards, are mid range. None yet for the high-end thou... and yes, of course I would recommend any of the mids !

 

what whould you put in your notebook a go 7900 gs or a 8400m-gt? it'll be most of the time a gaming notebook and desktop replacement

 

Then you should either go for a 7900GS or a 8600GT or wait until the 8700/8800/8900 turn up.

 

what does it mean when a video card has on the tech spec that it is 256mb dedicated but has a total of 512mb?

 

Which one ?

 

a 512mb with a 256mb dedicated memory

 

a 8400m-gt maximun 512mb

 

Please read the first page in this thread about video memory

Which leads me to speculate this thread is no longer stickied as none of the newbies read this thread anyway! [evil]

 

is a no-brainer as in 256 is dedicated and the rest of 256 not !

 

256 MB is dedicated RAM. 256 MB is shared from the system RAM, for 512 total.

 

If you had to choose right now, which would you take: the 8600 or the 7950gtx?

I'm leaning towards the 7950.

 

The 7950GTX is faster, but the 8600M is DX10 compliant. Take your pick, but if you really don't care about DX10, and want the fastest graphics card possible, then the 7950GTX is for you.

Also keep in mind the 8600M can be found in 14" and 15" notebooks, whereas the 7950GTX will only be found in 17" notebooks or above.

 

exactly ! you're comparing apples with onions !
the 8600 cards will be cheaper by at least $100-200 than a 7950GTX !
but I will definitely choose a 8800M GT over a 7950GTX anytime !

 

Awesome post...I think Sony is a rip-off and checking out the graphics card on one of their £1500 laptops they have an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 and this just enforces my belief in them being a rip-off....

 

Try some Asus laptops. They're very stylish, just like Sony, except they usually have higher-end components in them, like actual performance graphics cards (cards comparable to the Geforce Go 7600 or 8600M GT) in their 14.1" and 15.4" laptops.

 

are you talking about the new FZ model ? it has a 8400M GT card for only about $1,400 - $1,500 !!!
where's the rip-off ?

 

Asus A8Js with a Geforce Go 7700 (or upcoming Asus A8Js Santa Rosa refresh with 8600M GT) for $1500

 

he he.. the guy used the expression "rip off" like Sony would ask us $2,000 or something.. for an Intel GMA card ! I am a super fan of the A8Js (you probably noticed my avatar and signature ) so we are now comparing a Vaio (!!) which is $100-$200 cheaper than an Asus with almost analogous cards (15% more for the 7700) !

 

I'm sorry LFC, I`m reading the sticky right now, nice picture

 

Based on your definitions in the first page of this thread, would you consider the 8400mGT a midrange or perfomance card...or is it still too early to know?

 

The 8400M-GT is bordering on a performance card judging by its place in the lineup. I'd classify it as a performance card because it has a 128-bit memory bus and it's in a different league than the regular 8400Ms, which have 64-bit buses.

 

hi chaz... do you know about 3d rendering being laggy in window mode?
i played GW in full mode, no probz. but window mode..... even N64 emulation. same thing there.
any idea?

ASUS Z96Js
2GHz
1GB ram
ATI X1600

 

haha.. just found out why... sorry for the post.
in window mode, ati has AA enabled to 16X... had that disabled and its fine..
sorry. ^_^

 

Well, the Windowed rendering means that the GPU must show both the things submitted by GDI+ (the thing that draws the Windows which seems to be a "bit" sluggish) and the OpenGL/DirectX code, it might be even forced to render more OpenGL/DirectX scenes (if one is open and is outside)

 

Hi all. This is all very informative!

My question is:

What games can the Ati Mobility Radeon X1400 HyperMem run?

Best,
Ilham

 

It will run any of the older Steam-based games very well (CSS, Half Life 2, etc.) It will also play games like Oblivion or FEAR at lower settings at lower resolutions (800x600). Newer games like Supreme Commander will be an extreme stretch, since the lowest resolution for SC is 1024x800. Unfortunately, I doubt the X1400 will be able to handle any upcoming games, like Crysis, Lost Planet, or Unreal Tournament 2007.

 

Right now the X1400 can handle all of the PC games out right now. As Fren accurately noted, it may choke when it comes to running the next-generation games but I still think it will be able to play them at passable settings.

 

What's the "VIA VN896 NHC 2D/3D VIDEO UP TO 224MB" graphics card? I've never heard of it. I at first assumed it was a integrated card that came with the Via processors, but I found it on a notebook with an Intel processor???