the ati x1400 and asus xg decision

i would just like to know exactly how many more times powerful is a ati x1400 mobility is compared to an intel 950 media accelerator. the reason im asking is im deciding whether to save some money for the asus xg station even though there arent any reviews yet. since i read somewhere that there were two laptops on display at the 2007 CES. the other one was nine times more powerful than the other one using the asus xg station. so im just wondering exatcly how much more powerful is the x1400 compared to the intel 950 media accelerator. sorry if this has been asked....i've tried searching for a comparison.

 

ati 200m (mine) is better than intel 950
and to that i heard X300 is about 30 to 10 (sry) better then mine
so i guess more than 100%?? (might be 500 but not sure)
there are huge difference.....

 

x1400 is roughly 5 times more powerful than intel 950.

 

To compare the 950 to the X1400...3dMark06 GMA: 248. X1400: 1148. 3dMark05 GMA: 665. X1400: 1962. Those are scores I've presonally got comparing the GMA 950 in my mom's PC to the X1400 in my laptop. The laptop GMA is probably a little slower than the desktop version to save battery life. No one can really say how the Asus XG station will perform in real life yet though. But I still have my doubts since it'll be using a PCI x1 bus.

 

Refer to the charts in my sig.
GMA 950 has no hardware T&L, meaning that texturing and lighting are done through the CPU not the "accelerator",so the performance will be great.

 

As of now, when the Asus XG Station is released, it won't be worth your money, because it won't deliver actual speeds of the 7900GS, or whatever card they put in, because they're running it through an expresscard slot, which is sure to take away a significant amount of speed.

I'd stick with dedicated graphics. As you move up the graphics ladder, you roughly double in power. If you look at 3DMark scores, Radeon X1400 is at least 4 times more powerful than GMA950. Radeon X1600 is twice as powerful as X1400. Radeon X1800-1900 is twice as powerful as X1600.

 

so from what you are saying the xg would equal an ati x1600 thats inside your laptop?

 

no one can really tell


but i'd expect it to be a little better then the x1600 or all you're buying is a $600 piece of crap

i mean, it can't even display the game on your laptop screen and requires a external monitor

 

Here is a comparison between pci-e X16 and pci-e X1
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2004/11/22/sli_is_coming/page10.html

 

As with most technologies, they're exploited and overhyped, just as is shown in those graphs above. X16 vs. X1 isn't going to be a horrible difference, much like AGP 8X vs. PCI X16 was, and I expect the XG station to be a great improvement over what typically comes with laptops. I myself own an almost identicle machine to you, except I have a slower HD, and I am also looking for an improvement over my X1400. I hope Asus pulls out an amazing device and helps all of us notebook owners who suffer from inferior graphics.

-Josh

 

Really need real life tests on this hardware because its very mysterious.

Couldnt recomend making an expensive purchase around its possibility at all.

Might be the greatest thing ever and it might be almost entirely worthless.

It doesnt make sense yet.

 

In any case, I would stay away from the XG station for a while. First-gen brand-new technologies tend to be unreliable and overly expensive.

 

what FREN says seems to be very true.