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

OK... It sounds like i will be going with the 9700m GTS due to higher shader speeds and clock speeds if I remember right

 

Higher Shader and Clock speeds don't compare to more Unified Shaders. You're talking 48 vs. 64 (if memory serves right), which is quite a difference.

 

+1 to KGann

The 8800m GTS would be concidered mid-range by desktop standards while the 9700m GTS would be a step below... not a huge one but still a noticable performance hit.

The difference between the core\shader clocks is negligable between these two cards. If the 9700m GTS was clocked as high as the 9700m GT then it might be a close call.

 

I updated the guide today with some new video cards.

Remember, I'm always open to suggestions with this guide, so please send me a private message with any you may have.

 

heyee,

i want one of the notbooks like:

the ASUS G50V ore the MSI GT627..

both notebooks are nice the MSI has a better video card.. but what processor is in the MSI is unknow by me...

the ASUS is already in de shops and i dont know how long it takes for the MSI.

i'm sorry if my English is bad...

greetz semplar

 

Both the Asus and the MSI listed above have a 9800M GS GPU. I would expect the processors in the GT627 to be the widely available Penryn.

 

I'm thinking to buy a laptop,
and see some Asus with these graphic cards.

Can anyone educate me as to which one is better?

Thanks,

 

The 9650 should be better, but if the 9650 is DDR2 and the 3650 is DDR3, I'd say too close to call

 

The 9650m Is much better than the hd3650 though the hd3650 is a pretty decent card, but I'll advice you to go with the 9650m GT.

 

If they are both DDR2 then 9650GT is better. But if the 3650 is DDR3 then it might be slightly better.

 

Which Asus models are you talking about? Amount of memory doesn't matter past 256MB.

9650M GT GDDR3 > 9650M GT GDDR2 > 3650 GDDR3 > 3650 GDDR2

 

They're both good graphics cards, but the ATI HD 3650 doesn't have the same level of performance as the nVIDIA 9600M GT. The nVIDIA 9650M GT is a slightly better performer than the 9600M GT.

It depends on how much graphics processing power you need. If you're not planning to play the newest, most demanding games, either will be more than sufficient for most other purposes.

 

If your running at WUXGA with 8xAA it will.

 

WUXGA with 8xAA doesn´t matter a lot with both of these cards and a somewhat recent game

 

Graphics cards are the only area of laptop hardware that still confuse me at times! Maybe you can enlighten me a little?

I've read in other posts that the difference between 128mb and 256mb versions of the same graphics card will have a significant difference in performance. I've seen test results that support that statement, too. Toshiba uses 128mb and 256mb versions of the ATI HD 3470 in various models, and Dell uses 128mb and 256mb versions of the nVIDIA 8400M GS also. Comparing systems with different amounts of graphics memory, but similar or identical specs otherwise, the 3DMark scores are substantially different.

What makes the difference in performance lower (or non-existent) comparing 256mb vs. 512mb vs. 1024mb versions of the same card? The ATI Radeon HD 3650 is an example- Dell Studio 17 uses the 256mb, Toshiba uses the 512mb in several models and ASUS uses the 1024mb.

What's the point in using higher than the 256mb version of the card? Just bragging rights or ?

I'll be very thankful to get a better understanding of this! I was having a discussion with someone a few days ago who was wanting an HP dv5z and asking which graphics card to choose. In both the dv5z and dv7z, the integrated HD 3200 is standard, the $100 upgrade is the 256mb HD 3450 or for $200 the 512mb HD 3450! I convinced him that the HD3450 wasn't worth even $100, not because it's a bad GPU (my Studio 15 has the HD 3450), but because the HD 3200 is THAT good! It sounds like choosing the 512mb HD 3450 would be wasting $100 in the dv5z and dv7z.

I look forward to learning more about this from you guys!

 

I'm looking at Asus N80vn with 9650 dan Asus F8va with 3650

Does anyone know if the 9650 on Asus N80vn is GDDR3 or GDDR2?

 

You can check their website, you know. Well, it should state there what it is.

 

Asus N80Vn 14.1" 9650M GT 1GB GDDR2
Asus F8Va 14.1" HD 3650 1GB GDDR2

More memory is just bragging rights. Its similar of a situation with desktop GPUs. I think HardOCP had an article with 9600 GT (desktop) w/ 512MB and 1GB and said how 1GB had no benefits because the GPU wasn't powerful enough to utilize it (unlike the HD 4870, which can utilize 1GB). I can't find the exact article but I'll look around.

edit: found it, it was with the 8800 GT

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ0Niw3LCxoZW4=

Excerpt:

1GB vs. 512MB on an 8800 GT

The big question was does having 1GB of video RAM really make a difference on a GeForce 8800 GT GPU based video card? We tested this by comparing the Palit GeForce 8800 GT Super+1GB to a reference NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT with 512MB of RAM, both of which had the exact same clock frequencies. What we found was that there basically wasn’t any gameplay differences at all. In only one game did we even detect a slight performance advantage, and that was UT3 in an SLI configuration.

The simple reason is that in some instances the GeForce 8800 GT is just not a fast enough GPU to realize the potential of 1GB of RAM. It doesn’t have the performance needed to push high settings in today’s games that will benefit with 1GB of RAM.

 

Not on these 128bits cards. Basic rule:
128bits=256MB
256bits=512MB
512bits=1GB

The HD3650 is a die shrunk HD 2600 while the 9650M GT is a die shrunk 8700M GT

1GB DDR2 is stupid if you ask because I'm 95% sure 1GB DDR2 costs more than 256MB of GDDR3, which would perform better.

 

dude.they are seriously close, you wont exactly lose if you pick one or the other. They are vastly differant and you will see better performance with the hd 3650 in some games, and visa versa.. ATI has been improving its drivers so it seems, and in games like half life 2 or cod 4, crysis, and possibly others you may see some slight advantages with the ati card. I personally owned a hd2600 gddr3 and swapped it for a 8600m gt gddr3 laptop.. and after all the reading and research it meant nothing when nearly all newer games performed better on the hd 2600.only improvements i noticed was in 3d mark and i think the grid demo..honestly forgot, but I'd go for the ati card.

 

As said before, the HD3650 GDDR3 and the 9650M GT GDD2 should be comparable with an edge to the 9650.

The 9650M GT is a bit better than the 9600M GT, and that one is the one which is on par with the HD3650 GDDR3.

So yeah, the 9650M GT would be better, but it depends on the memory type, but it also depends on what you'll be doing. You'd probably only get a noticeable FPS increase in much more demanding games as both are good mid-range cards.

 

My comment was meant in general, not for just these card, because some GPUS do use benefit from have an bigger frame buffer ( see the HD 4870 ) even with the 256-bit bus.

However on these cards I will agree with your post JCMS.

 

3Dmark stresses every aspect of a system, even if your only getting 1fps the fact that the physical video memory is there to fill will give you a higher score.

The amount of video bandwidth determines how much a gpu can output; if a game fills 512mb of memory on a card with a 128bit bus and GDDR2\3 memory then it will struggle to render all the textures\shaders etc at a playable framerate.
Some professional apps would benefit from the extra memory.


The reason the 4870 benefits from more than 512mb of memory with a 256bit bus is because it's memory is GDDR5 meaning the memory is clocked higher thus giving it a higher memory bandwidth.


The 9650 is the better card but not by a huge amount; 10-15% depending on the game.

 

Ok, my friend needs to know this quickly. I've seen many posts elsewhere, contradicting each other, so need your help.

HD 3650 with 512MB (on Sony FW290)
9600m GT with 512MB (on hp dv5t)

Which is better? Sorry, I don't know if they are ddr2 or ddr3.

 

Go with the 9600m GT DDR3. NO only because im an nVidia hore but because the 9600 GT DDr3 is a great card and should keep very cool. Look up the specs and that should answer your question.

 

Thanks, but my friend is looking at these 2 laptops. I found the 3650 is DDR3 while the 9600 is DDR2. So out of these, which is better?

 

Not a great deal between them... I'd go for the 512mb GDDR3 3650 without a second thought though.

 

Thanks Willy. Yeah I know they're not great, but he's on a budget, so can't go for anything too extreme.

 

No i mean there's not alot between them performance wise

Either will play any game on the market with similar settings.

Edit: My 1234th post

 

Hello I currently have an hp laptop with a Ati Mobility Raedon X600 128mb card and I would like to know how it compares to the intel x4500

 

Much better, but pretty behind the times in comparison to most modern dedicated cards. Possibly comparable to a Nvidia 8400 or ATI 2400.

 

Question about the 8800GT's for the XPS M1730's: I have the 8700's now, but I'm thinking of upgrading. What kind of performance boost can I expcet?

 

Add 9650m GT?

 

The X600 could be compaired to the x4500 in older games but in newer more shader intensive games i would think the X4500 would pull ahead due to the 10 shader processors present. That said, in newer games(COD4, not crysis!) you'd still be playing on low settings with either card:\

myawakenedstate: Are you talking about the 8800m GTS or the 8800m GTX?

Either would be a big improvement over the 8700m GT for gaming at higher resolutions.

 

I was just wondering if an 8600m gt would outperform my 7900gs by a significant margin. I currently only play Team Fortress 2, which my 7900 can run with some effort, but I'd like to be able to start playing my copy of Unreal Tournament 3. Can the 8600m gt handle UT3?

EDIT: UT3 is basically unplayable with all settings turned down on my 7900.

 

Their performances are similar, I believe the 8600M GT is slightly higher, and it has DX10 support.

I do not think it is a worthy upgrade, go for a 9800M GT if you want to see a large difference (or at the least a 9600/9700)

 

Yeah for an upgrade I would go for any of the following:
8700
8800
9700
9800

 

Well, I would love to get a better card, but I'm a little broke at the moment. It's not really for an upgrade per se. My 7900gs just died and I need a new laptop quickly and cheaply. I'm finding some in the $600 - $700 range with the 8600m gt. I even found an Acer 5920 for $550 that has one.

The thing is, when my 7900 was working fine the highest 3dmark05 score I could manage was 6279, and that was overclocked. The people in this thread are saying that they got scores over 8000 with the 8600m gt. I would consider that a worthy upgrade.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115506
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220393
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220389

 

It will play it. My card is like a 8600 and it plays it well

 

Problem is that 8600 has only 256 mb vram that is probably DDR2. That low amount of vram may produce a bottleneck on some games.

 

Hi all,

I have looked at the Notebook review sticky on GPUs as well as the notebookcheck.net website's GPU section. I have a fair idea now but I am still unable to decide between namely two ASUS notebooks with the above two GPUs. Specs are as follows:

1. ASUS F8vaC1 - T9400 2.53 GHz 6MB L2 cache 1066 MHz, 4 GB DDR2 1066 MHz, ATI Radeon HD 3650 - 1 GB Dedicated memory also DDR2

and

2. ASUS N80xxC1 - P8600 2.4 GHz 3MB L2 cache 1066 MHz, 4 GB DDR2 1066 MHz, NVidia 9650M GT - 1 GB Dedicated memory also DDR2

From application performance point of view, I see no big difference between the T9400 and P8600 and I also do not see the CPU and its cache size affecting decent gaming performance. Where I am unable to decide is the GPU.

Benchmarks provide mixed results. And the differences are more number of shaders (120) in the HD 3650 vs 32 shaders in the 9650M GT. However the 3D Mark results in recent years give more points to the NVidia 9650M GT. Also DX 10.1 support in HD 3650.

I would be using Vista with all its visualization effects and also gaming which is like casual - PES, FIFA 2009, Counter Strike, Quake 4, NFS and similar games, nothing heavy or hifi.

So the question comes down to ATI HD 3650 1GB DDR2 vs NVidia 9650M GT 1GB DDR2.

What do you guys suggest? The laptop with the ATI comes for $1099 after rebate and the NVidia 9650M GT ASUS one comes for $1159 (processor lower compared the first one but is NVidia card better then for the higher price, cos that's the only difference apart from the CPU).

Which card is better then?

 

9650M GT hands down.

 

9650GT is better.

 

Thanks for the quick responses. Is the gap between the two GPUs that big indeed? And so the P8600+NVidia 9650M GT much better than the T9400+ATI HD 3650 from an overall system+gaming performance point of view?

Thanks a lot guys..

 

There is a gap between the two cards yes, and the 9650m GT GDDR2 would outperform Mobility Radeon HD 3650 GDDR2 by (roughly) about 20 to 30% in games.

 

Cool. Now I only hope that the performance gap between the P8600 and T9400 is not huge. What I am optimistic about is that my current laptop has the T7500 with 2.2 GHz and 4MB L2 cache and it is quite fantastic and really fast. If the P8600 can be better than that (which I think is the case), then I'd go with the NVidia ASUS laptop Any insights if the P8600 can match up to some excellent CPU performance?

 

Performance for CPU is not really an issue. They won't be the bottleneck most of the time so you probably won't even know the difference between any of them.

 

Thanks guys.. I purchased the ASUS laptop with P8600/NVidia 9650M GT 1 GB and 4 GB RAM/320GB HDD/14 inch WXGA. got it with Live cashback for net amount $959. Great deal

 

Which is better? I know they are close, i think is ~500 points on 3dmark06.

My thoughts are:
1) 3dmark06 is pretty old now ... can still be used as comparison on newer cards like 9650?
2) Considering future games (like diablo3 and SC2, not Crysis ...), which is better in WSXGA?

Little offtopic: XPS 1530 T9300 or M50VN P9400 also considering warranty support?