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

Agreed, the 9650M-GT is faster. Not significantly slow, but it's definitely faster.

 

what is better? and by how much?
9600m GT ddr2, 9600m GT ddr3, 9650m GT ddr2?

 

So I'm looking at two options here: the Gateway M6862 or a customized HP DV5T. The processor and main system RAM are incredibly similar with the only major difference being the graphics card. The HP comes with an nVidia GeForce 9600M GT with 512 MB of DDR2 VRAM, while the Gateway comes with an ATI Radeon HD2600 with 512 MB of GDDR3. The benchmarks over at NotebookCheck show the 9600 as having better performance, but they seem to indicate these numbers are from a card equipped with GDDR3 memory and that using DDR2 would result in a significant performance drop.

So would the ATI card be better if it indeed does have the GDDR3 VRAM vs. the nVidia's DDR2?

 

No the 9600m GT is better, not that the GDDR3 HD2600 won't perform well in new games also.

 

All I needed to know. Thanks!

 

I want to buy a laptop to play GTA 4 .I find one but not sure it can run GTA 4 on it.
The biggest question is about Graphics Card . DELL Studio 1735 T5750 has a
ATI Radeon HD 3650 512MB Graphics Card but when i was looking from here these Graphics Cards i wasn't so sure any more that this laptop can run GTA 4. Can it run GTA 4 ?

 

i know these 2 cards are ranked in the same category according to the gpu guide, and the ati 3470 is listed as slightly higher, so i expect them to be similar. but what i really want to find out in this comparison is, does it matter for the purposes of gaming that the geforce only has 128 MB whereas the ati has 256 MB? the games i'm looking to play are very demanding games, but i only want to play them at minimum settings. they include: Crysis, Assassin's Creed, Unreal Tournament 3, FEAR, Gears of War. please note that i only need to be able to run them at minimum settings and resolution, as long as the fps is non laggy. i don't care even if i can't put the settings at medium, as long as it runs smoothly. all feedback would be greatly appreciated! on a side note, the 9300m gs doesn't have that nvidia manufacturing defect does it?

 

As far as I'm aware, the both the 9300M and the 3470 are limited by their 64-bit bus width, so they can only fully utilize 128MB - the extra 128MB offered by the 3470 is virtually superfluous. The 9300M GS should not affected by the problems that some 8000 series NVIDIA cores had with overheating, but it is a rebranded 8400M GS, so I'm not sure.

 

As dadadoom stated, both are 64-bit bus so they can't use more than 128mb of VRAM. The 9300M GS is not widespreadedly affected by the Nivida overheating issue as far as I know(the main contenders were the 8600M GT)

I'm not sure about the 9300M GS, but there was a thread i the Sony subforum about the gaming capacities of the HD3470 and it seems it can run quite a few games at minimal settings.

Here's the thread: Click me

According to that, UT3 runs somewhat well(30 FPS) at lower settings while Crysis is marginally playable(at 20FPS lowest settings).

I suggest upgrading to a higher powered card if you want to play high demanding games. Lower edge cards barely handle the game, let alone play it smoothly(even at lower settings).

 

i dont know if this has been mentioned, but where is the 9200M GS?

 

9600 GT DDR2 vs 9650GT DDR3
would the difference be big?

 

Not huge but the 9650m GT GDDR3 is the better choice;
GDDR3 Vs. GDDR2 = Higher memory bandwidth
55nm vs 65nm = higher clocks at the same current consumption

 

I'd also like to add:
55nm vs 65nm = less heat

 

I didn't include that because while that's technically true, it's a minor factor in how hot the gpu will actually run.

 

Which one is better and why?

256MB NVIDIA GeForce Go 7900 GS vs. 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 9200M GS

Thanks

 

The 7900GS is better (by quite a large margin).

Both are dedicated cards, and although the 9200M GS is newer it has slower clocks and a much smaller bus-width. We're basically comparing high-ish end of 2 generations ago with low end of the current gen.

Don't let the RAM fool you, most of the 512MB is probably shared, and couldn't even be effectively used if all it were dedicated

 

7900gs.
it has a more powerful core and faster v memory (512 is most definitely ddr2).

 

9200m gs is not really 2 gen ahead. it's based on g86.
it's actually clocked higher than 7900, but it makes no sense comparing them when they have very different cores.

 

Isn't the 7900 a 256bit card?

 

My 7900GS is the equivalent of a 8600m GT which means that it's totally awesome.

 

A 7900gs will win easily over the 9200gs. a 7900gs was made to game on back when it was made, and it still kicks in pretty well on next gen games.

 

Don't look at the entire number and think that 7900 < 9200.
The first digit of a GeForce card number is its generation. In this case, 7th vs. 9th.
The second and third digits are the crucial ones - they tell you how powerful the card is. In this case, 90 > 20.
And then there's the suffixes, which just confuse things further.
In conclusion, the Go 7900 GS is far better.

 

7900gs. If you're lucky you can flash the bios and raise the clocks to make it even faster. I did this on my daughters E1705 with help from NBR forums and couldn't be happier.

 

If you want gaming performance the 7900 wins, hands down.
9200 is for light gaming and will be cooler and more energy efficient.
Personal pref.

Manic

 

Looks like the BB one is a different SQU and has different specs - note the ugly monitor specs.

 

no it doesn't

 

Nice Chaz!! Very useful info. I can use this info. to buy a laptop in this Summer!:ati: :nvidia:

 

hello there
i wonder if u can help , i will buy a new laptop in the next few days and i want to know if the graphic card 9600m gt alot better than 9200 gs , or just a little better plz compare them, (give points from 10 each)

 

its alot better, id give a 9200gs a 2.5/10 and a 9600gt an 8/10

but ... if you are not going to do any games (or play old games), the 9200gs is the way to go.

 

beige.I have a 9600m GT and believe me when i say you get more than what u expect out of it. but relistically speaking this is how the grading goes.
9200mgs=4>9600m GT=8.75>9800GT=9.25>9800GTX=9.99. those are the figures u make up your mind.
Best of Luck!

 

thaaaanks alot for your reply it will realy help me make my mind
(i will play alot of games)

 

You are welcome. Feel Free to post your quiries here. We will only be too glad to help.

 

i think the 9600m gt is getting rated way too high, the high end 256bit cards can crush it by 20-30fps and at much higher settings

 

Hello !

I plan to buy a laptop to replace my Macbook because I want to play and the GMA950 is really not make to do this !

I have notice two laptops.
The MSI GX 400 with a 9600 GT M 256 Mo (GDDR3) and a HP Pavillon with a 9600 GT M 512 Mo (GDDR2).

I saw somewhere that GDDR3 increase 20% the performances of the graphic card.
But, I think that 512 Mo is not too much for some games.

So, what laptop will be faster in games ?
I think it depends of the game ...

I have also notice a Macbook Pro with a 8600 GT M 128 Mo (GDDR3) but I don't know if it is really badder than the 9600 GT in games.

Thank you and sorry for my english.

Vincent

 

Ok well GDDR3 will be better than GDDR2 as it allows more memory bandwidth and also it overclocks better I believe.

And also to note is that the 9600M GT is a 128bit bus interface GPU, which means that it can only address 256mb of VRAM so you're not losing any performance by comparing the 256mb version to the 512mb version.

There is a common misconception that more VRAM is better, but that is not always necessarily the case. If anything, VRAM doesn't matter half the time because Nvidia and ATI just stick more memory than the card can handle >.>

SO yeah, for the better performance go for the GDDR3 256mb version.

 

Also Macbook Pros now have 9600GTs if you like Apple products.

 

The 8600M GT GDDR3 should be comparable to a GDDR2 9600M GT although "only" 128mb will in this case affect the performance(since the max the 8600M GT can go is 256 I believe).

Oh and yeah, the new Macbook Pro comes with a 9600M GT.

 

Well the scale is really up to whomever puts it. Obviously if we include all GPUs then the 9600M GT scores really low considering the powerhouse GPUs of the desktop world(the most powerful notebook GPU only matches up to a lower half high end desktop card).

If we only consider laptop GPUs, it's still in the higher half of GPUs as it is probably among the more powerful 128bit interface cards and is probably the most widespread mid-range card on the market with the 8600M GT and the HD3650. I mean, there are better options, but it certainly isn't bad either lol

And if we're considering the lower half of the GPUs in notebooks then obviously the 9600M GT will score high as it is probably one of the most powerful GPUs which aren't considered "high end".

 

Thank you very much for your quickly answers !

nVidia and ATI are very ... (I don't know the word in english) to put more memory than the card can handle !!
It lost the consumer ...

The news Mackoo Pros are too expensive for me, but I know someone who sell his old MBP with a 8600 GT M.

Do you think I will regret in 6 months - 1 year (with new games) to have take the 8600 GT and not the 9600 GT ?

Thanks.

EDIT : oups, sorry, I didn't see your answer. Thank you again !
EDIT 2 : but 128 Mo is sufficient to play to GTA IV for exemple ? Because the specs required for GTA IV is a 256 Mo video card ... Is it only marketing ?

 

Well its called marketing, you'd be surprised how much companies do things like this lol .

For example Nvidia has in many cases taken one of their cards and re-branded them onto a new series so the consumer will think it's a new card and buy it, but in reality it is the same card that they already have. A good example is the notebook GPU 8800M GTX which is the same as the 9800M GT but many people believe the 9800M GT to be better since it's part of the newer 9 series.

But yeah, there will always be something better coming out. You may buy a laptop today to realize that in the next few months something else comes up. That's the technological world, progress is constant. The important thing is that what you have satisfies your needs. You don't need the have to most up-to-date stuff all the time and if you do, then perhaps a desktop is a better option since those are customizable and fully upgradeable.

Anyways, for the 8600M GT, I would personally not recommend it simply because it is less efficient than its newer counterpart(the 9600M GT) and the Nvidia G86 cores have been known to defect recently. The 128mb shouldn't affect performance hugely, but I think there would be a difference.

As for GTA 4, I heard that game is going to be really really taxing(judging from the desktop specs) so I wouldn't expect much from a notebook in that department.

 

My friend just bought a new laptop with a 2.4Ghz Core 2 w/ a Radeon 3650. Just out of curiosity, about how much more performance is he going to get over my 2600(same proc and ram type)? Just want to know of I can shut him up once it gets here or if I'm gonna have to here about it for awhile... the former would be preferable

 

yours will score in the region of 3100 at 3dmark06; his will do 3500.
In few words 3650 is an overclocked 2600-)
-3d scores taken from here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

 

yea, I dont really like notebookcheck...they dont factor in other things like proc power, ram, hdd etc. There could be many reasons for the gap they show... Besides benchmark numbers are nice guides, but I'l much rather have a concrete framerate difference for a specific game to compare by. If he gets 500 pts more but neither of us can notice a difference in-game then he cant really say anything...

 

there's around 5fps difference between the 2

 

im looking to get a new laptop the 2 im debating on have the same specs except the video card one has the 9600M GS and the other has the ATI 3470 Hybrid X2

 

Hey Snaggs, welcome to NBR. Be nice to Snaggs, he's a friend of mine.

 

Start with games that you are going to be playing and at what res you want to be playing with what settings.

So

Game = XXX
RES = XXX
Setting = XXX

From there we can help you find the right card for the right price in your budget.

 

Well since he is not here right now. First off he is in hell, I mean Canada.

Current games: COD4, CODWW
Settings: med to med/high
RES: well thats really up to the notebook really, but I'd say a good starting point would be 720P and up (1280x720/768 and up, he might wanna correct me here).

His budged is between $900 and $1100 (ca), trying to make him a bit more flexible here. Notebooks that have come up are the Gateway M-6873h, Acer ASPIRE AS6930-6049 and my recommendation the Asus n50vn-a1b (a little over budget).

 

Get em to spend ~1,400 and get a Sager 5793, huge deals atm on them, and they will play anything (cept maybe GTA4 lolcake).

 

It should be more or less similar if you both have the GDRR2 version or both have the GDDR3 version. The HD3650 is based off the HD2600 so it's more or less similar with a newer technology slapped onto it(a 55nm process instead of a 65nm one and higher clock speeds).

The performance difference should be there, but it should be minimal.