The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Compare desktop to notebook video cards

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by UNICRON-WMD, Feb 10, 2006.

  1. UNICRON-WMD

    UNICRON-WMD Notebook Guru

    Reputations:
    3
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Hi all,
    I was just wondering what are the desktop video card equivalents of the x300 128mb and the 6800 go 256mb are?

    I heard once that the x300 128mb was very close to the ATI 9600. This is odd because I hear great things about the 9600 but nothing good about the x300.
     
  2. Jenson

    Jenson Notebook Evangelist NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    677
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I'm not sure what the desktop equivalents of those two are, but the X300 isn't that bad of a card. IBM uses them in their 14" T series (64MB) and they are fine. The 128MB version of the X300 is not able to use all 128MB of RAM for filling due to lack of pipelines, so while it has the RAM to back it up, there is a "traffic jam" due to lack of lanes. While it is not able to use all it's RAM effectively, it is by no means a terrible card.

    Matt
     
  3. UNICRON-WMD

    UNICRON-WMD Notebook Guru

    Reputations:
    3
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Thanks for the reply.

    Anyone else?
     
  4. dragonesse

    dragonesse Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    251
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    I think there is a thread which covers this in the Gaming forum.
     
  5. CyBorG

    CyBorG Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    right, 9600 (mid range) is a good card and the only reason x300 (low range) is even compared to it is its capability to support dx9 and better shading. But its lack of dedicated memory handicaps it, therefore its really only good to play last generation games like counterstrike and cs source. You will get by trying to play Battlefield 2 and quake 4 on low-medium settings, but you will need the extra ram to support it. 9600 itself is a GOOD mid range card, but in its case it doesnt get good fps on complex dx9 graphics. That's why Dell presents 6800, its fully equipped with 256mb, everything 6800 has in its desktop counterpart, but Dell drivers underclock it so it doesnt overheat in its little laptop case. If you get a laptop fan, you can go to http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/ and get the fully functional driver for its full speed. THAT is equivalent to the 6800 (basic, not gt, etc) in a desktop pretty much. and x300 in a laptop is like an underclocked x300 onboard desktop version with shared memory
     
  6. dr_st

    dr_st Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    571
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    X300 has the same DirectX and shading support as 9600. The reasons they are compared, and indeed perform not far, is because X300 is the low-end card of one generation after 9600, and so it closes the gap quite a bit. Just like GeForce 6200 is considerably better than GeForce 5200, the low-end of previous generation.

    Some Mobility X300 versions have 128MB of RAM, just like the desktop versions. The 64MB may be handicapped in comparison, but not the 128MB versions.

    Underclocked, perhaps, but you can overclock it back. And it doesn't have any shared memory.