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

By today's standards it is a medium performance card. It can handle most modern new games at medium settings. An 8600M GT is getting anywhere from 4500-6000 in 3dMark 06 depending on how people clock it and in which system it is in. There are several 15" laptops with the 9800M GT getting 10k in 3dMark 06.

The Nvidia 9000 series is out, and ATI just announced their 4000 series will be out near the end of the year. As is normal with computers, everything you have currently will be obsolete yesterday.

 

I'd say it was always a mid-range card, regardless of the type of vRAM. The limiting factor is the 128 bit bus. But, don't think that being a "main-stream" card, the 8600GT can't handle today's games. You can play almost every modern game on medium+ settings (except for Crysis of course), and achieve excellent frame rates.

 

What about 9650m GT 1024MB DDR2?

How does that card compare to 9600m GT 512Mb DDR3 performance-wise in games such as Mass Effect (res 1280x800 for example) and Crysis (not that I have an interest in that game specifically, but it's a good measurement)?

And would it be a good investment if 9600m GT DDR3 is not available?

I know the 9650m GT DDR2 is slightly faster than 9600m GT, but how much of that speed translates to games given it's DDR2 and not DDR3?

Also ... why did they ever put 1024Mb on 9650 when DDR2 will never be able to use it properly?
Or am I mistaken and it will be noticeable on higher res?

 

I have a question about the ATI Mobility Radeon X2300 HD that comes in the Gateway C-143XL.

It has 128MB GDDR3 memory with up to 256MB via hypermemory. How does this card compare the my current GPU; the X1400 with 128MB DDR2 memory? (system in sig)

Anyone have a GPU-Z of this card, perhaps?

 

If you look two thirds of the way down on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units
You will see a section dedicated to Mobility Radeons, where you can compare the difference.

I looked at it and there is barely a difference between the X1400 & the HD 2300. Also the 2300 is a year old technology, you'd be better served with more recent tech, such as the Radeon HD 3000 series. (HD 3450 or better)

 

Yeah, I wish Gateway would put atleast the HD3450 or HD3470 in the C series tablet.

 

I don't have game benchmarks for you, but the 9650M-GT apparently has a 256-bit memory bus, so that will definitely help it at higher resolutions and settings. It gets a 3DMark06 score that is roughly 20 - 30% higher than the 9600M-GT DDR2. So, you're looking at a performance increase with the 9650 but not much of one. I'm sorry I can't be any more specific than that due to a lack of data.

 

I was under the impression the 9650M GT has a 128bit memory bus.

 

Bumping the thread

 

You are right:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9650M-GT.10764.0.html

 

Yup ... although 'notebookcheck' is not the most reliable source of info ... still, perhaps they DID put in the correct specs.

Problem is, I don't know just how much does 9650m GT 1024MB DDR2 compare to 9600m GT 512MB DDR3

 

Don't ever worry about VRam when it's that high. Neither card can utilize 512m or 1G of VRam. (Both 128bit cards) I would still go with the 9650m, as it is still the faster card.

 

I realize the quantity of VRam is moot, still it would be nice to see a comparison between 9650m GT DDR2 and 9600m GT DDR3 in games.
For example ... would 9650m GT DDR2 be able to run Crysis in 1280x800 on high settings with playable frame-rates, or would you have to lower the detail to say ... medium?

 

Even high-end video cards have trouble playing Crysis on high with good frame-rates. Crysis still looks beautiful at medium settings, which the 9650gt/9600gt can handle.

 

yeah ... well, for now I have no desire to play Crisis (I only asked about it since it's a good measurement of how good a gpu is).
I will probably go for the Acer 5930G ... but I'm also contemplating on taking Rizeon laptop with 9650m GT (which is also 150 pounds more expensive ... so I'm still on the fence).

Yes I know the difference isn't that huge ... but time will tell.

 

Well, to be honest, Crysis is probably the worst measurement for a graphics card. The game's engine is poorly scripted, resulting in a "false" measurement. The Rizeon is definitely more expensive, but it surely has a better build quality than any Acer. Compare the other specs to help make up your mind.

 

Well, Rizeon isn't that much better aside from the fact it can come with 7200 rpm hdd (sata of course), P8400 (slightly faster than P7350) and 9650M GT (DDR2).
Ram is 3 GB ... I'd have to pay additional 40 pounds to go from 3 to 4 GB (which puts the price at about the 790 pounds range).

Given the price/tech differential (150 to 200 pounds more for Rizeon) I don't know just how much is it worth it (I would be able to pay the extra money, but I'd rather not as I am limited in my funds).
Besides, Gemstone series of Acers (5930G) have quite good build quality in comparison to their predecessors and I can spend less money on upgrading the hdd/cpu on my own down the line.


I'm gonna get to London in about a week and a half, so I still have time to make the decision.

 

Well the upgrade from 3Gb of RAM to 4GB is a complete ripoff. 40 pounds is a crazy price, not to mention you won't see a difference in performance with 3Gb of RAM and 4GB. I still don't know about Acer, they have a reputation for shoddy quality and poor customer service.

 

I know it's a ripoff ... you don't have to tell me.
Which is why I'm spending so much time searching for a deal that won't seem like a ripoff.

In any case ... what's with the 'rumors' that Nvidia 9600m GT cards are affected by the soldering problem?
Would 9650m GT cards also be affected?

Also ... how far away is the implementation of new ATI mobile gpu's in mid-range laptops?
I'm thinking about waiting even longer until the ATI's come out if Nvidia 9600m GT and 9650m GT could be affected by the soldering problem.

 

I have not heard anything about the Nvidia 9-series mobile cards being affected by the soldering/die problems. Do you have links to these rumors?

ATI will be introducing their HD 4000 series notebook cards by the end of this year:
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4635

 

Will this graphics card be able to play games like Call of Duty 4, Battlefield 2142, Ghost Recon 2, Age of Empires 3, World of Warcraft, Oblivion etc. fairly well?

How does it compare to other graphics cards like the nVidia Quadro FX770 for instance?

What is the 3DMark 06?

Thanks. I appreciate your help.

 

Look at HD 3650 DDR3 Scores, it will play all of those games smoothly around medium-high detail.

 

why a workstaion card? it is meant for Autocad and soildworks type of 3d design software. just stick with a gaming card for gaming. a mid range card like the hd 3650 will play anything new on mid-high settings

 

Well, which is better? specifically in cod 4 (dont flame about those only being able to do low settings and w/e, i know that already)


also, is it possible to OC either of them?

 

Which 9300m do mean, the 9300m g or the 9300m gs? The 9300m gs should be about 30-40% faster than the 3200m and play COD4 at low-med settings and decent resolution.

 

It's the GS model

 

Yeah it's definitely faster than the 3200. I have the ati 3470 which is about on par with the 9300m gs (maybe a bit faster) and I'm running COD 4 smoothly @ 1280x720 res on mostly low but some some medium settings so I'd except similar performance of the 9300m gs.

 

What would be the notebook equivalent of the 8800GTS I have in my desktop (if any exists on roughly the same levels)? I have the SLI GDDR3 version. Just feel like benchmarking what my desktop would be in notebook form so I can get a rough idea of where notebook GPUs stands according to desktop GPUs.

 

Is it an 8800GTS 320/640 or 512MB?

The 320/640 are probably equivalent to an 8800M-GTX. I reckon you need a 9800M-GTX to match a GTS 512.

 

Hey, between these two cards, which is better?

ATI Mobility HD3650 512mb DDR3

or

Nvidia 9600M GT 512mb DDR2

I think if what I've read is right, the 9600M GT has the edge, but will it be a noticeable difference, or are we talking just a few FPS here?

What would the 3650 be able to run CoD4 at?

 

Are these cards the same?????!!!

 

Never heard of the 9650M GT.

If it exists, the 9600M GT with GDDR3 would be much faster than the one with GDDR2. By far.

 

^I totally agree

 

if you have never heard of an m9650 then how do you know its slower then an m9600? gddr3 makes a difference, but if the cores are different then you cannot be sure.

i dont know which is faster, i think the 9650 is the successor to the 8700 though.

 

The 9650m GT is technically just a higher clocked 9600m GT; it's produced on a 55nm process and can therefore be clocked higher without the need for an increased current consumption.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9650M-GT.10764.0.html

Either card is good. If you're buying a laptop base your decision on other factors.

 

notebookcheck is an unreliable source.and i agree with the rest.but i still believe that 9600gt DDR3 is better.

 

Anything to back that up Xirurg? I think not:\

 

why does everyone say it is an unreliable source? i have heard this a thousand times on these forums, but i have never heard anyone complain about anything specific.

 

EXACTLY!!! +repped

 

I've only heard of a 9650M GT with GDDR3, not GDDR2 - it's mostly used in Zepto and Rock notebooks.

 

9650m GT GDDR2 would perform slightly better due to it's higher clock speed than 9600m GT GDDR3, but the latter would have the advantage in overclocking because it's memory allows for more bandwidth.
Ultimately though, if OC-ing would be performed on both, there is a good possibility both would most likely perform nearly identical with 9650m giving off lower temperatures because of it's smaller manufacturing process.

The 9650m GT GDDR3 would perform about 15 to 20% better than 9600m GT DDR3, consumes less power and produces less heat because it was made in 55nm process (whereas the 9600 was made in 65nm).

Although I reserve the possibility of being inaccurate in the above statements.


As for notebookcheck ... I think people are claiming it being unreliable because it's benchmarks are dubious.
Specs are about right, but everything else is to be taken with a grain of salt (at least as far as I understand it).

 

Notebookcheck's benchmarks are not normalized for comparison.

Some are performed at lower resolutions, some with higher processors on benchmarks like 3dmark06 with a 250-300 point/model bias, and odd results are not thrown out.

The data can be useful even for comparisons... but only when you throw out the extreme data points and understand the data.

 

Hey guys:

I haven't been keeping up with the newest and best video cards for laptops, and so I am just looking for some information on this topic. Here are some questions that I would like to ask you guys:

1. I see that there is a Nvidia GeForce 9800M GTX Graphics with 1GB DDR3 Video Memory card out right now. Is this the best single mobile video card thats out atm?

2. How powerful is the above card? can it handle games like Warhammer in high settings, FSX is high settings, and other future games?

3. Is going SLI really worth the extra cost?

Thanks for all of your help

 

1 and 2. The 9800M GTX can play all games from now to at least a year from now at a decent resolution with medium-high settings.

3. From a price/performance perspective, SLI and Crossfire are not worth it. You get at most a 50% boost for twice the price. If you have money to burn, go for it.

 

The 9800m GTX is the most powerful mobile graphics card solution available today. 2 of them is smoking fast. Is it worth the money? No. For one, it is but not two. If you want 2, get 2 9800gts or 2 9800gt. Around the end of this year to early next year, new graphics cards will come out and will probably be the mobile 200 series.

 

I believe the Quadro FX 3700M is currently the most powerful single laptop video card.

 

Ok i am getting a new laptop and want it to be future proof.
Money aside, the best graphics mobile cards "as I understand" are:

9800m GTX SLIed
and 3870 mobile crossfired.
Anything else will take allot of month of waiting till released???!


What is the performace difference in gaming percentage wise, because i think i am basing my whole laptop choice...whitebook vs 9262 based on the graphics performace..


I aperciate all the help..

 

"future proof" = until next year until they come up with the new 3Dmark...

h8 @ technology cuz when you think you're at the top, something else is just around the corner T_T.

 

well, if based on pure performance, we dont know yet as we dont have reliable 9800 GTX SLI benchmarks.

If it isnt based on pure performance, i would suggest the OCZ Whitebook, as it is thinner, lighter, better looking and cheaper but offers relatively the same performance at a lower heat consumption. WIN

 

two 9800gtx's will kill your wallet. stick with 1 or 2x 9800gt's or 9800gts's,
they will beat out the ATI cards. if you wait, ATI will release the 4 series graphics cards for laptops as well as nvidia releasing the new 200 series later this year or earlier next year. however, nothing is guaranteed, but everything is expected.