ndvia 7400, ATI 1400 vs Quadro FX

What is the difference? Which one is the best?

 

The quadro fx is a workstation card, not really meant for gaming. I don't know much about it. Which exact model are you looking at? As for the other 2 cards, the x1400 is *slightly* more powerful than the go7400.

 

if it is the quardo FX card I am thinking about it performs on the same level as the 7400 but in the end the X1400 comes out on top by a slight margin.

 

I'm looking to buy a notebook since last year and I want to play games (Age of Empires, Sims 1-2, Diablos) on it but I was looking between HP or Dell. Last month I got a formation on a drawing software and the notebook used in the classes was some Dell Precision with Quadro FX700 in it. It's why I asked the difference between all those card.

I bought too a HP dv5190 with a 7400 last summer and I was having trouble with it. One of my game (Singles-the-games kind of Sims) wasn't starting and in Windows the screensaver of the theme Space wasn't working either than I bring it back. And now I'm scare to buy an other notebook if I can't try it. Do all the HP and Dell with 7400 and 1400 have the same problem? Or it's just I got a bad notebook?

Thanks

Mel

 

i've never had a problem with the gpu x1400 in the dell e1505

 

Also for the Quadro card it is made to run better in Open GL environments where as the other 2 GPU are meant for direct x environments which are mainly for gaming. Therefore in the gaming sector of GPUs the 7400 and X1400 perform much better.

 

The X1400 has a 128 bit memory bus, the 7400 has a 64 bit memory bus.

The GPU core configuration for the X1400 is 2:4:4:4 (vertex shaders ixel shaders:texture mapping units:render outputs) and the 7400s core configuration is 3:4:4:2. Basically the 7400 has an extra vertex shader processor, so it can do more polygons and vertices per clock, however, the X1400 has double the render outputs. In terms of texture and pixel output, the are equal per hertz. Therfore, the 7400 can do more polygons, but the X1400 has an easier time creating the image itself, so it has an easier time with higher screen resolutions.

In terms of memory clock speeds, the 7400 despite having typically higher memory clocks (around 700 MHz effective as opposed to ~550 MHz effective for the X1400), it's no where near the X1400 in terms of raw memory transfer speed because it's hampered by it's 64 bit memory bus, when it comes to newer games designed for using 128 or 256 Bit buses which is necessary for moving the data needed to create the detailed textures of todays games.

In conclusion, I'd settle for the X1400, especially with it's better memory bus and more render outputs. Hertz per hertz they are equal in pixel and texture processing, so despite being clocked out of the factory slower, you can overclock the X1400 to be equal with the 7400. Even with memory overclocking, you can't get no where near the X1400s memory data transfer speeds though with the 7400. In the end, geometry processing typically won't be the most important deciding factor with GPUs, as it's pixel and texture processing that is more in jeopardy of not being enough.

Winner IMHO: ATi Mobility Radeon X1400.

Of course there is also the factor of how much VRAM is being utilized with these GPUs and certain games, which can make a big difference. However my comparison was about the GPUs themselves and their memory buses, not the complete graphics setup. With equal amounts of dedicated and shared VRAM factored in, I'd still pick the X1400.

 

I'm just wondering how will the dell x1400 (64bit bus) be, compared to 7400?

 

X1400 is 128, the 7400 is 64.

 

Ya, i know. But Unfortunately, dell's x1400 is an OEM version which is 64

 

Really?! LOL Dell is so stupid. But wait, I thought ATi was the sole producer of Mobility Radeon components?

 

Performance in ascending order for DirectX
Quadro NVS M110 < Quadro NVS M120 < Go 7400 < X1400
However all four cards are very close in performance

 

I'm not sure about the detail about this. But I'm sure that the x1400 on dell is with 64bit mem bus. I bought a inspiron 6400 last month and just sent it back for a new unit a few days ago and I'll post the picture when I got my inspiron 6400 back.
Oddly enough, lenovo thinkpad's x1400 seems to be the 128bit official version and that surely gives a boost in the benchmarks. Well, considering the lower price of dell, I guess that's acceptable.
Also, I think x1400(64bit)<7400<x1400(128bit)

 

Well yeah I think I'll have to agree there. Of course, amounts of dedicated and shared VRAM will come into play too, but your little inequality right there is very reasonable and likely speculation. Either way, they are all very weak graphics processors in general. I want to see actual notebook DX10 GPUs so badly. That ATi X2600 in that one MSI laptop at CES is supposedly a mid range GPU for DX10, but just think how powerful a "mid range DX10" GPU is compared to mobile DX9.0c mid range GPUs like the X1600 and Go 7600. The G80 GPU in the GF 8800s is over twice as powerful as a 7900 GPU and I'd love to think what ATi has up their sleeves. It's time to take mainstream notebook graphics processors out of the stoneage partially created by Intel and into a new era of innovation and high performance comparable to their desktop counterparts.

I'm so excited