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

Nah, the ATI is better.
But not by too much.

See HERE. (In Class 3)

 

The HD3450 is a significantly better than the 4500MHD.
The 3450 is around the performance of the 8400m gs\9300m(nvidia) and the 4500 is around the performance, or a little slower than, the 8400m G.

 

Yeah the HD3450 is significantly more performing than the HD4500. After all, it's ATI's equivalent to the 8400M GS. It's slightly better than the HD3200, which is nearly twice as fast as the HD4500.

 

Some games would not run or render improperly

 

It's infested with Intelitis.

 

Whatever guys, I played hardcore games like Solitaire and Minesweeper NO PROBLEM with my 4500MHD. 500FPS.

 

A friend of mine actually got GTA IV running on his 4500!!! I mean it lags as hell, but it DOES run. xP

How about battery wise? how much battery would ATI use?
I'm sure it will use a lot more than 4500.

 

hi! im not sure if this is the right place for my question...but still im wondering about the 256MB ATI Mobilitiy Radeon HD 3450.
is that card good enough for CAD programs and modeling?

Thanks in advance for ur answer

 

Yes. Most of those programs rely heavily on the CPU anyways.

 

This may have been mentioned, and I apologize if it has, but the 9800m GS is a bit more powerful than the 8800m GTS, and in the high end chart the 8800m GTS is listed higher.

 

I updated the entire chart today, from top to bottom. I added many new cards and all should be present now.

I haven't added the 'new' (aka rebrands ) Nvidia GeForce 100M series yet, there is not enough performance data available. I added some of the new ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4000 series, but not the lower end ones (only the 4850/4870).

Please inspect the rankings if you have time, and if you find a discrepancy, then please let me know by posting in this thread and provide evidence to prove it should be changed (any benchmark comparison is sufficient).

 

thanks a lot crash...thats what i needed to know before purchase of new laptop...

 

You're welcome. Glad I could help.

 

Hi crash just wondering where's the 9800GTS in your big chart? also may I ask if there's a big difference in performance between 9800GTS and 9800GS when your using 1920x1200 resolution with all settings maxed and AA on.
Thanks

 

And there probably won't be a huge different because the 9800M GS is essentially a 9800M GTS with lower clockspeeds.

And btw, Chaz is the one that created and maintains the chart

 

Ooops. my bad Chaz it is hehe i thought it's

by the way, the 9800GTS is indeed in the Hi-End Vid cards if you scroll further down where "the big chart" section there's no 9800GTS in the ranking.

 

Hi folks,

I was wondering what temperatures are considered normal for the nvidia 9200m GS.
I noticed my hand feeling slightly singing when resting next to the vent of my notebook, so I was wondering if this was normal.
Speedfan seems to tell me im running around 65 to 69'c on high preformance mode with a game running, idling around 55'c while browsing in powersaving mode. The little machine doesnt seem to be bothered one bit by it though. Not a single crash or glitch as of yet.

Google didnt come up with anything conclusive eighter.
Can someone tell me wether or not I should look into it?

cheers,
- Sven

 

Nothing to worry about, mines idling at 55C right now. We have similar results because they're fairly similar laptops

The vent can get a little warm at times though.

 

orly? I was about to crack open a bag of mellows. Atleast I dont have a hairy hand anymore, jeesh that thing can singe.

But if its alright to do that, I wont worry. The HDD must be having a real toasty time in there though, it ll last more then a year in that heat?

 

I seem to remember with the 8600M GT that there was no advantage in having 512Mb of VRAM since the card could not take advantage of it. Does the same hold true of the 9600M GT?

Both models would be GDDR3 BTW.

 

both are 128 bit, so yeah, 512MB is useless.

 

not exactly, I saw that the 1024mb 9600m gs gains some fps over the 512mb version...

It's just not comparable to the difference you would see in a desktop (which would be huge)

 

even a hd4870 1gb only shows about 20% improvement over the 512 version, and that's running at some extreme resolution.
i would say you'll be lucky to see a 3% improvement.

 

The 128 bit bus can use up to 512 mb of DDR3 effectively but only 256-300mb DDR2. The new pointless card on the block as far as memory is concerned is the 1024mb 9600M GT.

 

there are degrees of truth here.

for the cost, (very little, hopefully) you might as well take the extra memory. it definitely wont hurt anything.

128 bit bus is not a direct indicator of memory bandwidth. BANDWIDTH is the limiting factor in determining a useful memory cap, not the bit size of the bus.

so the 9600M GT will be somewhat more effective than the 8600M GT at utilizing that extra memory, because it has higher clocks and therefore a bit more bandwidth.

nothing astronomical, no miracles, no magic.

given that its gddr3, the memory clocks are also significantly higher than the standard version. imo, might as well get the 512 MB of memory. its not hurting anything and it SHOULD NOT cost more. (not much).

 

Someday i would like to see somebody know why they think a 128bit bus has anything to do with amount of usable memory.

Simply put if your program or game utilizes more than 512MB, than yes more memory will be utilized. So if you play GTAIV, you will see a massive improvement over a 512Mb card. Anybody who says the 128bit bus is limiting the memory amounts, should really learn their bits and bytes IMO. Large difference between memory bandwidth, and memory amounts.

 

It's not that it can't, but more so that it will rarely and therefore most of those VRAMs will be in the "I don't use it" department. The GPU in general will be limited by other things before it starts being able to use the extra VRAM needed for decoding and rendering high resolution graphics.

I'd say 1Gb on a GPU like the 9600M GT will not yield much(if any) significant performance increase because the 9600M GT as it stands is a relatively weak GPU and would have trouble rendering high resolutions(where that 1Gb of VRAM would be most useful).

A 512mb on a 9600M GT would show a slight increase over a 256mb version, but not that huge either.

 

Given the exact same specs of ram and GPU, a 256Mb videocard would show no improvement over a 512Mb version, unless the memory requirement for whatever program went above 256Mb.

It's seems a common misconception on these forums, that many posters assume the bus width of 64, 128, or 256 would impact on the amount of usable addressable ram. It simply impacts on how much data can be written to the available ram in one GPU cycle.

So a 128bit bus would write lots of 128bit data, until for example the 256Mb or 4Gb of VRAM is filled with textures, and objects and lots of other data in 128bit chunks.

A 256bit bus width, would mean that same data could be written in chunks of 256bits per cycle, which would mean the 256bits will fill the the 256Mb or 4Gb of VRAM twice as fast (theoretically).

What this doesn't change is the fact that both 128 and 256 (or 32bit for that matter) are all capable of of utilizing the 256, or 1Gb or 4Gb of VRAM, if the videocard has it, and the application has a need for it.

In the future as games get bigger and better and HD resolutions are the norm in addition to professional applications which already use this memory, and games such as those like GTAIV show that it's better to have more than the 512Mb average, due to lots and lots of Vertex Shaders and even more textures. If you want to have all the detail up, there is simply no way a 512Mb card can cope.

 

Yes well other factors come in before VRAM really. VRAM is mostly needed for lots of video decoding data and is mostly used at high resolutions. GTA 4 is perhaps the biggest exception to this.

VRAM will not bottleneck(for lack of a better word) lower end GPUs as other factors such as shade processors and shader/core clocks will likely bring down performance far more then VRAM I mean, you could 4G of VRAM onto a GMA950, but it'd still be a horrible GPU regardless.

Pertaining to the topic though, the 512mb would show an increase if the program/game/application had need of it yes.

Btw, I think the common misconception comes form the GPUs themselves. GPus with lower bus widths usually are limited by their other components(clocks, shaders etc.) so I think the general public has said that for example 128bit bus interface GPUs will not use more then 256mb of VRAM because of limitations by the rest of the hardware. It's more a problem with classification ebcause in actual practical terms, the 128bit GPUs of the notebook world have rarely if ever managed to really use 512mb(or 1Gb) of VRAM(due to the other components' limitations).

 

ati hd 3670 vs nvidia 9600m gt - which of the two will perform better on 3d apps such as 3ds max, maya.

i assume both are ddr2 versions as there is no specific mention on the manufacturers India site of the 2 laptops under consideration. gaming performance seems to be on par [source: http://optimitza.cat/news/2009/01/1...aming-benchmarks-vs-nvidia-geforce-9600m-gt/]

brief specs of the laptops are-

1. ati hd 3670

dell studio xps 16

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo Processor P8400 (2.2GHz/ 1066 FSB/ 3MB Cache)
16 " 720p WXGA (1366x768) Anti-Glare WLED Display with 2.0MP webcam
320GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive
512MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3670

2. nvidia 9600m gt

HP dv5 1015tx

intel core2duo p7350 2ghz, 3mb L2 cache, 1066 mhz FSB
15.4" 1280x800 WXGA 16:10 aspect ratio
3 GB ddr2 RAM @ 800 mhz PC2-6400
250 GB HDD 150 mb/sec @5400 rpm
nvidia 9600m gt 512 mb graphics card

Awaiting your replies. thanks a ton!

 

almost the exact same.

I would go with the Dell XPS 16 though.

 

@link1313 any particular reasons for opting for the dell

 

Are the prices the same? The Dell is definately the better choice if it's the same price, better CPU, HDD, and LED screen. The HD3670 and DDR2 9600 GT are nearly identical though.

 

The Dell's 3670 is DDR3. Superior to the DDR2 9600.

 

Why not buy a laptop with a midrange quadro fx570/770 or ati V5700. They would beat a 9800GT in OpenGL. If they are too expensive, maybe something second hand.

 

I assume you meant the mobile versions and the 9600M GT, not the 9800 GT. Btw the 2 laptops, XPS 16 is definitely better, especially GPU 3670 GDDR3 > 9600M GT DDR2. I wouldn't consider FX 570M (8600M GT GDDR3), but FX 770M (9600M GT GDDR3) is a lot more powerful than the V5700 (3650 GDDR3).

 

i say the 3670 not only because it is DDR3 but because id love to see how far this thing could overclock

 

I've heard the XPS 1640 has small troubles dealing with heat though so I'd be wary of lots of overclocking on the GPU >.>

 

any news on next nvidia mobile card ? anything higher than 9800GTX ?

 

You've never seen a 128MB GDDR3 8600M GT play Crysis or Unreal Tournament 3, have you? I can say that it really cripples the GPU at resolutions above 1024x768.

 

thanks for all your replies

@anothergeek - yes the dell is ~$100 USD dearer - so yes, you're right - whether the performance increase justifies the higher price, is something im wondering about

as regards whether the ati hd 3670 available with the st. xps 16 is gddr3, is unclear. i plan to buy here in India, & the picture is not clear at all.

i checked with dell support over the phone & well it is so poor that they did not even know that such a thing as gddr3 exists, let alone whether its in the st. xps 16. the support guy did tell me he'll call back to let me know but he hasn't yet. even when i spoke to hp earlier, i got the same response - "there is no such thing as ddr2 or gddr3 in graphics cards, it only pertains to system ram". so the situation in India is bleak.

so im just assuming that the ram in 3670 is ddr2, cos otherwise they [dell] would've advertised\specified on the dell site itself, rt?

so where does the mobility 3670 ddr2 stand as against the 9600m gt ddr2?
is the dell GPU the same the world over?
is there any other way of finding out if the vram is gddr3 or not.

thanks a ton. awaiting your replies.

 

there is a "thing" called "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR3". those tech reps don't know what they are talking about. my 3650 does not borrow any RAM from the system.

The graphics card in xps is GDDR3 as it scores a bit higher than my GDDR3 3650 in 3dmark 06.

i think the 9600GT inside dv5t is GDDR2 as per some of the reviews. The 9600Gt inside unibody macbook pro is is a perfect example for GDDR3. comapre the 3dmark06 of dv5t and macbook pro.

 

As stated before: the )800m GS is a bit more powerful than the 8800m GTS, but not reflected in the chart.

Here's a comparison link: http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=591&card2=570

 

I think you made a small mistake. In the "grand" list you put the 9500m-G as weaker than the HD 3450/3470 but the 9500 is in the performance category while the 3450/3470 is in the midrange category.

 

NO!!! I really meant desktop 9800GT in fact 9800GTX!!

Look at these benchmarks from notebookcheck
Cinebench R10 Open GL:

Quadro FX770M: 6180
9800GTX (desktop): 5954
ATi V5700: 5049
9600GT (desktop): 3003

For more details look here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Graphic-Cards-for-Pros.13824.0.html

 

Crysis has lots of textures and physics though so VRAM would be necessary for it to run.

The fact that IGPs can actually play some games decently shows that there is more to it than VRAM. Obviously, IGPs have a very low gaming capacity, but I'm just saying.

It really depends on the game itself. Like I said, they could stick 1gb of VRAM on an HD4500 and it'd probably still be worse then a 256mb 9600M GT.

 

The ones found in Macbooks and the default config on those Dell XPS 13 models.

How comparable are they?

 

the xps 13 has the 9500m gs which will pawn the 9400m

 

According to Notebookcheck the 8400M GS gets 1380 in 3dmark 06, and the 9400 gets 2067, so the 9400 is significantly faster than the 8400 GS (and the 9500M GS gets 3694... another huge boost)

 

i dont think it has the 9500m GS
just the 9500m, which is still much better than the 9400m