What games can a [nVidia® GeForce? Go 8400M GS with 128MB DDR2 dedicated graphic memory] handle sufficiently?

Im looking for a laptop that can handle games to an ok standard. Im not looking to be bale to play the top end modern games that are being released but im looking to play games like Battlefield 2 to a good standard of gameplay. A laptop i have looked at has this graphics card in: nVidia® GeForce™ Go 8400M GS with 128MB DDR2 dedicated graphic memory. Will this be able to handle the games i mentioned. The laptop also has 1gb RAM, Intel core 2 duo processor.

A list of games this setup could handle would be appreciated.

 

Far Cry and older.... No Crysis/Lost Planet/FEAR though... Fear would run acceptable at low-med settings... Given your configuration, performance would be hit further byt the RAM. 1 GB simply doesn't cut it, if you are running Vista.. I'd recommend at least 2 GB.

 

The 8400M GS should be able to handle Battlefield 2 at lower settings (low-mid). I would turn AA off. BF2 is a very demanding game memory-wise. I would upgrade to 2 GB ASAP.

Any DX10 games will be very difficult for the 8400M GS to handle. You'll no doubt be able to play Supreme Commander at low settings, but I doubt the 8400M GS will handle Crysis, just since FPS' are more demanding graphics-wise than RTS'. Any games that came out before this year will be fine.

 

Well, as far as FEAR is concerned with my rig i can play it with near max settings except resolution at a smooth 40fps. But just like Doom3 it still looks great at 800x600. Barely notice its at such a low res. Considering Iv got the powered down x1600 (64bit mem bus), the 8400 should be comparable. I can also play games like Oblivion at med with full res at bout 25-30fps. Company of Heroes at near max 1280x800 with 30fps. As long as you dont expect it to perform like an 8800 you should be happily suprised with the performance.

 

"ok standard" is kind of subjective. BF2 is my favorite game . If "ok standard" is medium settings, no AA, vsync off, and 800X600 Resolution...then I would say yes, 8400m should get it done, and you should get a descent fps. Of course, it's not going to look that great...but definitely playable.

 

or you could just splurge and get an 8600 series card that would cover you.

 

I had a similiar worry, but someone (i forgot who!) reassured me that I could play STALKER on the card and RCT3 .

 

Stalker was choppy on my Go 7900GS -.-

 

I am able to play BF2 with low/med settings on 1280 x 800 on my dell 8600. Pentium M 1.6, 1 gig ram, 128 ati radeon 9700 mobility. I think the 8400 should run it just fine

 

thanks everyone i think iwill purchase the 2gb upgrade and that shud do me fine
thanks for all the help

 

This is from the HP 2500t with the 8400gs and only 64mb dedicated review posted in the last week or so. For some reason it doesnt show up when you search for reviews, but heres the link.

"One word. Brilliant. I couldn't have expected the GPU to work any better. I'm playing some of my favorite games at near max settings such as Battlefield 2, Granado Espada, Counterstrike Source, and Company of Heroes. Below, you'll find screenshots of these games, because a picture is much better then me blabbering about how great it is. Counterstrike: Source didn't turn out so well with settings on max so I changed it to 2x AA and 2x AF for much better performance. Likewise, Company of Heroes is playable on high settings if you don't mind low frame rates, but changing the settings to medium provided much higher frame rates."

 

I have that same card too, it has to run games like bf 2 and 2142 very good. The specs with 2 gb of ram should make it even better.

 

Is there anything people with this video card can do so upcoming DX10 games(Brother in Arms: Hells Highway, Crysis, Call of Duty 4) will work well (i.e. overclocking, drivers from Laptopvideo2go)?

 

Well, I don't have the card, but to give you a comparison standard, Bioshock runs fine on it at 800x600 and medium settings.

 

Okay, i tried the crysis demo on my dv6565ca (core 2 duo 1.6, 2gb ram, 8400m gs, 156.## drivers)...

Everything ran FINE at settings "Medium", I even did the "Optimizer test" and it also indicated that "Medium as the quality settings.... and i wasnt even using the 16#.## (crysis drivers)..... so could people really stop saying "oh, the 8400m cant definitly handle crysis *cauph sesshomaru cauph*. lolll

 

I can play quake 4 at 800x600 with med settings with everything except high quality effects and aa turned on. I have 1.66 core2duo 1gb ddr2-667 8400m gs 64mb. I think the only thing holding me back from high is the ram because it runs fine but pauses occasionally when the hard drive is being accessed heavily.
Medal of honour: pacific assualt runs at just below native res with everything on "high". UT2004 runs all highest with 32 bots on a huge map with alot of spec effects. The lowest it got was when I called my team to me and went up against all of the other team and it was still over 30, at 1680x1050, so it kills older games.

 

I don't know about you, but in the system seen in my signature (under 2GB RAM) Crysis runs at an average of 20-25FPS on all medium at 1280x800. In my opinion 20-25FPS isn't exactly great, yes it runs and it's playable, but it's not amazing. Now If I'm not mistaking the 8400 GS is a tad weaker than my cr*py X1600 256MB (dedicated), so performance should be even lower.

 

I don't think he listed resolution, it could easily have been 1024x768 or even 800x600. And actually for crysis (a heavily shader-intensive game) at those low of resolutions (which will minimize the x1600's 128-bit bus width advantage), the 8400M-GS should do very well compared to the x1600 as it has more raw shading power and something close to twice the fill-rate.

 

That’s pretty impressive; I didn't know the 8400 GS had that kind of power. I was actually pretty close to buying a laptop with one of those cards this year, but thought there wasn't much of an improvement over what I already had. Guess it wouldn’t have been such a bad idea after all. :/

 

Really, unless you commonly play at sub WXGA resolutions, the 8400M-GS definitely isn't an improvement over the x1600, as you mentioned it's slightly behind it. It's only when the x1600's superior bandwith becomes a non-issue that the 8400M-GS can keep up (or surpass) the older ATI card.

 

Hi, I dont know if this helps but your config is almost identical to the one I just bought (HP 6580) - only difference is I have 3 Gb RAM - Core 2 Duo 2.2 Ghz (T7500). Card is same.

I have played Doom 3, Tombraider Legend, Half Life, Cricket 2004 all on high res and they run very very smooth.

I have tried Fifa 08 but the game and menu are too choppy. This may be a one off because theres a 15 page thread on this forum from people having the same problem

Cheers.

 

on a 8400m gs with 64mb ded. I aim for a minimum of 30 fps throughout the game and most of the settings get up to vsync at 60fps.

Battlefield vietnam 1280x1024 highest


Halo 1280x1024 highest


Medal of honor pacific assualt 800x600 hightextures + low model (doesnt look that much different to high)


Sniper elite 852x480 high 4x aa 8ansio


UT2004 1280x1024 highest (normally runs higher res but with fraps on it was 30-40 fps down on normal)


Forgot to get a quake 4 screenshot.

 

with the exact video card on my dell vostro 1500, with beta drivers, and a 550/515 overclock, I can play call of duty 4 with 2x aa, 2x af, and everything else on (including shadows) at 1024x768 resolution with an average of about 30-40 fps.

 

8400M GS wont last you long in the years of gaming...say another 1 year then its worth garbage...sorry for such harsh language but its true. Its not fit enough to run nowadays games.