Nvidia 8400M: Power usage vs. Intel's X3100

I'm considering a "well-built" XPS M1330 for the holidays in an ever-ongoing attempt to move away from desktop systems.

Oh, how I'll miss constant 22"+ widescreen time.

Assuming that gaming isn't a big deal, how much of a battery hit would I be taking by using Nvidia's 8400M as offered in the M1330 instead of sticking with integrated graphics?

I've searched; it seems like I'm finding conflicting claims either way.

 

The 8400mGS uses 12 watts according to nVidia's spec sheet.
The Intel X3100 uses 4-6 watts of power, so the power saving for the X3100 are going to be better. If youa re going to be watching movies and light gaming, get the 8400mGS. The Intel X3100 is a integrated chipset graphics card, and it is very weak. The 8400mGS is also a integrated chipset, but its a dedicated card stripped for integrated use. Either way you will get pretty good battery life. You would probably get like 30 minutes or so more battery life with the X3100.
It would be helpful to send a PM to a member with a XPS1330 with both graphics options and ask them what their actual battery life is.
That is the only way to know for sure.

K-TRON

 

It's been my experience, if you do ANY gaming, you will regret buying an intel part at some point.

 

Well the Intel X3100 isn't that weak.
And by the way - I had Empire Earth 2 running on I think a 915 Intel Chipset!
But the NVidia is definitely more powerful.

Anyway...

the NVidia will use significantly more power - ask Sony SZ users who have both. If battery life is an issue stay away from the NVidia.

 

Besides gaming performance, the Nvidia option offers settings that allow you to make your colours pop using digital vibrance control. I have mine set to 30% and get a nicely saturated display.

 

You know my SZ seems perfect with the Intel X3100 too

 

X3100 will give you roughly around 45~1hr more on a standard 6Cell battery and even more on an extended 9 cell. If you don’t already know, there is a big overheating problem and a high failure rate for 8400M GS equipped M1330s. I have already replaced my motherboard once (like many others) and the replacement card has already started showing problems. So at this point I’d stay away from a 8400M despite the extra performance and nice features.

M1330 is a really nice portable notebook; however it is now getting outdated very quickly. The next generation of highly power efficient intel CPUs (Centrino 2) are already here with Geforce 9 series discrete and GMA 4500 integrated graphics cards. So why not get one of those instead ?

 

Although I'm a Sony user I have to agree fully with PhoenixFx.

Also: the Intel X4500 is another huge step up from the X3100 - I'm wondering, wouldn't it actually beat the 8400? I think it does...

 

X4500 is a big step up from X3100, I agree; but it has not beaten 8400M GS (still 30~40% slower).

@ exi : if you are interested in a 13.3" notebook, Take a look at Lenovo U330 (around $1200) has dual graphic cards (integrated X4500 and dedicated ATi Radeon 3450: almost 2x faster than a 8400M). This means you don't have to compromise battery life to get more performance. There are other 13.3 notebooks from other manufacturers with similar capabilities, just look around, you'll find many.

 

I know it's an old game, but BF1942 plays GREAT on the x3100. If you just want to play older games (circa BF1942 and older) the x3100 should be fine, and it's definitely fine for movies (except hi-def).

 

It doesn't.... Intel failed yet again . More seriously while being a nice step from the x3100 it doesn't reach the level of the hd3200 or 9300m...

 

Hi-Def movies? I downloaded yome High def trailers - Quantum of Solace amongst them, they run fine on my X3100.

Edit:
This is a reply to:
talin

 

Well obviously Intel also has to look a bit closer at energy consumption than NVidia or Ati for that matter.

Ups - dubble post as in two posts after each other....

This is a reply to:
Ayle

 

For those who bash intel graphics cards : Intel is not in the business of making performance cards. They are only making cheap power efficient graphics adapters with the bare minimum required to drive a LCD. So stop complaining, Intel cards are doing exactly what they are meant to do.

For those who try to glorify intel cards : Face it guys, they NOT gaming cards, and they cannot play games, period. Running ancient games is not what you call gaming (you don’t buy a new computer to run 2~3 year old games). BTW 2D games or flash games don't count either

 

I think Empire Earth 2 was new when I bought it, and my old Medion laptop was already an odd year old - it worked reasonably well on I think an Intel 915 chipset.

Also - technically laptops are useless for gaming anyway because a lot of brand new games are made for computers released in the new future anyway...

Then:
What do you call gaming? The odd game of chess? Runs on the Vaio just as it did on the old Medion, Intel or NVidia no difference - but the CPU gets maxed for no real reason...

Anyway:
Where is this thread going?
I think it was said at the very beginnign that the NVidia would be better for gaming and the X3100 while quite good is more useful for power saving.

 

^ Granted, the Intel IGPs can run some 3D games; however, most people who want to play games do not want to have to compromise their frame rate, resolution, or graphical effects. The Intel IGPs are handicapped in this respect and aren't capable of running an enjoyable gaming experience. In fact, they can't run certain games at all due to compatibility issues (ex, Age of Empires 3).

 

This one - wrong!!!
I know because I had Age of Empires 3 running on my Vaios X3100
It worked - but the NVidia was definitely better.

 

Aren't you special.

Search the Age of Empires 3 technical forums and you will see that numerous ill-informed users bought the game with the intention of running it on an Intel IGP. It doesn't work on the GMA 950 (an utterly hopeless effort), nor does it work on the X3100; and if it does, it would only function on the lowest settings possible with unplayable frame rates. The post below serves as one of the numerous examples that can be found online.

Source: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=128777&page=23

http://software.intel.com/en-us/for...l-graphics-technology/topic/56093/reply/48192

NBR's X3100 Performance Review

Trying to "tweak" Intel's GMAs just to barely run 3 year old games at playable frame rates does not qualify the IGP as a capable GPU as you would have us believe. Also, the questionable claim of whether you got AOE3 running on an X3100 doesn't mean anything until you look at the settings and frame rate.

 

Well I know that Age of Empires ran playable on my Intel X3100.
Yes, textures weren't as good as ont he NVidia, and it may have been a bit jerky every few minutes.
But I definitely did not use 16Bit or the lowest settings - low settings, maybe, definitely not the highest, but it ran OK on my X3100.

In fact, if I wouldn't have seen the 8400GS as a comparison I wouldn't have complained at all.

So don't ask me what these people are doing wrong - I know that Age of Empires 3 worked reasonably well on my Intel X3100.

 

Agreed. If I still choose to game on the computer, I wouldn't be doing it on a laptop.

Thought of that as well. I guess my thing is that I'm after a laptop that, well, looks sharp (Vaio Z-class, XPS notebooks, etc). I guess that makes me a little vain, but that's what I'm after. My understanding is that the Centrino 2 refresh for the XPS line probably isn't going to happen until January, so that's a bit of an issue.

A hardware-comparable Vaio Z, while undoubtedly a snazzy laptop, carries with it about an $800 premium for (mostly) equivalent hardware / Vista Ultimate 64-bit / etc. What machines am I leaving out?

 

Possibly Lenovo - its going to run the X4500 on most laptops, but it may be an idea.

 

Thanks for the Lenovo pointers.

Anything else I'm missing?

 

The Samsung Q310 is an inexpensive 13.3" notebook with weak nVidia GPU and fairly good battery time. See the Samsung forum for more info and feedback.

John