Max Resolution supported by these Gpus?

Hi!

I wanted to know the maximum resolution supported by the following cards:

1) Nvidia 8400gs (256 mb offered by HP)
2) Nvidia 8600gt (256 mb offered by Dell)

With a penryn processor and one of these cards installed would there be any significant increast in battery time?

Also, would DVD/Divx movie playback / Adobe Photoshop be affected by these cards?

 

Some insanely high number in the few thousands.

 

That didn't help much you know

 

It helps much more than you think it does.

 

okay thanks

 

Battery life will be less compared to a Peryn system with an integrated graphics solution. How much less will depend on what you're comparing it to.

DVD/Divx playback will be very slightly effected by these cards, probably not noticable compared to a modern day integrated solution on a normal monitor. Photoshop will not be effected by those cards.

 

I tried searching Nvidia's website for the maximum resolution supported by the two cards but it doesnt say how much.. All it mentions about is the maximum resolution supported on an external screen which is 2560x1600.

I wonder what would be max on the notebook's screen itself?

 

Maximum resolution for a notebook screen is 1920x1200.

 

It's either: 1920 x 1200 or 2048 x 1536 depending on the card. Both are insanely large resolutions or small (pixel wise; however you want to interpret it). I think the only monitors out there that support this is 26" or 27" Widescreen monitors ...

 

but dont you think it would be easier for someone to figure out which card they should get if they knew the maximum supported resolution on the notebook itself?

 

Why do you think it'd be different? If the GPU can output at 2560x1600, it doesn't care which screen it's outputting to.

But let's turn the problem on its head.

Your laptop runs at a fixed native resolution. LCD screens do that.
Now just how stupid do you think the manufacturer would have to be, to install a GPU that couldn't handle that resolution?

When you buy a laptop, the GPU it uses is obviously going to be able to handle the resolution used by the screen. That should go without saying, which is why NVidia only mention *external* screens on their website.

Apart from that, it's been something like a decade since the resolution supported by the GPU was a problem.

Even the cheapest GPU can handle far higher resolution than any notebook screen I'm aware of is capable of showing.

 

Every single card can support the maximum resolution of a notebook monitor.

 

I know how much the maximum res. for a notebook screen is.

I wana know whats the maximum res. either of these cards can handle on a notebook screen, get it ?

 

Slow down a sec, and use your brain here. Trust me, I get it. We get it.

 

then why do games have to be played on lower resolutions to juice out more frames?

 

What takes you longer to draw? A really big picture or a really small picture?

 

the bigger picture ofcourse, okay so the bigger the resolution the longer it takes for the gpu to perform?

 

Get an 8600M GT if you play games because it is basically 2X faster than the 8400GS. And yes, the max resolution for NVIDIA 8x00 cards is 2560*1600. The resolution of your notebook screen depends on what screen you order/get with your laptop.

-J.B.

 

I think it's higher if the graphics is output via DVI/VGA as Jalf has mentioned, though it's tough to confirm the exact resolution limititation.

EDIT: 2560 x 1600 is the max resolution.

When there are more pixels on the screen to render it creates more work for the GPU to process. So the higher the resolution, the lower the framerates on the same video card.

 

Yes.

-J.B.

 

Which of these is a better choice? I wont be playing games.. its just Photoshop I like to work on ..

15.4"
Hp dv6700t - WXGA (1280 x 800)
8400M GS - 256MB


17"
Hp dv9700t - WXGA+ (1440 x 900)
8400M GS - 256MB

Hp dv9700t - WXGA+ (1680 x 1050)
8400M GS - 256MB

Dell Vostro 1700 - WUXGA (1920x1200)
8600M GT 256MB DDR2 / 8400M GS 128MB DDR2

Dell Vostro 1700 - WUXGA (1440x900)
8600M GT 256MB DDR2 / 8400M GS 128MB DDR2

 

To be honest, any one of those would suit your requirements fine even the 8400s if your not playing games. Look for the best suited machine for your daily usage, like portability, screen size, screen resolution and picture qualities.

 

is the 8600Gt a battery guzzler?

 

Max resolution is determined by the TMDSs and RAMDACs and has little to do with the power of the GPU itself.

For 2D photoshop work you can easily work with large 2560x1600 images on even intergrated solutions if they have either dual-link TMDS for digital or 400mhz RAMDACs for analogue connections.

3D gaming performance is a different thing and has little to do with the max resolution figures posted as the limits of the hardware.

Supported gaming resolutions depends on the game software support (which can often be tweaked/moded), and performance depends on the workload required to render the scene, more complex takes longer at higher resolutions, low complexity can be render quickly even approaching max resolution.

Anywhoo, the two things are not directly related; nVidia's figures are the limits of the hardware (TMDS/RAMDACs) and eprformance is simply the balance of workload and resources.

 

DVD movie payback is easy for any current VPU, and DivX support deepends on the underlying codec support and your player's ability to use hardware acceleration. Many level of DiVX encoding can be hardware accelerated.

As for Photoshop, it is not greatly affected by GPU power at this time. It does require sufficient resources to store and manipulate the image, but there isn't hardware acceleration in Photoshop itself, more in products like Motion.

Any of those GPUs should be fine for Photoshop, the only question would be if you were using an external monitor and you wanted a large panel, you'd want to ensure you had a free dual-TMDS connection (either via DVI or HDMI) to power the larger panel.

 

Excellent response buddy, thanks alot- i was able to clear quite a few doubts in my mind when i read your post.

I just have one last question.. when exactly does the gpu appear to slow down besides gaming or rendering complex 3d scenes ?

 

Yeah I kinda got the feeling you were being led astray by some of the other posts, so wanted to focus on what you were asking and not people's guesses.

The only other items that really tax the VPUs are things like real-time video image enhancements in PureVideo and Avivo (not the decoding part, the noise reduction, AA and other parts), and then when they are used as co-processors for things like GPGPU apps and and for some video NLE acceleration for Chromakeying and transisions and effects in things like Motion and limited support in things like Photoshop. hopefully they will improve later, and also there's the potential in things like physics.

For things like 2D though I've seen Intel integrated solutions (like even the original Extreme) stomp all over very powerful cards like the GF7900/X1900 because it's very driver/os/app dependant rather than using complex processing power. A simple small pipeline is good for 2D, but trerrible of course for 3D.

Anywhoo, finishing work and heading to the pub, I'll check in later if you have another question.

 

so the 8400 Gs should be fine for a 17 incher running a 1920x1200 resolution for 2d tasks in Photoshop and PureVideo?

what do you say?

the other choice would be the 8600 gt but i dont wana spend extra money if i can achieve the same results with the 8400 Gs

 

Yes, the 8400M GS will be fine for that. Purevideo is barely used anyways, unless you watch DVD's (where it's not needed) or Bluray/HD-DVD.

 

The only area that the GF8400GS is weak is the Purevideo part, but primarily in PureVideoHD. In standard Purevideo which is SD it it's only a bit weaker than other solutions with only inverse telecine and upconverting being the slight stumbling blocks. If you're only watching DVD it will be fine, but if you plan on using it for HD it's best to go with a more powerful card.

For photoshop it'll be fine.

 

I don't know if it has been said yet, but if you want better performance with those applications you need to invest in a better CPU. Who cares about the GPU.

If you do Photoshop for a living, get the best CPU you can afford. If you do it for a hobby, a 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo or faster will do it for you.

 

what resolution should i go with a 17" laptop

1680 x 1050

1440 x 900

1920 x 1200?


Also i have another doubt.. On Hp's website ,its mentioned that :

for an extra $125.00 - you get WXGA+ High-Definition Ultra HP BrightView Widescreen, where Ultra BrightView offers an improved color gamut by 72%.

But for only an extra $50.00 you get a WSXGA+ High-Definition HP BrightView Widescreen Display (1680 x 1050)

A higher resolution for less price but a costly BrightView technology for an extra $125? This confuses me alot....

 

Answered your PM before the thread.

Like I said it depends alot on what you value more per-pixel views or slightly better colour support.

Having to chose between the two, I'd say go with the higher resolution for the Laptop and the better quality external, where you can get resolution, quality and value pretty easily nowadays and the optoins will get better over time too.

The nice thing about the 19x12 resolution even for gaming is that while it gives you a 4:1 pixel pitch increase by doing so, you can run native without interpolation at 960x600 which is good when games are stressful since you mention games a bit.

Personally that would be my choice and one of the only regrets of this fujitsu (and the HDX I was considering) was their lack of 19x12 option at the time. So instead I just plug in one of my externals to do any serious work like colour correction.