go7200vs ati 1300

Okay so which card is better, because all the reviews I have read say that the 1400 scores 900-1200 3dmarks, while the GO 7200 scores between 1500-1800 3dmarks. Which one is better?

 

The X1300 or the X1400? Either way, both should be faster than the Go7200

 

the x1300, and im pretty sure the GO7200 is better because a guy on the forums with a x1300 at stock settings got 1050 3dmark05. While me with my GO7200 gets 1550 3D marks 05. the link is http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=60653
that is the guy with the x1300

 

I get 1260 stock setting with my X1300.

And don't let 3dmark be your only reference point. Its a good tool, but its not something you should base a purchasing decision on, especially when dealing with two cards by different manufacturers.

 

Okay but in general game performance the go 7200 is better right, BTW, with my 7200 I can play HL2 at a native res of 1280x800 at all high settings, af at 4x 0 aa, and no hdr. Water is set at reflect all. The lowest recorded FPS was 20, average is about 36fps. How can you play hl2 sionyboy?

 

Ummm. haven't played it in ages. I'll give it a whirl

Is that running the video test?

 

Okay cool. Thanks

 

Might be a while, Steam is updating files. Haven't loaded it up for a few months.

Is that the video card test you got those figures from?

 

Just ran it at your settings (all high, 4x AF) getting fps usually between 40-60fps. Dropped to 20fps in the opening video. Quite surprised how well it ran actually!

 

Yeah me too, alright so they are about the same fps. Cool.

 

For games I would definately go for the X1300 over the 7200, regardless of 3d mark scores.

 

T2300 and x1400 with ddr2-533 scored:
3dmark (as shipped)
2001: 10127
2003: 3668
2005: 1744!!!
2006:929

Sorry for double posting.


Here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html check this out.

 

Yeah, but that is X1400, not X1300. And can anyone give me any reasons why the X1300 is better for General Gaming?

 

the x1300 is faster and has better clock speeds thats pretty much it... but the x1400 is better than both the 7200 and x1400

 

^If that is true, why does the 7200 score 300-400 points more then the x1300 in 3DMark 05.

 

synthetic doesnt really have much to do with real life... acouple points on a test like that might not really mean anything in real life... but then again idk... i just know that the x1300 performs better than a 7200

 

*Ahem*

ATi X1300 vs. Nvidia GF Go 7200

400 MHz core clock vs. 445 MHz core clock
325 MHz mem clock vs. 350 MHz core clock
4 x 1 x 2 shad arch vs. 4 x 1 x 3 shad arch.
1600 MTexels/sec. vs. 1780 MTexels/sec.
128 bit mem. inter. vs. 64 bit mem. inter.
10.40 GB/s bandw. vs. ~6.2 GB/s bandw.

If the memory bandwidth isn't a bottleneck for the G7200, then it'll be a more powerful solution. If you have the balls to overclock your mobile GPU, then the X1300 would be better to try such a thing with, as the memory bandwidth isn't an issue as much as it is with the G7200. On the exact same configured computer, with same parts and everything, the G7200 is a better solution, especially with shader intensive games, however, either GPU is rather weak for newer games. Running a game such as FEAR with shadows on and in medium settings, will bring either GPU to it's knees. I'd suggest at least an X1600 or Nvidia equivalent. One thing I didn't bring into this "fight" was VRAM setups, as the ATi GPU uses Hypermemory and the Nvidia GPU uses Turbocache.

Winner IMHO with factory settings: Nvidia GeForce Go 7200.

Better for tweaking: ATi X1300.

By all means if you have the patience, smarts, not to mention nutz to do it, I'd go with the X1300, but as previously said, by factory settings, the G7200 is the winner.

 

Ya but doesnt the x1300 have 128 vram and the 7200 only has 64.

 

I don't know about the X1300, but yes the G7200 has 64 MB dedicated DDR2 VRAM. When it comes to shared VRAM, it's either 64 MB shared or 192 MB. Ulgh, it would be alot better if the G7200 had a 128 bit interface..........the 64 bit interface I think has become the bottleneck on my adventures into GPU overclocking.

 

Personally, I would be more apt to go with the Go 7200. I've been hearing good things about it but more than that, ATI's HyperMemory is software based while nVidia's TurboCache is done in hardware and as a result is remarkably efficient, given that it's shared system memory.

While 3DMark isn't a hugely reliable baseline, a difference that sizable between two competing cards is notable.

 

2605 3dmark05 with t2300 and x1400

 

3DMark is not a good way to figure out whats going to perform better in real life gaming. Its a benchmark, nothing more nothing less. It gives you a score. The x1400 is capable of matching x700's in 3Dmark 05 scores but the x700 will trounce the x1400 in real gaming.

Also, you cannot directly compare clock speeds and architecture between ATI and Nvidia. They're two different companies and design their cards differently. Its possible for one to have poorer stats on paper but really be better when it comes down to 3Dmark scores or gaming.

 

Well, seeing as the X1300 is said to be a tiny bit better than the Go 7300, then I could imagine it beating the 7200. As was evident by the two gents benchmarking earlier.