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

No. The native resolution of the display is 1600x1200 and the computer was able to do this. The problem is that the display isn't very sharp and there is a strange effect on white backgrounds that I can't really describe.

If I connect the same LCD to some random desktop computer it looks fine. I haven't tried connecting it to other notebooks.

This made me think - when I buy my next notebook I'd better be careful and make sure it has a good quality external display capability.

 

Hmm. That's odd. Is this in dual display mode, or single display mode?
(And I assume you have the most recent drivers and everything.)

 

Dual-mode. I use both simultaneously. I didn't think of trying it in single mode. I was assuming that this is an old computer (Inspiron 6000) and that I was reaching the edge of its capabilities.

 

Yeah, that's probably your problem. The GMA950 (and below) were known to have problems running high res externals in dual mode. If you have time sometime, do you mind trying to run it as the only display, and see if that improves anything?

However, back to your original question, virtually every dedicated graphics card on the market today should do fine at driving an external LCD like that.

 

I'm sorry if this question has been asked but i do not feel like sifting through this massive thread for it. I am upgrading from a Go 7600 to an 8600GT with DDR2 memory...the rest of my new system is almost identical to the one before it so the only difference is the graphics cards...how much of an improvement will I see over the 7600 performance? note that i have the DDR2 version of the 8600GT...

thanks

 

In gaming, you should see approximately a 40-50% performance boost.

 

are you SERIOUS?? My god I didn't realize I was improving my gaming ability that much...jesus if what you claim is true than I wont even care that I only have the DDR2 version...

 

Yeah there isn't a great difference between the DDR2 and 3 and the current time. Its been debated and it seems the ddr3 version gives you about 10-15 fps better than the ddr2. You'll get a great gaming experience from either of them so there is defiantley not anything to worry about a the moment. I'm not sure about the future however... The only notebooks with the ddr3 version currently are the Asus G1S and Macbook Pros I'm pretty sure. I personally will be ordering an Inspiron 1520 fairly soon and don't at all mind getting the DDR2 version of the 8600m GT.

to sum it all up you're perfectly fine

 

OK, I tried running it (the external) as the only display. To me surprise, the picture is still poor.

For the record, here is some detailed info about my graphics device:

Report Date: 08/13/2007
Report Time[hr:mm:ss]: 11:53:54
Driver Version: 6.14.10.4410
Operating System: Windows XP* Home Edition, Service Pack 2 (5.1.2600)
Default Language: English
DirectX* Version: 9.0
Physical Memory: 1015 MB
Minimum Graphics Memory: 8 MB
Maximum Graphics Memory: 128 MB
Graphics Memory in Use: 28 MB
Processor: x86 family 6 Model 13 Stepping 8
Processor Speed: 1595 MHZ
Vendor ID: 8086
Device ID: 2592
Device Revision: 03


* Accelerator Information *

Accelerator in Use: Mobile Intel(R) 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Chipset Family
Video BIOS: 1219
Current Graphics Mode: 1680 by 1050 True Color (60 Hz)

 

Does anyone have comparisons between these two cards? I think the 8600m gt will dominate the go 6800 ultra in the newest games, but what about older games that are in line with 3dMark05? I remember scoring over a 5000 in 3dMark05 with an XPS M170 with a 2.0ghz Pentium M and the go 6800 ultra.

 

8600M GT is faster than the go6800 ultra, though the 6800 dose have a 256-bit bus compared to the 128-bit bus in the 8600mGT....and not to mention that the 6800 ultra is a High-end DTR card from TWO generations ago, while the 8600mGT is a mid-range card from the current generation...
i am not sure about older games, but newer ones will definately run better/faster

 

where does intel x3100 fit in on the big chart?

 

Ok i just saw that the 8600m GT had a 3dMark05 score of over 6000 compared to the 6800 ultra's 5000, so the 8600m GT should beat the ultra in just about everything.

 

yup, thats true

 

comparing the memory bus width in the 8600gt and the 6800 is like comparing a 2.2ghz C2D and a 3.8ghz P4. it has nothing to do with performance. its all about internal architecture.

 

In terms of it's hardware, I'd say it's probably around the Go6200. However, currently it only has pre-beta drivers, so it's anyone's guess how it will work out when the final drivers mature.

 

Okey, i have a really quck question, and i dont have the energy today to write a long post so...

Wich card is the better one? People say the x1800 are worse than the 7900gs and that the 8600gt is not far from 7900gs.

Still, the GPU F.A.Q says that the x1800 is better than the 8600gt,

Im confused.

Sorry if my english is pretty bad, but i hope you understand what i mean. I haven't spoken it for a while...

=)

 

I hate to make a VS thread, but I couldn't find what I was looking for. I would like to know which one of these cards would perform better in real life and by how much? 3D Mark scores would also be nice, especially for the 8400m GT. Thanks

 

Your English is fine. I'm not sure which one performs better, but If I were choosing between two different laptops I would probably go with the one with the 8600m GT because of it's DX10 capabilities.

 

Both of these were in the sticky: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568 and http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=99051

 

I would say there are very similar in terms of power. For modern games and those coming out in the near future, the 8600 is going to have the advantage though, but the x1800 wont be far behind.

 

The 7700 is a more powerful card, but the 8400 is DX10.

 

Do you think the 8400m GT could even use DX10 with playable FPS? And I have yet to find a 8400m GT benchmark...

 

i dunno in 3d marks the 8600gt performs better but in games i would say that they are pretty close if not the x1800 probably slightly better than it...you need to look at benchmark of games for the 8600gt and stack it up against the x1800...

 

Probably not, http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

 

Thanks, thats helpful

 

now don't bash me if I am wrong, but I have heard the X1800 will only fit into 17" notebook and those larger. If this is in fact a true statement, then I don't understand the comparison between the X1800 and the 8600GT. Yes, the 8600GT can be found in the 17' notebooks, but why would you get a video card in a 17" that can be found in 14" and 15" notebooks. (this might be a bad analagy, but it would be like buying a full sized truck and having a 4 cylinder engine running it)

My point being... the 8600GT is even stated as being middle class/(bottom) performance class card. which is why they are rather nice for a 15" or smaller since you get good power and portability. If you need the raw power (which I always assume that 17" and larger are mainly just for power as they are desktop replacements) then youd should stick with the larger more powerful cards like the 8700GT(although I dont personally recommend the 8700GT since it's really a 8600GT with more speed) or the 7900 and above. Or you could just wait for the 8800 to hit the mobile scene and I am sure it will be a good contender for the top spot.

All in all I couldn't tell you which of these cards is better in real world settings, but as far as benchmarks go. The 8600GT runs tests are better rates than the X1800. Now don't forget that the 8000 series is also still fairly new and the drivers have not been full matured. dx10 is also very new and just like with all new hardware with new software capabilities, they will tend to run slower and often times not to everyones expectations. We can always hope that the next line of cards (9000 series) will be better suit our expectations.

Sorry if I ranted a bit....

 

yes i would say go with the 8600gt. yes i am a hardcore ATI fanboy, but the 8600 does have more features and is much more future proof. im so assamed. ROFL

 

Hey my system: Sempron 3100+, 1.5GB DDR400, GF 8600GT XXX

scores the exact same score (3500) as the 8700M GT with a T7500 and 2GB of RAM

What's wrong?

 

Are you talking about 3dmark06? If so, then the 8700M-GT scores over 4200 with the T7500, I believe.

 

Ok, that's better now. I wonder wich one was used to get 3500 though...

 

Thanks for catching that; I put it above ATI's integrated cards but below the Go6200. With the beta drivers the X3100 is an impressive performer and when more drivers come out its performance will probably be even better.

 

hey ppl i jus got a xps m1710 (for a temporary basis) and just wanted to ask a simple question?

what are the best drivers currently available and stable for the go 7950gtx both for vista and xp?

thanks

Sunny

 

It really depends on the application. Some drivers work better with some games, some with others, some drivers are perform better when overclocking, while others give better performance at stock clocks. Overall, I would try these for Vista 32-bit and these for XP.

 

thanks i wont be overclocking it but im thinking of drivers that are best for games...so would u still recommend this two? (p.s. will try them out)

thanks

 

thanks chaz

after searching the forum for a while someone has answered my X1450 problem, sadly to say i am kinda angry at my video card now but i am glad i know its place >.<

Question

why is the X700 better then the X1400 ?

 

Thanks for the up to date chart Chaz. It was a perfect reference for me to see how the 8600GS and GT stack up.

 

a question, I seen a toshiba model with ATI's HD X2400, but well its not in the lineup so i guess its a rather new gpu? if so any benchmarks for comparison or a rough estimate where it would slot into? The model can be found here:
http://www.xavurs.com/images/web31Aug07/Toshiba01s.jpg
Its the Toshiba M200 P430.

Thanks

 

It's the direct competitor to the 8400m GS, should perform similarly.

 

oic. ok tks then that model is worth a 2nd look, esp if its a toshiba.

 

Is there any information on the ATi's HD 2300 card? It's not in the chart.

 

It's similar to the x2300, but with added HD video support and some other added features. It's still a DX9 card, I believe with similar performance to the x1400 and the Go7400.

 

hey,

Will a Nvidia GeForce 8400M-GS with 128Mb run GRAW2 and COD2?

Thanx.

 

Yes. You'll have to turn settings and/or resolution down though.

 

Thanx. How about the ATI HD2600 with 256Mb?

 

It will be approximately twice as fast as the 8400M-GS, so figure that it can run all current games at medium settings/resolutions.

 

whenever I run the windows performance index test my gaming graphics get a 5.1 but my Aero graphics only gets a 4.4. Whats the deal?? If the game graphics are so high how can the Aero graphics be rated so low? Im confused. If it wasnt for that 4.4 I'd have a final score of 4.8

 

The Windows Experience Index is possibly one of the worst benchmarks ever devised. Pay no attention to it.

 

Don't worry about that score, it's nothing.

 

Hello!
My first post here from Sweden
Well i am thinking about getting myself a new lap-top. I am considering 2 different mod of HP.

The first is the HP NX 9420 - Graphic card ATI X1600

The second is the HP Pavilion DV 9540 - Graphic card Geforce 8400M (Donth know if this model is only "M" or "M GT" , have not found info on this)

I am not a heavy gamer but would like to have the abillity to play new games on low to medium settings preferbly.

ARe those two cards in the same leage? I know its not only the graphic cards that matters but the CPU too and so on.

I would like to ask the experts here on what computer you would choose on the two i did mention abowe.

Thanks in advance

Robby