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

The 3DMark is a synthetic benchmark.
While some GPUs have shown big improvements for 3DMark score, they have not performed well when it came to real life benches - the reason that I did not upgrade my chart is this too.
And there is the DX10 thingy. Once the drivers get a good update, we should start DX9 vs DX10 benchmarks to show what the point ?
There is lots to be done and almost no benches that are done on good and final drivers (AFAIK)

 

Yes mujtaba, I haven't seen enough real-life applications benchmarks (games and so on) with GF8400/8600, only synthetic

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=125246

That's the thread from Ken at GenTech. The first page might be mainly 3dmarks, but further in he has Fear, Battelfield 2 I think, and some other games. Also, somewhere in the Mac forum is a real life gaming thread for the 128mb vs 256mb 8600mGT on the MBP, if you need it.

 

I'm now starting to wonder...if the 8600GT can pull off 3dMark06 scores of 3600+...and my X1600 pulls ~2k...must resist purchasing new laptop...

 

with the new XP drivers Nvidia will give us, I am pretty sure the scores will be easily 4k+ .. so after all you will probably not resist too much

 

Ugh...I don't have the money

 

me neither! but there's always a "12 months - no interest" option so I can afford about ~$150 a month. Isn't it great to live in US ?

 

Tempting, but in my case irresponsible. I've spent about $3000-3500 in computer gear in the last year, of which about $2.5k was this laptop and the big, nice, long warranty I have on it.

 

4K+? I doubt that.

 

I don't, we've seen more drastic improvements with good drivers.

 

wait and see !

 

I'm confused about benchmarks/what's the best gpu for notebooks.

Looking at this site,
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
it would appear that the Geforce Go 7950 GTX SLI is the best gpu for notebooks.

But, how does the direct x business fit in? I see that the Geforce Go 7950 GTX SLI supports directx 9c, however there are only a few cards supporting directx 10.

What criteria do I use to evaluate what is a better gpu for notebooks?

 

i dont know if anyone mentioned this yet but...

Although IGP performance is for the most part irrelevant, they are rated below from lowest-performing to highest:
Quote:
Intel GMA900
Intel GMA950*
ATI Radeon Xpress 200M*
Nvidia GeForce Go6100/6150*
ATI Radeon Xpress 1100/1150*
ATI Radeon Xpress 1200/1250*
*Donates card is capable of running Vista Aero

"donates" is definitely not the right word. it should be "denotes"...

chaz, would you consider fixing that? its a mildly painful thing to read. im willing to call it a typo and preserve your honor if you would.

 

Fixed, thanks.

Yes, the Go7950GTX SLI setup is the fastest.

DirectX 10 enables more advanced in-game graphical effects. It's what a lot of future games will use to make games look better visually. DirectX 10 will not take hold for some time though, considering that so little people have the technology. So if you buy a DirectX 9 video card, you'll be fine for a couple of years yet. I wouldn't suggest making it a priority to get a DirectX 10 video card in your notebook right now although it would be preferable to have one.

 

Ok, the guide had a small but significant update today - the following cards were added:
Nvidia GeForce 8400M-GS, -GT, Nvidia GeForce 8600M-GS, -GT.

 

i don't wanna mess with your categorization, but the greatest differences are between the 8400 GS and GT versions (64bit vs 128bit) and between the 8600 GS and GT versions (16 vs 32 pipelines). Other than an super over clocking of 8600GS vs 8400GT , I don't see any other huge difference between these two, so they can be put in different categories.. just IMHO !

 

Yeah, are you sure the 8400mGT is slower than the Go6600? It doesn't seem like it should be, as it's two generations newer with just as much power.

 

Chaz, you might want to update some of the FAQ when you get the chance too. Specifically the one about the best cards for 15" notebooks considering that the 8600M GT is now probably the best choice for that size. Also the whole question about DX10 notebook cards could be updated.

Overall, this guide is a great read. I helped me out a ton as I started looking for a notebook and jumped into the discussions on this site. Thanks.

 

Thanks - I moved the 8400M-GT up to the performance class because it has a 128-bit memory bus.

Thanks for the compliment - I changed the FAQ question.

 

thankyou, chaz.

 

Is it time to add the X3100 yet?

 

All things considered, would you recommend the 9800 or the x1400 for a medium gamer? I'm tempted to say the x1400, but that's just me.

 

as far as I know, x3100 is an integrate graphic card, and 8400m G is a dedicate graphic card. and a dedicate graphic card should be better than an integrate graphic card...

but which handle better Vista's aero effect?

for example, W7S (8400m G) vs T61 (x3100)

W7S (8400m G, Chinese website, but we only need to understand the numbers)
http://www.beareyes.com.cn/2/lib/200706/12/20070612016_9.htm

T61 (x3100)
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3708&review=ThinkPad+T61)

my question is: in 3d mark 05, 8400m G got almost twice score than x3100 (1712 vs 911), but why 8400m G got so lowwww Windows Experience Index? (only 2.7 , and x3100 got 3.4)

 

Both the 8400m G and x3100 will handle Vista Aero effects. A Bad score is probably due to bad(poorly optimized) vista drivers which should get better over time.

In gaming the 8400m gs or gt will preform better then the x3100.

 

My X700 is still holding up well, gameplay to me though is more important than graphics Great guide Chaz, very helpful.

 

Not yet. I'll add it soon enough, don't worry. My ThinkPad X61 tablet has an X3100, it should be shipping soon . . .

I'd go for the X1400 only because it is a newer card . . . the 9800 is more powerful by a significant amount but it is definitely outdated and so are the systems it works in (AGP).

Same here. The X700 is still quite the performer, it does very well in the latest games. It's more powerful than the Go7400/X1400 and when I overclock mine, I beat some of the Go7600 (128MB/256MB) and X1600 (128MB) machines in 3DMark05.

 

The 8400M G, despite being pretty low-end, will be better than X3100, which is integrated. Any dedicated graphics card will beat an integrated card. However, both the X3100 and 8400M G will handle Aero without any problems. If you're going to be doing some light gaming, you'll want to go with the 8400M G.

 

My friend is bragging that his new 8600 will wipe the waters of my x1600 now i no it will be dx10 and do good at that but in a normal dx9 game how much better will it really be?

Btw wats that site were compare any 2 cards at a time?

 

It all depends. If his card is clocked at 500/400 like a lot of these laptops are... he won't have too much of an advantage. If it's clocked around 500/700 or 600/700, there should be a substantial advantage. He shouldn't be bragging about it though. It's really nothing to brag about, the 8600M GS. It's just a solid card, nothing too special.

 

btw... Is it a 8600M GT or GS?

 

Time to concede defeat, your 128MB version just doesnt cut it really, whether his is a 8600M GS or GT, at 256MB it will beat yours. Now you gotta buy a more powerful laptop to brag him back lol

 

lol its just he says its like comparing a x1400 to a 7900 i no his is better but its not the best thing ever maybe if he had a 8800 lol um its the gs

 

tell him that you were considering 8600 GS but since its not as good, you'd wait for a better card

 

Why will you want to compare a DX9 card and DX10 cards? The architecture is so different.

 

Both will handle Vista's Aero well. If you're gaming, go for the dedicated solution (although it was touted that X3100 can run graphical intensive games at low settings).

 

Well, because they're both on the market in modern computers right now. Since they're used for the same thing (gaming, mostly) it's very necessary to have accurate comparisons.

 

I would like to have these two cards compared, because I had a hard time finding any information about Ati X 200 whatsoever. I know GO 7600 256MB beats X 200, but I want to know by how much, so I can decide if it's worth giving some extra money for the GF.

What will the card be used for?

I don't intend to run any particularly heavy games on it. I will be satisfied if Warhammer Online can run well on my Notebook.

Can X 200 support my demands or shall I go for the GO 7600?

Additional info: My processor will be Core Duo T2350 1.86 Ghz, 1 GB DDR II Ram.

 

Warhammer Online is going to be pretty demanding (mainly because its release is far in the future). I would doubt the x200 would run it. The 7600 should.

 

There are 2 kind of x200. One with dedicated video ram and one that only uses shared memory. The dedicated card might be able to run the games you want but I dont think you will be happy with it.

Check this: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=26318&highlight=x200
should help

 

Thanks for the swift replies, I am positive that Warhammer won't be as demanding as people expect, because after all it's an MMO and they usually run on most cards, only with "not so good" graphic .

 

The Geforce 7600 is much more powerful than the Radeon X200.

 

x200 is not "not so goo" graphic, it's worse.

Basically, if you plan to do any gaming at all then every $ you spend on a better graphics solution will pay itself tenfold.

 

7600 all the way; the X200 is next to useless for gaming.

At first when I saw this thread, I thought it was another X1600 vs Go7600 thread: "Haven't they beaten this topic to death and resurrection many times already???"

 

Yes, that's why I merged it with the big comparison chart.

 

Chaz...

I noticed that you didnt include the Nvidia Quatrofx 3500 or 2500 in this list. I have a 4500fx2 on workstation at my job, as i deal with 3d graphics. I could not find any information on Nvidia's site about the differences between these two cards, as their specs are identical yet the 3500 is about 750$ more that the 2500. I also have read raging reviews about the 7950gtx, which is still a possibility also.

I was going to go with HP, but the highest they offer is the go8600 GS, which is only 128bit and 256 dedicated. I want a 256bit 512 dedicated card, so i was looking at alienware and dell.

I can spec out a precision M90 with the quatrofx 2500 and all the other goodies i need for about 2500.

When i choose the XPS, with the 7950 gtx, pretty much the same components, its 3100.

I also saw that Dell is releasing the new 1720, but it seems like although newer, the 8600m gt is not as good as the 7950gtx for performance.

any help in decifering this mess would be nice... Your 21k posts to this site make you an expert in my opinion.

thanks,

Chris
(commodore 64)

 

The Quadros and Geforce's:
1500M ~ 7800GTX/7900GS
2500M ~ 7900GTX
3500M ~ 7950GTX

 

There is other thread specific to professional graphic cards (Quadro & FireGL)
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=80145

 

subscribed to this forum b/c I'm looking into a laptop for mild gaming portable, browsing, emailing... nothing too intense.

i'm actually looking at slickdeals.net... the inspiron 6400 deal for $619 with the x1400 mobility radeon

 

I thought the Dell E1505/6400 was not offered with the X1400 anymore. But if you can get it with that and you don't want to spend a lot, then the E1505/6400 is a great choice.

 

They do. http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/inspn_6400?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&~ck=FamCustom
What's up with the other notebooks on that page though? One is listed with the x3100, so it can't be a 6400.

Edit: I see, for some reason they have the e1505, the D830, and the D520 grouped together on the Inspiron 6400 page.