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

IMO the Samsung laptop is much better (and cheaper) than the Acer because:
P7600 > T5800 (Higher FSB, bigger cache and lower power consumption)
PM45 > P965 (Newer Tech)
4GB DDR3 > 3GB DDR2 (More, faster, lower power consumption)
250GB < 320GB (Less capacity)
9600M GS 256MB DDR3 > 9500M GS 512MB DDR2 (Newer core, faster memory, lower power consumption and i don't think the 9500M GS can make use of the 512MB memory anyway)
2.75kg > 3.5kg (Lighter is always better)
15.4" - 16" (For me it doesn't make a lot of difference, i think i would even prefer 15.4")
Therefore i would go with the Samsung most definitely, except if there are some issues that with it that i am not aware of.

 

Thanks for listing the pros n cons. Perfect reply. I was actually leaning towards the Acer cos of the screen, but your points have successfully changed my mind. Will probably wait a while longer to see if there are any other view points especially if anyone can confirm about the graphics card, but thanks for the prompt, detailed reply man.

 

Hi, i want to know what the performance difference between these two cards is. will the 9600gt be vastly superior to the radeon 2600 in terms of gaming? Or just a few fps difference?

i was considering a Gateway T5750 with radeon 2600 and a HP P7350 with 9600gt.
Performance wise, would the HP be much better in gaming than the gateway?

 

Check this out.

I believe there's not much difference but I personally prefer the 9600M GS since the 9500M GS is basically just a renamed version of the previous 8600M GT which suffer from possibly overheating in some cases.

 

it will definitely be superior. note however that the 9600m-gt ist still "only" a mid-range card.

 

On the chart there the performance between 9500M GS and 9600M GS doesn't differ that much because i assume its the 9600M GS DDR2 version tested. Aside the point that nic. made and with which i totally agree ( I have 9500M GS and it can hit 95-97C after 1-2 hours of Left 4 Dead on stock clocks) just check the difference between 8600M GT with DDR2 and DDR3 and you should get pretty good estimation of whats the difference going to be between the 9500M GS DDR2 and 9600M GS DDR3

PS. I would also check impressions and reviews for the Samsung laptop in the Samsung section of the forum

 

Yes, the HP would definitely be better performing. Although both CPU's are 2.0ghz, the P7350 uses less wattage, 25W and a smaller nm process which means more transistors, less heat, more power. And a 9600GT is definitely better than an HD2600. So the HP is clearly the winner hands down no comment.

 

i was wondering, i checked out the gateway support page for gateway 6873h, and it says a 2600xt. staples is selling this for $700 in canada. i think someone here works for staples, so i was wondering if he/she could check for me whether the gateway had a 2600xt or 2600. would the 2600xt be neck to neck to a 9600gt in performance or would it still lag far behind?

 

+1 for the samsung

krusha03 covered all the points I was going to make and then some

Just make sure the samsung temps are ok as it has a faster card in a smaller chassis.

 

I'd go with 9600m GT.
It's a newer card, provides superior performance compared to the Radeon 2600 (while still being a mid-range card).

Although I would like to note that HP (while it will be better for games) has some heat issues.
So I don't know how advisable is it to get it.
If you can get your hands on Acer 5930G (comes with 9600m GT GDDR3), I think it would be a better choice cooling-wise.
Performance will be identical to the HP if you pick the one with P7350 (although you can always get one with a faster cpu) ... and of course, I think that the Acer is cheaper.

 

This is the info I grabbed off the Gateway M6882-H

HD2600

65NM
GPU- M76
390Million Transistors
GPU@ 600mhz/700mhz
Bandwidth 22.4Gb/s
Shaders 120
ROPS 4

Hope that helps!

I thnk that other gateway is clearance now, so we don;t have anymore.

there is the 18inch Acer notebook with a 9600GT DDR3 GFX and has DDR3 RAM. I think it may run for about $1200.

 

The 2600 XT and 9600m GT are roughly the same, performance wise. If it's just a plain old HD2600 the spend maybe an extra $100 on the 9600m GT if you plan on playing crysis and similarly demanding games. If you only want to play less demanding games like team fortress 2, bioshock, oblivion etc. then a HD2600 will probably beat a 9600m GT price/performance wise.

Some info on what games you will be playing and the prices(links?) will help

 

basically, this is what i pulled from notebookcheck

9600m gt 2600xt
32 pipelines 120 pipelines
500mhz core 700mhz core
1250mhz shader 700mhz shader
800mhz memory 750mhz memory
128bit bus 128bit bus
314 million transistors 390 transistors

from here, would anyone know what the frame rate increase would be with the 9600gt over the 2600xt? like in crysis or something?

 

thats wierd. on notebookcheck it put 128bit bus but directly in the description paragraph it has a 256 ringwide bus. some clarification?

 

Shouldn't the 3650 be ahead of the 2600? If so, the 9600 is certainly ahead of the 2600, because it's ahead of the 3650..

 

nic, whizzo, dire and krusha, thanks for your answers. sounds like its definitely better to buy the samsung. thanks guys

 

The HD3650 is ahead of the HD2600, but the HD2600XT is on par with the HD3650. I can say the Gateway has a regular HD2600 as far as I know(I've only played with it once during my break soooo ).

Still, a 9600M GT upgrade would cost probably ~200$ more and that might not be worth it depending on what you're playing.

 

Hi!

Well... i know this 2 are probably the best IGP right now or am I wrong? Anyways, I was searching which of this 2 are better in terms of Gaming (I know their not really for it), but didn't find concret answers. I am quite curious...

Games like:

Combat Arms (free FPS)
Silkroad Online (free mmorpg)
AoE3
And perhaps the future Sims 3 on low settings?

Thank You

 

HD3200 is better, the equivalent IGP to the HD3200 would be the 9300m.

 

How about adding a section about dual graphiccards (not sli/crossfire).
As in the neat lite notebooks with one gpu for powersaving and one a bit more powerful for more gaming.

I tried to search a bit on these forums to pick some up and the only thread i found on the topic is this one:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=131831

So it would be nice if you gurus can add some more info on the subject

 

The HD3200 is the better one of the two. Its performance can equal a dedicated 8400M GS in certain games.

Just for the record though, the 9400M G/GS is more powerful than the HD3200 and is currently the most powerful IGP.

 

A section explaining the technology?

Having two graphics cards doesn't increase or decrease 3D performance.

 

OK so my knowledge is pretty limited when it comes to graphics cards & I just wanted to know the pros/cons of both cards, essentially whether one is superior to the other or if there is little difference.

 

the 9700GT is quite a bit superior to the 9650GS

the amount of memory dosent matter as they are both 128bit cards, so anything over 256megs it cant use effectively and if you have 1024megs, it actually leads to reduced performance

 

how come? {ten characters}

 

im trying to find that post LOL.....give me a while, someone else posted some info regarding it on the "what notebook should i buy" thread, regarding the 1gb ddr2 9650GT in the asus N series....

 

bleh. cant find it.

so maybe ignore the fact will make it work less well.

but the rest of the post still stands, it makes no difference because they are both 128bit cards and dont benefit from more than 256megs of vram

and the GS version of the 9650 has a reasonably large performance gap to the 9700GT

 

Yeah, the extra amount of VRAM makes no difference, although I must admit this is the first time I hear about a performance decrease form having too much VRAM

Anyways, as the above poster said, the 9700M GT is better than the 9650M GS in terms of general performance although I'd suggest perhaps upping to the 9700M GTS, which would then yield a very big difference.

 

Well, GTA4 is one game where the 1GB would make a difference, but that's an odd exception. The only reason 512MB is better than 1GB is if it's DDR3, and the 1GB is DDR2. Otherwise it means nothing. And to whoever said 128 bit memory bus limits to 256MB effective VRAM, this is NOT the case. The extra video memory can be used by any card, but it's useless if the weak card doesn't have the grunt to push high resolutions, thus requiring the extra RAM in the first place.

 

i think he's talking about memory addressability of a 32bit os. if you have 256 vram, you get about 3.5gb of system memory, if you have 1gb, then you get about 2.75gb of system ram.

 

It's because they set the memory to run at a lower clock speed thus reducing the amount of memory the card can affectively use in games, crazy.
The 1gb version of the HD4850(desktop card) is a prime example.

 

Is the Geforce Go 9200 GS more powerfull then a Mobility Radeon 3200 + Mobility Radeon HD3470 in HybridCrossfire?

I mean in moderate gaming like Titan Quest and Anno 1701 on low-mid settings on 1024x800.

 

The 3470 is more powerfull than the 9200m GS. You'll play most new games on low - mid settings at 1024 x 768(XGA)

 

Why is the 9100m g not included in the integrated card list it should be in between the HD3200 and the 9400m gs?

 

9100M G is slower than HD3200 since it got half the SP of 9400M G (8SP instead of 16SP)

 

I have an Acer Aspire 6920G
Core 2 Duo T5750 2.0 GHz- GeForce 9500M GS (475/950/400)- 250GB WDC 5400rpm
16" 16:9 WXGA LCD - 4GB DDR2-667 - Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit
My graphics forceware is 180.84 Dox...
I am only getting 3dmark06 score of 2724 (SM2.0 - 1296, HDR/SM3.0 - 1317 CPU - 562)with the standard settings....
New games like NFS Undercover and all are framing badly... Older games like NFS Most wanted work really well...

Can anyone please help on how i can safely improve my graphics and gaming performance?

 

I have gateway 6860 with 8800 GTS 512mb.
I'm mmorpg gamer and this card has limitations. I'm thinking of switching to sager 5797 with 9800 GTX 1gb. Is this a big jump in video quality or not much ?

 

Yes, you will see a significant gain in performance by going to the 9800M-GTX; I'd estimate 40-50% better framerates than you have now. However, the Sager will obviously cost you . . . a lot.

I assume you would sell your current machine; even if you get $700 or $800 for it, that's still a ~$1200 difference. I personally wouldn't be willing to spend that kind of money to replace a system with already decent performance. The 8800M-GTS is a strong card. You might try overclocking it to get better performance.

 

Always run your games while plugged into the ac adapter,
Set your power plan to performance mode,
Go to the nvidia control panel and under the "adjust image settings with preview" option set the slider to performance.

If that doesn't improve performance download GPU-Z, CPU-Z and HWmonitor. Run them all while gameing and check to see you cpu & gpu are running at their normal speeds and not downclocking. HWmonitor will tell you the max temps your cpu and gpu reached.

 

Does anyone know how the ATi Radeon 3670 in the new Dell XPS 16 stacks up against a card like the 9600m GT? I couldn't find it listed in the stickies.
Also, is this card supplied with GDDR3 or GDDR2?

Cheers

 

Slightly better than a 9600M GT DDR2,but slightly worse than a 9600M GT GDDR3.

 

Check here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9600M-GT.9449.0.html

I would say the 3670 is in the ballpark.

 

Could someone upload a GPU-Z of the 3670? And maybe the 3650 too, just to see how it compares to the more popular 3650...

 

Well from performance benchmarks, a GDDR3 HD3650 can compare to a GDDR2 9600M GT DDR2. Therefore, the HD3670, which should be more or less a higher clocked HD3650, should perform within the same range, just a bit better.

 

So graphically, the Studio XPS 16 should be exactly equal to a HP dv5t/7t/HDX 16t/HDX 18t.

 

Its bad to use just one benchmark, but for simplicity's sake lets use 3DMark06 numbers. The 1640 scores 4855 in notebookreview (collaborated by notebookcheck's 4700), which is faster than the dv5t (notebookcheck, ~4300) and a bit worse than a 9600GT (~5100-5500).

 

Hey guys, I've just been checking the benchmark(or whatever) for two of those cards and found something really weird.
The 4500MHD seems to be better than the dedicated ATI 3450!
Which looks really weird to mee, the 4500 has a higher shader speed an something else.

Which one would be better for casual gaming?
Battery wise it will of course be 4500, but how about the performance?

BTW, what is shader speed? XD



THX@@!!!

 

HD4500 is plagued with game compatibility (try Fallout 3 and see)
In real game benchmark HD3450 is much faster

 

What do you mean by"plagued with game compatibility"?

 

Can't really compare specs directly like that since both use a different architecture. Often, a lot of the lower end video cards have faster clocks but are limited by their interface width (high end is typically 256-bit, mainstream 128-bit and low end 64-bit) then steam processors then finally memory amount/type and core/shader/memory speeds. It's better to check up benchmarks that compare similar systems w/ dif video cards.