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

Seconded for 9600M GT.

 

I third that,9600gt is better.

 

A 4570 is very close to a 9600M GT, but the 4550 is slower.

 

The 4570 is very close to a DDR2 9600M GT, but not a DDR3.

 

At least in Crysis, according to the data we got it's close to the GDDR3 version:
http://optimitza.cat/news/2009/05/24/ati-mobility-radeon-hd-4570-and-4530-crysis-benchmarks/

 

what about a 4650?

 

stop whining. You post like 8 threads a day on here whining about about dum little problems.

 

Agreed with the above statement, although perhaps to be a little more constructive - use search or read the threads you've already posted in about the same issue

 

I know the GTX 260M is better that the 9800M GS, but can some explain it where a no brainier can understand. Like what is the core or memory used for, etc.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
Core 550 MHz, 112 - unified, DX10 | Memory 950 MHz, 256 Bit

NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS
Core 530 MHz, 64 - unified, DX10 | Memory 800 MHz, 256 Bit

 

Quite faster than a 9600M GT, the HD 4650 is in between the 9700M GT and the 9700M GTS:
http://optimitza.cat/benchmarks/laptops

 

Wow, I thought the 9600M GT was better than that. Oh, well, I have the 4570 DDR3 512MB card in my Studio 15. I'm not going to complain.

AV1611 out...

 

Pay attention, Sony released a FW4* series NB with 4650 Radeon, but the problem is 20% slower clocks than usual for the 4650. so this leads to 25% less performance...

 

The FW chassis is quite thin, maybe they need to keep heat under control... Do you have any link to this info?

 

I'm looking at a few different 18.4" laptops in the 1200usd range for general use and light gaming. I'll be happy if I can play WOW and Diablo 3 at good settings.

The Toshiba P500/505 series uses the ATI 4650 (1gb DDR3), the competitors that I'm looking at (Asus, Acer, HP) all use the Nvidia 130 or 9600.

If I've read my benchmarks/specs/reviews correctly (I may not have), the 4650 slightly outperforms the 130 (but probably not enough to matter for me) and they both significantly outperform the 9600 (enough that I should probably rule out the 9600-based systems). Am I correct?

Also, it appears the both Nvidia cards are sold in both DDR2 and DDR3 versions. Of course the DDR3-based cards would be preferable, but it seems some notebook manufacturers (Asus N90Sv) do not state which their card uses.

Any info on how these cards compare will be appreciated, thank you in advance.

 

4650 wins fatality.


But really, Have you considered that Acer 8935 with the 4650/70? That looks exactly like what you woudld be looking for.


More info: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=372689

 

the 4650 is the strongest out of all those GPUs. I have the Sony 490 FW witht the 4650 1GB cards and its a beast. Handles my 1080p screen fine with a lot of games.

Honestly, WoW can be run with pretty much any card and Diablo 3 isn't out but its made my Blizzard which are known to make there games for a wide range of users so don't worry about it

 

I just put a 4650 in my Aspire 5920g to replace my 8600m GT (its actually the less common DDR2 variant, and therefore performs about 500-1000 3D mark 06 points less than the DDR3)

It doubled my framerate in company of heroes and other newer games.

This is my post regarding the upgrade. It has a few benchmarks:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=399430

 

Hd 4650 > 9700m Gt > Gt 130m > 9650m Gt > 9600m Gt

 

Does the 4650 really outperform the 9700? I thought the other way around if not at least equal.

 

Nope, 4650 wins... The 9700 GTS has a 256 bit bus and is therefore a little better than the 4650, but the GT is basically an overclocked 9600 GT

 

Hey guys, maybe i could get ya'lls advice. I'm going between these two laptops right here..

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114653
and
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834147922

My needs are: School (Ability to have 5+ hours of battery life for classes if extended to a 12 cell battery). Along with light gaming, CoD4 would be the most graphic intense game i play. Mostly i just stick to oldschool emulators (NES, SNES, PSX, N64 etc.) While I'm at home i would be hooking it up to a 32" LCD HDTV.

Which one would you guys choose?

 

I would go with the HP, seeing as the reviews for the Toshiba say lower battery life. And for an extra $150 you get a proper CPU with a lower TDP and plenty of hard drive space.

 

Yeah only thing im worried about is the Graphics Card. Is it gonna be alright hooked up to that 32" monitor? Native Res on the TV is 1366 x 768

 

How does a 9500M G stack up against a 105M? (Choosing between SXPS 13 & DV3t)

 

9500 G is a good bit better than a 105... 128 bit compared to 64 bit, twice the shaders, 50% higher 3dmark06

 

Where do the GT210, 220, 230, 240 fit the list? How about the G102, 105, 110? And the GTS150, 160? Thanks! (dam you NVIDIA for namings like these...)

 

GTS/GTX = high end, GT = mainstream, G = low end.

GTS 150M is supposed to be the low end 9800M (GS), while the GTS 160M is supposed to be the middle 9800M (GTS) - all 4 of these cards have 64 shaders. The GTX's will be the highest of the high end (9800M GTX level and above).

GT 240/230/220M replace the 9600M line but instead of 32 shaders, come with 48. They should easily compete with ATI's HD 46xx series. The GT 210M, I haven't heard of but there is a G 210M.

The G 210/110M have 16 shaders and the G105/102M have 8 shaders, and replace the 9300/9400M line. They aren't much of an improvement IMO and the HD 45xx/43xx should be better.

 

I know this has been asked before and I know I will sound like an idiot for asking but I will anyway. If this is true, and since almost everyone here knows more than me I assume it is, then why do companies offer cards with 64-bit buses with 512MB of memory or something along those lines? Does it really not even make the slightest difference and the companies are just trying to make you buy something you do not need?

 

They do it for marketing purposes. They ARE trying to sell you something that you don't need. Their jobs are to convince you to buy it. If it has more then it sounds better and they can charge more. Ignorant people are willing to pay more money for it. The only way to combat this is educating people on the truth, which is where we come in

 

Thanks. I am glad I found these message boards before I spent >$800 on my first major laptop.

 

It can make a difference, but say 99% of the time it won't. The amount of VRAM is mostly useful for games with large amounts of textures or when you play at high resolutions. GPUs with smaller bus sizes usually have lower clocks and fewer shaders to match(i.e. they're made cheap). Therefore, GPUs can't even GET to the point where the extra amount of VRAM would be used because they're just simply too weak.

As for the "why do companies sell those GPUs"... Well a large part of it is marketing yes.

Think of it this way, the amount of VRAM(assuming it's the same interface ex: DDR2, GDDR3, GDDR5) in general rarely affects performance for a same/similar GPU(s) at modest resolutions(i.e. not huge ones). That being said, all the other components of a video card often are just as if not more important than the VRAM. Things like core clocks, memory clocks, shaders/stream processors are all things that are used to place a hierarchy on graphics cards, not VRAM.

And here's the thing... What is the thing you normally see on the top of a video card box? VRAM amount!! If you doubt, just go to any store and check a few boxes, the VRAM(and likely the type) is nearly always written on the top of the box yet the shaders, core clocks, and all the other stuff(which btw are more important to determining a GPU's strength) are on the back/side of the box. Heck, I've once seen boxes where those things just plain aren't written!

Fact of the matter, companies want to play on people's lack of knowledge. A company can easily just tell someone who doesn't know better that 2 GPUs are the same because they have the same VRAM when in fact that isn't the case.This isn't new either. Companies sometimes do this for CPUs(all they list is the core frequency and not the cache, FBS or anything) and other computer components. I mean, what better way to sell you more than you need(i.e. make you pay more) than by playing on your lack of knowledge(ex: selling someone a quad core with 8Gb of RAM and a 1Gb Video card when the user is only going to be word processing and web surfing).

 

So some of these companies are charging $50-$200 extra for the same graphics card with more memory when they know that the card cannot even use that much memory? Sons of *******!

 

Like I said, they're not lying to you since it can theoretically use the extra VRAM. It's just that in practical use it won't 99% of the time.

I mean, Dell has the right to charge you for a 512mb HD4570 vs a 256mb HD4570 on a Studio 15. Last I checked, they don't openly say that you're paying for better performance. They could easily justify the difference in price by a difference in products(it's not exactly the same GPu therefore different product=different price). Nobody said "more expensive=better performance"(just see Apple laptop values lol ).

Companies also pull fast ones on Nvidia rebrands. Nvidia is known to rebrand same GPUs under different names. For example, the 9800M GT is the exact same thing as the 8800M GTX yet when the 9800M GT "came out", Alienware charge more money for people with "only the 8800M GTX" and lo and ho, some people actually returned their laptops to have it "upgraded" for a fee.

HP also does this since it charges for an upgrade from the 9600M GT to a GT130M which essentially is the same thing, but at higher clocks.

 

To be fair, in general the GT 130M can be quite a bit better since it also uses a lower manufacturing process. But HP uses cheap DDR2 memory, which really hurts performance, so in that situation, it wouldn't be worth it.

 

Do all GPUs in HP notebooks use GDDR2?

 

I think all the HP consumer line notebooks use DDR2. Their business line uses GDDR3, but their GPUs are typically workstation cards.

 

Yeah consumer HP notebooks all use DDR2 memory for their GPUs(GDDR2 has been phased out of laptop GPUs fdor the most part btw).

 

I noticed that HP is like the only major company that still uses DDR2 in their GPUs. Why is this? I mean, don't outside companies like NVIDIA and ATI build the graphics cards?

 

Well outside sources make GPUs, but they make them in all varieties(in different clocks, bus sizes, and memory interfaces).

Lots of companies still use DDR2 in their GPUs. Asus has some, Gateway has some and a few Acers also do as well to name a few. However, I do believe HP is the only company which chooses all of their GPUs in their mainstream line to be DDR2(the companies I've mentioned beforehand also have GDDR3 GPUs in some of their models).

This is a question of pricing more than anything else. DDR2 GPUs are cheaper to buy than GDDR3 or DDR3 GPUs. HP never geared their notebooks to be gaming machines so they made the choice not to include GDDR3 or DDR3 in their laptops.

 

How much % would you say is in performance between DDR2/DDR3/GDDR3?

 

Depending on the actual GPU, it can go as high as 25% difference.

Remember that going from DDR2 to GDDR3 or DDR3, you get double the data transfer rate. This allows for faster data transferring(duh!) which can sometimes even compensate a smaller bus width(see the HD4570 GDDR3's benchmarks & performance for a 64bit GPU).

 

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone knows if the 9600M GS 1GB has GDDR2 or GDDR3?
It is in an Asus X83VM-1. I ask this because different website specs show it as GDDR3 and others as GDDR2.

Thank you,

 

After much research I've narrowed down my laptop choice to one of two. Last deciding factor, which is better for gaming and autocad? 1GB Radeon HD 4650 or 512mb GeForce 9800M GS?

(Also, out of interest's sake, #3 had 1gb 9800M GS, how much better is 1GB 9800M GS than 512mb?)

 

I would take 9800M GS.

Now, the The extra Video memory in the 1GB is only going to help at high resolutions.It's still the same card, but if say you are running at 1900 res then you will see a noticable increase in performance of 1 GB over the 512 MB 9800M GS.

 

I would definitely go with the 9800m gs.

 

9800M GS is actually only a bit faster than the HD4650 in most tests (not including 3dMark) at medium resolutions but uses much more power.

 

The 9800M GS is the more powerful GPU.

While at lower resolutions, the HD4670 might be able to compare in performance, at higher resolutions, the 9800M GS will blow it out of the water due to its larger bus and higher amount of shaders. If you choose the 1Gb 9800M GS, you'll be able to play at even higher resolutions(something the 1Gb HD4670 can't handle that well for some games).

 

to OP: what are the native resolutions of both laptops?

 

9800M GS is actually 80-90% faster than 4650

 

How big of a difference is between these two cards?

I dont really know too much about this stuff... but is one extremely superior to the other?


The HP HDX16 and the gt130m while the HP Pavilion dv4t series has the g 105m