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

Even though Nvidia is having some tough times

It still has the most features and broadest usage, not to mention that there arent many ATI laptops out yet

But this really blew me away:
Asus W90 baby!
4870 in Crossfire
30+ FPS Crysis 1920*1080 very high no mods no new driver no custom settings no OC
$2100MRSP

 

i think the 260. At least on the desktop varients a 260 = 4870

 

umm.
desktop 260 has 192 shaders
mobile 260 is a 55nm 9800gt/8800gt, 112 shaders.

 

desktop actually has 216 on the new 55nm version (which i own).

Anyrate i was comparing desktop to desktop and laptop to laptop not cross platforms.

 

Gotta love the GTX 280m though. It is like a desktop 9800 GTX. Now that will be able to handle Crysis at all High settings at 1680 1050 at 45fps.

Though it is sad that we will not be seeing any new technology from nVidia for a while.

 

I really doubt that. My GTX 260 216 shader super overclocked to outperform a desktop GTX 280 only gets 25 fps average on everything maxed on 1920x1200 resolution. The 9800gtx is way slower.

 

Ah well. I guess that crysis is hopeless until 2010.

 

Most likely

 

The HD4860 is likely better.

 

I gues GTX 260 is powerful.

 

I'm looking at the Sony Vaio FW (3650), HP dv6t (4650), and the HP HDX16t (9600M gt).

So far from what I read, its: 4650 > 3650 > 9600M gt?

I would like to know how big the differences are though..

 

Why dont just get the GTX 280 or 98m SLI?

 

He hasn't mentioned a laptop yet

 

4650 ddr3 by a long shot.

 

yes there are two 260s, the gtx260 and the gtx260 core 216.
anyway, i think we should stop comparing desktop cards just to avoid the confusion.

 

you've got the order about right i think. the HD4650 wins by a long shot. can't quantify the difference for you though.

 

yea, but you set your resolution far higher (reducing performance) and the performance hit from "High" to "Very High" is just HUGE!!!

Personally I think the 4860 GDDR5 "should" be better than the GTX 260m. But I would wait for some benchmarks. We can predict the GTX 260m's performance because it is a overclocked 9800m GTX on a newer chip, but the 128-bus, GDDR5, of the 4860; we have nothing to compare it to.

 

Yea that's the difference... the 4860 is GDDR5
the GTX 260m is just a 9800m gtx overclocked

 

Hi there,

I was wondering if anyone could post benchmarks of these two GPUs.
I think that HD4850 is better than nvidia. GTX 260M is OCed 9800M GTX with 55nm die shrink, does that mean GTX 260 = HD4850?

Gaming benchmarks of HD4850, 9800M GTX - (even OCed as GTX 260M)
are appreciated!!!

 

asus w90 with the HD48 70X2 gets about 15k in 3dmark, the clevo d901c with the 9800m-gtx in SLI gets about the same. so i'd say the cards are about on par.

 

I can't really find any comparison between these two. Can anyone with experience with ATI and Nvidia give me the hierarchy run down and who
s better?

I am trying to choose between these two graphics card for a notebook, but I don't know which is better: 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 4650 or 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 9600 M GT.

Why is the "M" so important to note compared to a regular 9600 GT?

 

M mean mobile. To be honest it really doesnt matter when you are talking about it on a notebook site lol.

 

The Radeon 4650 is better, by a margin. It is approximately the same as the Nvidia 9650M's performance. NotebookCheck has a good list of graphics cards, although the exact numbers are averages over several machines, and aren't entirely accurate. It does provide a good general idea though.

Basically, for ATI cards, the larger the second digit, the better the card is (and it tells you which family the card belongs to). The first digit denotes the generation (the last generation was the 3xxx series). The last 2 digits usually indicate the hierarchy in the family, in this case the 6xx family. For the Radeon 36xx series, the 50 denoted the base card, and the 70 was an overclocked version of the card. The difference is not that big.

For Nvidia cards, the second number again is the most crucial digit, as it denotes the family of the card - larger the better. The 6 indicates that the card is a performance card (above the mediocre cards, below the high-performance gaming laptop cards of the 7 and 8 series). The first digit is the generation again, and the last 2 also indicate ranking in the family. In this case, the 50 tells you that it is better than the base 9600M cards.

"M" is important because it distinguishes between the desktop version of the card (usually more powerful) and the laptop version. Not a big deal on this forum, as people only talk about laptops anyway.

Hope that helped clear it up.

 

The 4650 should be slightly better. I supposed the 46 70 will curb stomp the 9600m GT

 

In games, the performance will be better on the ATi card by a small deal, however in synthetic benchmarks the 4650 kills the 9600GT.

 

Humm... Thanks MidnightSun! That was great. But why would someone want the 4650 over the 9600M GT? Does one run cooler? What are the benefits and cons of each cards?

 

I'm not sure if we should trust it, but according to notebookcheck.com

The ATi 4650 scores ~7000 marks in 3DMark06, the Nvidia 9600GT scores ~5000. That's a pretty big margin. As far as power efficiency they should both be in the 25 Watt class.

 

See, the important thing that I see notebookcheck is missing is which notebook type these data are coming from. That would be a big part in considering which card is better.
Anyone agree? Because those number above are too much of a difference when a lot of people report that the 9600M GT performs the same or just slightly better.

 

Yes,

The performance difference would be more apparent if both cards were in the same type laptop with the same specs. I believe the processor and ram would alter the results of the gpu cards.

One big difference between the 2 cards are that ATI don't support their mobile laptop cards, as some are saying in the Dell XPS16 thread.

I am curious what is the difference between the ATI 4650 vs the 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 130M. I just got this gpu configured in my HDX16 which is still building.

 

The 4650 better, it scores around 6k+ on 3dmark and averages about 28fps per second all medium on crysis at 1280x800. I think it plays other games on max very fluidly like Fear 2 etc.

The performance of the HD4650 is like a direct competitor with Nvidia 9700GT (not GTS one). The 9700GT is the fastest 128bit card of nvidia (for now)

This data came from the benchmarks made to the Asus N81vp with Ati HD4650 with 1GB GDDR3 memory. It seems like a nice upgrade in performance for the medium range cards.

The Ati HD4670 indeed curbstomps the 9600GT.

Keep in mind that a 9600GT with GDDR3 is faster than DDR2 cards and much more close in performance with HD4650.

 

In this battle, ATI is the king.

 

Considering the 9600 is a 3 year old card now, I'd go with the ATI card which incoroporates new technologies and stomps on the aged Nvidia card.

 

I havent even seen a laptop yet that has a HD 4650 is there even one out there?

 

Asus N81vp

 

9600m GT is better look this http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/test-acer-aspire-6530g-848/6

 

These tests are bogus. Some websites shows 88m>280m.

 

Then your very wrong. 4650 scores 7000 on 3dmark06 and the 9600m scores around 4500 - 5000

 

Take note of how the various cards use various RAM types. The 4650 is using DDR2, and that 9600GT is using GDDR3. Funny how according to their testing, the 9600M GT GDDR3 spanks the 9650M GT DDR2 by quite a handful. Basically this isn't a proper test.

 

that's a hd4650 with ddr2 vs 9600m gt with gddr3, the card is already bandwidth limited even with ddr3 or gddr3 memory, so further reduction in bandwidth is certain death.
i think we should look at some real games
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSWyOVbdvMY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaV9Z7uY1Do
benchmarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh5FBcsxD-U
i think it should be obvious now.

 

No, he isn't wrong, look carefully, it's the GDDR 2 version of the 4650, not GDDR 3, so obviously it's gonna lose to the 9600m GT GDDR 3.

Though I doubt the 4650 scores 7k on 06, more like 6k according to the review posted by rschauby. Here's a nice review:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=358071
Done by Sephiroth135.

 

What resolution is that on?

 

You can get it in the new HP DV7t and DV6.

 

Yea yea yea but what about the GeForce GT 130M. Its basically an updated version of the 9600m GT with smaller die, 100hmz faster processor, and 512 more Ram. According to this list:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

It pwns the ATI by 3 levels.

 

If all you do is run 3DMarks, then sure. Otherwise the HD 4650 GDDR3 is capable of competing with the 9700M GTS in Crysis.

 

How? The highest point scored by the 130M is dones at 1280x800. Where as the comparable HD4650's test was dont at 1280x1024.

And to be honest if you really want a 2 year old GPU design thats fine. Its pretty much a overclocked 8600GT lol.

 

the proof that notebookcheck is bulls.

 

hi, please, 3d mark 2005, which is better? 2600 or 3200? i can't google it.. wanna play GTA 4 bye

 

Why are you referencing 3dmark05? It's an outdated synthetic benchmark which doesn't really show that much of performance on a GPU since it's IMO heavily CPU dependent as well.

To answer your question though, the HD2600 is better. The HD3200 is an integrated chip while the HD2600 was a mid-range GPU from 2 years ago.

I do believe however that you'll have trouble running GTA4 on either of them though(maybe if you crank everyone down to lowest it's possible though with the HD2600)

 

thanks! i had 2600 but only 1.6 core duo so it was having problem with smooth play and now i'm gonna buy a new notebook so i wonder if higher number is better than lower.

 

This is probably analogous to asking something like:
"Is last generation's mid-range faster than this generation's low-end?"

The answer to that is most likely a yes 9 out of 10 times; but you have to be careful, because sometimes a certain line is very awful, and even the worst of the next line is better than the mid-range of the last line (case in point: Pentium D compared to Core Duo, or Pentium 4 compared to Pentium M's).

In regards to this specific scenario, I'd be willing to wager that the 2600 is faster than the 3200 by a good margin, and that you should be able to run GTA4 fine. But I don't guarantee anything ;P.