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

the whitebook with crossfire 3870s cost less than 2K, why not?

base 4 series and 200 series, maybe. high-end 4 series and 200 series? Don't expect them before Q4 2009.

 

Wake up! There is no "future proof" laptop.

New technology is out every month. The hardware is moving too fast. Your software or game can not catch up. You do not need "future proof".

 

I would go with either of those. Personally I'd get the ATI 3870s.

Now, that's not to say they're better than the nVidia's cards, but I just prefer ATI.

 

If you want nice looking and cool, ATi. Fast and more expensive, nVidia.

 

still, i didnt get a satisfying answer

In numbers, which one is faster and better.
I read that because Ati is supporting DX10.1 it might be better???
I think the 9800m GTX sli should be like at least 10-15% faster other wise i am going with ATI crossfire.
Last, the whitebook is a mobile proccessor and the 9262 is a desktop cpu. how this affects game running i am not sure... I am pretty certain the gpu is more important.

I cant wait for nvidia's 200 series or the ati 4000 series unless they are redicously close, one year is too far. and then they will only be like 10 % faster and 100% more expensive ..lol

i have an inspiron 9100 Dell with a 9700 128mb at and a desktop processor... man it can go hot!!! yet i dont think it is running games smoothly any more. Oblivion runs ok, and Call of duty 2 . i am impressed with the ayi 9700.... i wonder how these new notebooks will compare to my inspiron 9100..... Heat is a problem although i am not sure it caused by radeon 9700 or the cpu, probably both

 

Anything you get now will probably run cooler than the 9100. Especially if it uses a mobility processor over the desktop version.

 

Sorry to bump, but does anyone have an answer cos I'm hoping to order tomorrow.

Thanks

 

Either will give you a similar performance. I'd go for the HD3650 with the 512 GDDR3 as, in my opinion, it should give a more concistant performance and, if you're interested, "should"(every chip is different) overclock better.
But you should probably base your decision on other factors.

 

I know that 9800 M is better but just wanted to know by how much?
Is there a slight difference or a drastic difference like 8700M GT and 8800M GTX?

 

The 8800M GTX is the same as the 9800M GT. So that means the 9800M GTX can have a performance lead of 5-10% over the 8800M GTX. Not sure about the SLI versions though I feel that 9800M GTX SLI is very pricey which doesn't justify its performance lead over the 8800M GTX SLI or 9800M GT SLI.

 

It's pretty pretty big ;D

Have an 8800m GTX SLI rig I can benchmark against?

 

a single 9800M GTX should perform better than a 8800M GTX by about 10%.

in SLI... there would be about 15-18% difference... depending on drivers and tweaks.

as for the 8700M GT, its a mid-range card with a 128-bit memory interface.

a single 8800M GTX (with a 256-bit mem interface) will easily perform about twice better than the 8700M GT.

Please refer to the GPU Guide.

 

Wouldn't you say that SLI scaling improves with each generation?

 

I don't believe it has to, but it can.

 

but it sometimes have worse scaling

 

This is possible too. No need to generalize. Let's just judge individually.

 

You can't go wrong with the HD 3650 or the 9600, though I'd probably go with the HD 3650 since as noted with the GDDR3 memory it will be a better overclocker. At stock speeds, the cards are going to give similar performance.

 

Thanks for the answers, I appreciate it.

 

We can easily find 8800M GTX
But I dont see a option to have 9800M GTX in dell.
Is there any news that its coming on dell?

 

Good lord, this thread is massive. And rightfully so.

 

Dell is not going to have the 9800m GTX for quite some time. Maybe even a year.

 

Awesome work !!

Thanks

 

I think you need to add 9800m GS to high end cards

it gets min 8000+ on 3dmark06 on a 15.6 lappy

check: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=311122&page=11

 

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Edit: The results are invalid since that poster is running 3DMark06 at a biased low resolution . . . it should be run at 1280x1024.

Edit2: found results for the proper 1280x1024 resolution:

Quite the card for a 15.4" notebook. If you have a link to 3DMVantage results, I'd be interested in seeing those as well.

Does anyone have a GPU-Z screenshot of the 9800M-GS?

 

i saw this computer and wonder if the ati card were any good.

http://www.rkcomputer.net/rkcnotebooks/index.php?l=product_detail&p=95

 

It's a pretty recent release. If you want up to date info from the ones who got it, go here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1057

 

Curse you! I was about to send him that link!

So far, those dual ATIs seem pretty darn good, especially when you consider how much cheaper they are than nVidia's counterpart.

 

Could someone tell me, why laptop with 9700 card is pretty more expensive than that with 9600?

n00b

 

In lamens terms...9700m make game go faster. To be more specific the 9700m gt has higher clocks on the shaders memory and core. Actual difference between the 9600m gt and the 9700m gt isn't enough for someone to notice who is on a budget.

 

8700 > 9600 DDR3
9700 > 8700
9700 >> 9600

k?

 

9700 is clocked higher, (esppecially the shaders) usually ships in better cooling, probably gets more voltage(?), and is designed to maintain those higher clocks at lower temps.

Odds are the 9700s are picked out as the best of the batch and placed in better conditions so they can reach higher clocks.

The two GPUs are based on the same chip, but are not the same much in the same way the 8600 and 8700 were not the same.

The 8700 always maintained higher clocks and lower temps than its 8600 counterparts.

 

100M GTs - lol!

 

LOL!
simple put, it gets about 10-15% better framerates.

 

can someone tell the difference between the 9700gt and 9800gt for laptops

 

check it here:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_m_series.html

 

9800 GT spanks the 9700 GT

 

9700M GT is limited by it's 128bit interface, it is the best of the mid-range cards though.

The 9800M GT has a 256bit interface (like a desktop card), which means you will be playing games as advertised at 1280*800-1680*1080 maxed out. It's a high end card.

 

Night and day.

 

icon007, read the stickies before you post. Your threads have been merged into the stickies they should have been in the first place.

 

Hi all,

I was wandering how much difference for gaming between:

Vaio Z with 9300 GS VS Apple MacBook with 9400?

Thxs in advance.

 

What games do you hope to play, 9400 is low end discrete, and 9300 is integrated if im not mistaken.

 

How bout Assassin Creed? Which of these 2 laptops performs better?

 

As far as I know, 9400 is slightly better. But I'm not sure how it performs in Assassin Creed, since it is very hardware intensive game.

 

They both score around 2200 in 3dMark 06.

(Assuming you mean the Vaio Z with 256MB)

 

the 9400 will be better for games without a doubt, but neither will perform well at all...

 

Thxs all for the reply. Really appreciate it. XD

 

Great guide, I'll have to add a link to this in my guide
+rep (well, you're the lead moderator, I suppose you have as much rep as you want )

 

thanks guys, now i can narrow down what i want.

 

Ok, I have a question.
Between the 9600m GT & the 8600m GT, which is better for games?
The 9600m GT is 512mb, while the 8600m GT is 256mb.
I've heard people say they're about the same, but I would like your opinions. Because I'm deciding between an XPS m1530 or an hp dv5t.

Also, will these cards be able to play games such as Oblivion or Assassin's Creed? If so, at which settings?

Thanks.

 

i played assassins creed at almost max settings, just 2/3 shadows.

dx9, dx10 runs really bad and there isnt much of a graphical diff.