mobility hd 4650 vs nvidia gt 220m

does any one know how these 2 stack up to each other

 

I'm fairly certain that the 4650 is alot better.

 

I've heard of the GT 240M, 230M and G 210M but not the GT 220M. Which notebook uses it? I doubt you can really compare it since the ones I listed aren't out yet and are the 40nm GT216/218 line, though I suspect they will be around the same level as the HD 4650 - if not better. It also depends on the type of GPU memory, the 9600M GT GDDR3 is better than the HD 4650 DDR2.

 

The GT 240m and GT220m are available in Asus models on Newegg now. Kinda confused me too, both the quietness of them slipping out as the first 40nm chips on the market and that the 220m isn't even on Nvidia's site... I can't figure out if it's closer to a 210 or a 230... or one of them renamed.

 

Since it is a GT model, I would put it below but closer to the 230. Until we see benches, it's gonna be a tough call.

 

The 240M GT is still slower than the HD4670 GDDR3, so I am fairly sure the 220M is quite slower than the HD4650. Probably A LOT slower.

 

The Geforce GT 240M is around the same as the Geforce 9700M GTS (without the 256-bit memory bus) while the Geforce GT 220M is pretty much something along the lines of a Geforce 9650M GT or the Geforce 9700M GT.

 

If that is the case, then assuming both cards have GDDR3 (or DDR2, as long as it's the same) then the GT 220M would be near but slightly under the HD 4650 since HD 4650 is slightly better than 9700M GT. But if the memory is different, than whichever has the faster type (ie. GDDR3 vs. DDR2), as even the 9600M GT GDDR3 > HD 4650 DDR2 according to benchmarks from fellow NBR users.

 

thanks guts but i got a g50vt-x5 with a 9800m gs

 

I think the GT200 series are the middle ground.
Since the GT102 is the 9400M G, GT105M is 9200M GS, GT110M is 9300M GS, so I would think the GT210M would 9500M GS and so on?

 

The lower series aren't GT (128-bit). They should be G 102M, G 105M, and G 110M - all 64-bit. Also, the G 102M isn't the 9400M G, since the former is a discrete GPU and the latter is an integrated GPU.

If there is a GT 210M, it would be replacing the lower 9500M G (G96 core) since the 9500M GS is a rebadged 8600M GT (G86 core) and was phased out for the 10 series. From what I've read, the card will actually be a 64-bit card and thus the G 210M will be a contender against ATI's HD 45xx series.

 

Actually the GT130M is roughly equivalent to the 9600M GT(or a bit better I don't remember) so I'm not sure how the numbers play into this. I know the "G", "GT", "GTS" and "GTX" in front have meaning, but the numbers for Nvidia's new naming scheme still eludes me

 

The GT 130M replaces the 9600M GT and is faster than even the 9650M GT (assuming that all three have the same type of memory). GTX and GTS typically are the high end GPUs with 256-bit bus, GT is mainstream w/ 128-bit, and G is low end w/ 64-bit.

 

Yeah I understood the letters, it's the numbers which confuse me >.>

At 1st I thought the 100 series were the rebrands of the older GPUs, but technically the GTX260M Is pretty close specs wise to the 9800M GTX so idk anymore what each series is in terms of the numbers >.> Do they have a meaning for each digit like ATI does?

 

For notebooks, the 200 and 100 series are just rebrands of the 9 series and 8 series technically. nVidia had a numbering scheme w/ the 4 digit 9 and 8 series but now that the 200 and 100 series are 3 digits, it's less clear. From what I gather, if the last two digits are <=10, then it belongs to the low end (ie. 210M, 105M, etc). The high end seems to be >=50 (260M, 160M) and middle end is btw the two (240M, 130M).

 

I was thinking something of the like as well.

OHwever, I initially thought the 100 series were the rebrands and the 200 series were new, but the GTX260M seems to contradict that. But then again the GTX280M has more shaders than the previous 9800M GTX IIRC so it's not an exact rebrand either.

 

Well the core/shader technology is identical, but most of the newer lines are refreshed with a lower process (55nm as opposed to 65nm), which theoretically should make them cheaper. Otherwise the GTX 280M is just an OCed FX 3700M. Hopefully, I'll get around to update the GPU list in my sig... maybe when companies stop releasing 10 billion variants.

 

Well variants are what gives them money eh?

I recall when the 9800M GT came out... Alienware advertized it and claimed they'd upgrade people with m15x(the ones with a 8800M GTX) for a fee and soooo many people returned it to get it "upgraded" lol

ATI isn't as bad as Nvidia in terms of rehashing currently though it seems.

 

I think 220m has 48 stream shaders, however unlike 9700m GTS, it doesn't have 256 bit bus; and unlike 240m, it doesn't have GDDR 3 ram.... bummer.

http://1toppc.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=F50Sf-A2

200m series are all pretty high end, comparing to today's medium range. But 240m still is probably the minimum of whats desirable.

 

The GT 240M and 230M also have 48 shaders. I guess they have revised their mainstream (used to only use 32 shaders for the 96xxM and GT 1xxM line) to compete with ATI's HD 46xx line (the 96xxM and GT 1xxM line was comparable with the HD 36xx line). Essentially, the 240/230/220 will be like 9700M GT/9600M GT/9600M GS with the only difference being clock speed. While this model doesn't have GDDR3, I'm sure other models might.

 

Still to see 200m series to show up with GDDR5 memory.

 

GDDR5 hasn't even yet arrived on the mobile market yet AFAIK. ATI has [supposedly] had yield issues with their 40nm HD4860 and Nvidia isn't set to release their GDDR5 GPUs until later this year.

 

ATI has had GDDR5 in their desktop parts for almost a year now, the problem is the 40nm process. I believe they only have 1 model out (HD 4770) for desktops w/ this process.