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

3167 3dMark06 with a 2.66 6MB C2D???

I get 3300 with my 1.8 C2D 2MB and a DDR2 8600M GT

 

notebookcheck is not that much reliable

 

the xps is better for gaming but it has a smaller res screen

but they are both pretty good

just fill the FAQ so we can help u better

 

There have been no benchmarks that show the 4570 to be a midrange card on the level of the 8600M. What 64-bit card is?

Whoever is running Notebookcheck has completely gone off the deep-end with their new mobile card rankings. Having the 4670 above the 3870, 9700M GTS, 7950 GTX SLI, and others is embarrassing and ridiculous.

 

Exactly!

How come that older graphics with lower 3dmark values are STILL better than newer ones?, also they dont post wich drivers they use, btw they also use MANY different processors for the tests.

I used to trust notebookcheck but not anymore...

Another example: the 3670 is better than 4570 even the 3650 is better than 4570... they have to wake up...

 

My Dell 1520 w/ a 8600M GT (DDR2) and a 1.8 C2D 2MB ate concrete a couple days ago. Have you ever seen the opening to Ace Ventura: Pet Detective where Ace is posing as an IHS delivery driver and is kicking the package around like a soccer ball? When he hands it to the guy at the apartment door it sounds like the box is full of shattered glass. My 1520 sounded a lot like that after I picked it up off the floor and shook it.

I have a 3 year total replacement warranty. So, Dell owes me a laptop. Since they don't make the 1520 anymore I was looking at what is available for a replacement.

3 options I see: A refurbed 1520 w/ like components. A 1530 (refurbed or not) with a slightly faster DDR3 8600M GT, or a Studio 15 (with an inferior ATI 4570 vid card).

If they try to give me the Studio 15 I'll raise Cain.

I wasn't sure exactly how the 4570 performed. I just knew it was a 64 bit card.

AV1611 out...

 

if u are going to game get a lappy with 512 DDR3

 

The 4570 in the Studio 15 comes in 256 or 512.

8600M GT DDR2 in the Inspiron 15 is only 256

8600M GT DDR3 in the XPS 1530 is only 256

At 1440x900 or less 512MB is not really necessary

 

GPU memory size doesn't really matter. 256MB will perform the same as 512MB since the GPU can't take advantage of all that memory. And GPUs typically use GDDR3 or DDR2, where GDDR3 is different than DDR3, while DDR2 is plain cheaper.

 

oh my bad about the info i guess i typed it wrong im going to edit it

yeah what i wanted to say was: get a card with GDDR3

or fill up the FAQ and we can see what would be better

 

I wonder how are the GT 1x0 series perform in the chart

 

Go for the 4650, it is more powerful. You can upgrade the system RAM later if you find 2 GB is not enough for you.

 

I was leaning t'words the one with the 4650, mainly because I knew GDDR3 was better and getting it with 4GB ram would still be under my budget (barely though)

 

Can someone enlighten me as to why a card with a 128-bit memory bus cannot use more than 256MB? It doesn't make any sense at all but is in the F A Q at the beginning of this thread.

 

That's a myth. A GPU with 128 bit memory bus can utilize 512MB or more framebuffer. However, most lower-midrange GPUs won't have the shaders and clockspeed to run games fluently at higher resolutions, so the benefit of the more frambuffer is typically lost. If the native resolution of the laptop is 1280 x 800 and the GPU can only run up to say, COD4, it would not need more than 256MB. Newer 128 bit GPUs like the 4670 and upcoming GDDR5 GPUs pretty much require 512MB for their class.

 

It theoretically CAN, however in practical uses, it most likely WON'T. A 128bit bus GPU is usually limited by memory interface, shader or core clocks which will drastically impact its performance before VRAM ever does. These components will usually not allow a GPU to render high resolutions or masses of textures which are what require higher amounts of VRAM.

The new GDDR5 GPUs might change this, but so far in practical use, 90% of the time a 128bit bus GPU will not be able to use all 512mb or 1Gb of VRAM due to other limitations, not just its bus size.

 

It's not due to address space limitations; bus width does not affect memory address space.

The idea is that a 128-bit card is probably going to sit in the mid-low end spectrum of performance; hence it won't be able to really use much more than 256MB (since you're not going to be running with high resolutions or lots of AA or high-res textures, etc).

Technically, it's a misnomer. The memory bus width doesn't constitute a real performance indicator; as memory bandwidth is determined by the product of the bus width and the memory clock. Memory at 1000mhz on a 128-bit bus will have the same bandwidth as memory at 500mhz on a 256-bit bus.

But it's only intended as a (very) rough guide to performance anyway.

 

@ van_helblaze

4650 under 1000$??...........which company??

 

Dunno, but how bout a 4670 for under $700?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152108

 

A 512MB ATI Radeon HD 4530

-or-

a 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 130M

Thanks!

 

The 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 130M will perform better; quite surprising that the Radeon 4530 only has a 64-bit memory bus.

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Graphic-Cards.130.0.html

The 130M is much better.

The 4650 is where ATI starts to get better than Nvidia.

But If you're looking for a great midrange system, the Asus K series is starting to hit the market, and the 4860 (GDDR4) will obliterate the former generation of 128bit cards (nvidia's midrange).

 

the 13m will be waaay better.

 

Well.... crap.

 

hmm.....any toshiba or dell configuration tht'll allow me to play GTA IV and crysis in med or low res........under 1200$....tht is my budget and cant go more.....

 

NVIDIA® SLI™ Dual GeForce® 8700M GT 512MB GDDR3

or

ATI MOBILITY RADEON™ H4650 with 1GB DDR3 discrete graphics plus up to 255MB shared memory using ATI HyperMemory™ technology

 

Studio XPS 16 would be your best bet there... but if you can wait there is word that it may be getting a Graphics refresh soon. The BIOS was updated to support the ATI 4670. With a decent CPU and that, you could play GTA IV on low.

 

Hey all,

Thinking about getting my first gaming laptop, had a quick question.

Seeing as how the more pixels a screen has the harder the graphics card has to work to fill it I was curious about something.

Would a less powerful card be equal or greater to a more powerful card relative to the native screen resolution it was supporting?

Specifically:

Which card would get smoother, faster performance in gaming?

A GTX 260M at 1680x1050
A GTX 280M at 1680x1050
A GTX 280M at 1900x1200

Blu-Ray is not something I am considering for this evaluation, only actual FPS in games. Thanks!

 

what laptops are you looking at.

 

Basically looking at the Sager NP5797 and wondering if I would see better gaming performance with the GTX 280M on the less dense 1680x1050 resolution over the 1920x1200 screen.
Common sense says yes, since the card was not being taxed a hard on the lower res, I could crank all settings to max.
Am I correct in my assumption? Or does the screen res really not make a difference???

 

if i was you, i would get the 280m gtx and 1920*1200. but lets here other people opinions on this.

 

Go for the WSXGA. The screen looks great, and you can run any game at native res pretty much maxed out.

 

This definitely deserves a bump... in fact, why hasn't it been stickied yet?

 

Hi Folks,

This is my first post. I'm pretty new in analyzing graphic card performance. I'm planning to buy a new 14" laptop and I would like to play some new games(like COD 4, half life) in this. So I have narrowed it to 2 choices - (which is available in india and which comes under my budget($1000), or else I have to get it from US or middle east).

1) Dell Studio 14"

- Intel Core 2 Duo Proc T6400 (2.0GHz, 2MB Cache, 800 MHz FSB)
- 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450
- 4GB memory ( DDR2 - 800)
- 320GB (5400 RPM) SATA Hard Drive
- vista home premium (32-bit)

2) HP Pavilion DV4-1241 TX

- Intel Core 2 Duo Proc T6400 (2.0GHz, 2MB Cache, 800 MHz FSB)
- nVIDIA GeForce 9200 GS 512 MB
- 3GB memory ( DDR2 - 800)
- 320GB (5400 RPM) SATA Hard Drive
- vista home basic (32-bit)

With respect to price, DELL is better. After surfing through the some sites, I think 9200 GS is a built-in card and a punk. Radeon 3450 provide better graphic capability (correct me if I'm wrong) when compared to 9200.

I just love Call of Duty 4 and i want my laptop to be able to play cod 4(even with reduced settings). Please advice which card fares better with such configuration.

I know these 2 graphic cards are least suitable for playin cod 4 n crysis, but would like know which one is better.

Any reply would be appreciated.

- Thanks n Regards
Manesh

 

I think the one with HD 3450 is better

 

The Dell will give better graphics performance. Crysis will only run on the lowest settings though, and I doubt whether it will even run at semiplayable settings at the lowest quality on the HP.

 

The main key is the Graphic Card now.
Both of them are 3rd-Class Graphic card.
Specification for Nvidia GeForce 9200M GS,
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9200M-GS.9453.0.html
Specification for ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450,
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-3450.9593.0.html

But I am not sure the graphic cards you mentioned is GDDR-2 or GDDR-3.
The information I provided above seem to be GDDR-3.

 

i suggest u get the one with ati mobility radeon hd 3450 not the best but yet sufficient for your needs..............

 

thanks all for ur comments.

So Dell studio is a better choice. The below link also provided some info on 3450

http://optimitza.cat/news/2009/01/29/ati-mobility-radeon-hd-3450-gaming-benchmarks-call-of-duty-4-crysis-fear-2-sacred-2-red-alert-3-unreal-tournament-3-world-in-conflict-grid-far-cry-half-life-2/

 

There's a Studio 14 O_O

But yeah, the HD3450, while still being weak, is less weak than the 9200M GS. I also prefer the Studio to the dv4 as an overall machine, but that's just my opinion lol.

 

I have a couple of questions. First off I'm not a hardcore gamer. I occasionally play(if I get a fairly good gamer then I'll probably play a couple of times a week), but I want a decent laptop that can play most games such as COD4 and half life.

First off where would a 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD4330 fit into the list in the first post?

If it fits somewhere in the mid-range or performance cards which one of these laptops would you recommend?

This is a Dell Inspiron 15 customized a little bit on their website for $714
PROCESSOR Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T6400 (2.00GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Service Pack 1 64 Bit
HD DISPLAY Glossy, widescreen 15.6 inch display (1366x768)
MEMORY 4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 800MHz
HARD DRIVE 320GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
VIDEO CARD 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD4330
INTERNAL OPTICAL DRIVE 8X CD / DVD Burner (Dual Layer DVD+/-R Drive)


Or

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Xplorer_X5-2900_Notebook/detail#configurator_top

If the second one is way better would it be worth paying the extra $100 for the Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Mobile P8600 Dual-Core Processor @ 2.40GHz 1066FSB 3MB L2 Cache Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Mobile P8600 Dual-Core Processor @ 2.40GHz 1066FSB 3MB L2 Cache

Thanks

 

From the 2 systems you listed, the 2nd is significantly more powerful. An HD4330 is a low end GPU, a step up from integrated graphics, but not by much.

The 9600M GT on the other hand is a pretty decent mid-range GPU that can handle most games out today and probably a few games to tomorrow. Even if you don't play a lot, a medium level GPU IMO would be best if you intend to ever pick up a future game so you can at least enjoy it at something more than 800*600 at lowest settings for smooth settings.

 

I ran some benchmarks of my Studio 15, COD4 and Half Life 2 demos are included:
http://optimitza.cat/news/2009/01/2...3-world-in-conflict-grid-far-cry-half-life-2/

 

I'm wondering how does nVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M w/1GB GDDR3 memory compare to nVidia Quadro FX 2700M w/512MB in terms of gaming? Couldn't find FX 2700M in the list, it costs $165 more than GTX 280M and has less video memory... Trying to decide which one to get for Sager NP5797, is Quadro FX really worth the money? Does it have anything to do with Quad core processors?

 

I couldn't tell you for sure... I know the Quadro is more of a line of video cards designed for animators/video editors, etc, a card more for professionals and not so much for gaming... though I imagine that it would work for gaming too...

I'd look up in google "Gaming with the Quadro FX 2700M." You'll probably find some interesting results.

 

The 280M spanks the Quadro 2700. If you wanted to do CAD or Maya or whatever, you'd call Xotic PC or RJtech and arrange for a 3700 which is about equal to the 280M.

 

yup Quadro is more because its business class, so that means they can flash the card with a different VBIOS and use different drivers and charge hundreds more. It offers better CAD work but less gaming power due to the driver being optimized for 3d work and not optimized for games.

 

How fast is the HD 4570 with 512MB DDR3?

From the list it seems faster than HD 3650 and slower than 9600M-GT GDDR3. Is this correct?

This guy gets 4300 3dMark06: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GnQ2vIavZ0

 

I want to get a laptop with 8200m. My question is, would it run these types of games because these are the only games I intend to get;

crusader kings
Europa Universalis III & EU: Rome
Knights of Honor
Diablo
Titan Quest
Dungeon Lords
Neverwinter Nights 2

Would it run those types of games? Those are the only games I want?

 

Yeah, they should run.

You might need to play on low settings though.