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

Yeah overclock 80/80/100 and the 3650 = 3670.

 

What can the 256mb ati mobility radeon hd 3450 be comparable to? Even with the x series mobilty cards?

Also will a 64bit bus gpu able to fully use the 256mb of memory?

 

It's a little under an 8600M GS (DDR2).
A 64-bit GPU bus will likely only be able to really use 128MB (though that doesn't matter since the card is so weak you won't be doing much quality gaming anyways).

 

I believe you can compare it more to the 8400m GS. And with the 64-bit bus I don't think it will use more than 128 MB of memory.

 

Its very close to the GeForce 9200M GS. Above the 8400M GS. Below the 9400M G. And much lower than an 8600M GS.

And its close to the Mobility Radeon X1350.

See HERE.

 

Then why does my gpu have 256mb of memory if it can't use it?
Iam guessing its a way of making more money.

 

Pretty much.

 

I agree

 

Well, using that chart, the 3450 (2000, 3D '06) is actually closer to 8600M GS (2500, 3D '06) than the 8400M GS (1400, 3D '06). Although I will say that it doesn't matter since those are all low end GPUs anyways.

 

It can use all the VRAM. The bus size and the memory speed are the two main factors calculating the GPU - VRAM memory transfer rate, not whether it can use all the memory or not. The higher the bus size and faster the memory speed, the more bits can be cycled at once hence faster transfer rate. Even at low settings many games require 256 MB of VRAM like Crysis, Dead Space, and others. The 3450 meets these requirements on the memory and gpu power needs, as it's as powerful as the GeForce 6800 many multiplatform games require if not more efficient too. If the GPU couldn't access all 256 MB of dedicated VRAM then many games wouldn't even boot if Vista didn't automatically allocate system RAM for video purposes (XP does not do this automatically, has to be forced through the BIOS, which is typcially at the option of the manufacture) It's a low end solution but it meets the needs to run any current game at lower resolutions and reduced graphics with the exception of GTA4 thanks to lack of proper optimization.

 

i have a fhew questions about this 1.

does somebody now what games this graphic card can play?

games like Call of Duty 4/5 and james bond Quantom of Solace?
Does it works good on Vista?
is this 1 working better with Xp?

thanks for answering!

(im srry for my bad english)

 

forget about gaming on x3100, it hasn't got enough teeth for it

 

Yeah, I agree. It can only be play old games on low settings.

 

That card wouldn't even get 1fps on a game.

 

Sadly, it doesn't even deserve to be called a GPU

 

it works on vista for general things. such as aero, but dont count on gaming, with anything gpu intensive.

 

Good for driving your screen for MS Office or basic Internet. Will not handle anything that needs a bit of punch from the graphics department...

Cheers,
Theo

 

To play games on an X3100 is like to supporting your grandfather to join the olympics

 

Now why doesn't The Big Chart include some of the midrange GPUs anymore? I thought it did at one time...

 

Nah, on the desktops there is a clear segmentation but on the laptops the only differences are the core clock, CPU and FSB support. For example Q965 on the desktop featured the GMA 3100 that featured no hardware VS, but the G965 did with the X3000. However on the laptops the GL960 supported hardware VS like its faster brother.

 

Is this graphic card good for gaming?

and about the acer aspire 9100.

Is this a fast laptop/notebook?

 

In between the Mobility radeon 4650 and the GT130m, which one will be more powerful? Any ideas?

 

The X600 is way, way outdated - it is no good for even semi-modern gaming.

Make a thread in the What Should I Buy forum and we'll help you find the right notebook.

 

Okay so I've had my Gateway P-6831fx (with the 8800M GTS) for a year now, and i recently ran 3dmark06 for the first time in a few months. The score i got confused and distressed me. On multiple runs, I got about 6700 3D marks out of this thing. The last time i checked, I'm pretty sure i was hovering around the 7000 mark. So is this supposed to happen?

Please help!

 

I'm pretty sure the HD 4650 1gb is better than the 9600m gt 512mb ddr2 but I would like to know how much better is it. Is it worth a $200 dollar diference? Cause two weeks ago I bought the HP HDX 16 quick ship model and now they revamped the dv7t, so I could get it with the same specs (p8400, 4gb ram) but with a better resolution (from 1366x768 to 1600x900) and the graphic card for around $200 extra.

Sorry if I broke any rules. This is my first post.

 

The 512mb GDDR2 nVIDIA 9600M GT has a 3DMark06 score of 4420 or so. The 512mb GDDR3 ATI Radeon Mobility HD 4650 pulls a much higher 7180 on 3DMark06. The 1GB version would be a bit better than that.

Apparently, there will be GDDR2 and GDDR3 versions of the 4650. I'm wondering which one the dv7t has? Either way, it still significantly outperforms the 9600M GT.

 

I'd estimate around 30 - 40%. Definitely worth the difference.

No solid figures as the 4650 Mobility hasn't been benchmarked yet. I'm estimating based on desktop benchmarks.

 

With respect to comparing ATI and Nvidia cards, 3dmark scores should be taken with a grain of salt since ATI cards perform much better than Nvidia in benchmarks.

 

Hold on. Does this mean the HDX18 is going to get the ATI 4650 also? CRAP!

 

2xxx series, yes, 3xxx series, yes, 4xxx series, no. In general they underperform in benchmarks because they shine at higher resolutions and with AA/AF.

 

Well... the 9700m GT OC pulls almost 7000 with a 2.7GHz dual-core (also OC) and since the 9600m GT is essentially the same thing, OCing the 9600m GT could significantly close the performance gap.

Of course the 4650 will almost definitely OC to high 7000s if not 8000...

 

I kinda thought that the 4650 would be much closer to the 9700M GTS than the 9700M GT.

 

4650 is pretty much a 3850

 

I agree the new cards are great but I would take NBC with a grain of salt. I would think that the 4650 is similar to the 9700M GT/9650M GT, and the 4670 the 9700M GTS. Remember, the GTS will always be superior as the latter ATI card is only 128 bit while the GTS has 256bit.

 

Hmm, didn't realize there was quite a gap between the 4650 and the 4670. I'd still estimate the 4650 to be better than the 9700M GT by about 15 - 20% though, and the 4670 to lose to the 9700M GTS by 5 - 10%.

 

Nope. I really don't think that will be possible.

You have to realize that 1. Notebookcheck is not reliable. They claim things at random now that their chart has recieved sooo much attention.

2. There is no way a 128bit card can score 8000-9000 (which is 15-20% more than the GTS). No matter how good the rest of it is, the 128 bits will limit it.

To be honest, this is what I think. 4650: 5200-5600 in 3D06, 4670: 6100-6500 in 3D06.

 

actually, benchmarks for desktop cards show that hd4670 is faster than 9700m gts. benches are done for the hd4670 and the 9600 gso. the 256bit version of 9600gso to be exact, with a 48sp core, and yes nvdia have two cards with the same name .
it would all depend on how much it's downclocked though. the hd4670 could go head on with anything from a 9650m gt to a 9800m gts.

edit: for plasma:
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews.php?/gpu_displays/xfx_9600gso_384mb_vs_sapphire_hd4670_512mb/5

128bit card scoring over 8k in 3d06. should push out more than 7k with a dual core instead of a quad

 

it seems my 8600m gt sli ddr3 laptop is still pretty powerful, even after 18 months of owning it. it scores 7500 overclocked in 3dm06

 

Desktop cards are very different to mobile cards. Take the 9600M for example. Does it perform like its desktop counterpart?

 

hd4670 and mr hd4670 have the same core count, same memory bus. only difference is clock speed.

edit: desktop counter part of 9600m gt is 9500 gt, performs rather similar as well.

 

No it doesn't. The 9500 GT scores like 6500 - 6700 while the 9600M GT DDR2 scores 5000.

Let's just wait and see.

 

550/1400/800 vs 500/1250/800. 9500 gt should be faster by about 10-20%.

 

ATI destroyed Nvidia with the 4k series

 

I probably overestimated the 4670. I'd revise it again to be about 5 - 10% weaker than the 9700M GTS. I just realized that the new 9600 GSO variant has 96 SPs and not 48 SPs. On the other hand though it's not that unbelivable because the 4670 has managed to beat the 9600 GSO on several benchmarks despite having only a 128-bit memory bus.

That's because Nvidia likes to use same model number at times for a completely different core for marketing purposes. ATI uses back the same core with lower clocks for the mobile version.

The 8600M GT was pretty much the same as the 8600 GT.

Lower clock speeds, plus DDR2 RAM vs GDDR3 RAM. Downclock a 9500 GT to similar speeds and it should be the same.

 

My HP notebook is coming with a 512MB 9600M GT, but I could return it and order one with a ATI 1GB 4650.

Benchmarks are showing the 4650 as a much better card, but I'm wondering about real world benchmarks for FPS in games such as Source engine games, Fall Out 3, WoW, etc.


I'm wondering if it is worth waiting another 3-4 weeks to be able to have a computer.

 

i dont think HP offers the 4650....

 

The Dv7t refresh will have a 1GB 4650 as an option...too bad it'll probably still use DDR2 though.

 

if you wanna game, prolly should skip the hp all together...

 

Buy it and let us know? We don't know for sure yet, because no one here has actually tested it. Also don't know if HP cheaped out with DDR2 yet again.

 

ranking of the 3

Better;9650GT
middle;ATi 4650
lowest rank;9600GT

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-4650.13883.0.html