Graphic CARDS

which is better between them??

128MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS
256MB NVIDIA GeForce 9200M GS
Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500
Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X3100

if u can organize em from best to worst

 

Rearranging the order you posted:

2
1
4
3

Why? Because 3 and 4 are integrated GPU, which is always worse than dedicated. As you can see by their naming, X4500 is better than x3100 (that's why the numbers go higher xD)

And the other one, it has twice as much RAM (256) and it's from the 9000 series. That beats half to death one of 128MB from the 8000 series.

 

I doubt the 9200m will beat the 8400m GS. I think the 9200m is integrated.

And "twice as much RAM" means nothing. Neither does the 9 series comment.

 

I will agree with apuleyo on the ranking of the intel chipset based graphics cards, but I believe the 8400gs is more powerful than the 9200GS.
Its not the first number, which is really important, its the second number. The second number denotes the ranking in its revision class, so a 8600 always is better than a 8400 and so forth.
However, we cannot really rank the 9200 gs and the 8400gs, because we need to know what versions they are and what memory interface they have. ahigher memory interface like 128bit vs 64bit is a huge difference and a 128bit card will win.

What laptop is this for?,
so we can tell you what ddr and what memory inteface they use.

K-TRON

 

The 9200M GS is just a little bit faster than the 8400M GS, since the 9200M GS has a faster core speed, faster shader and memory speed, but consumes a bit more power than the 8400M GS (both 256MB)....
[8400M GS - 16 unified pipelines | 9200M GS - 8 unified pipelines]

 

The 9200M GS is a dedicated card. The most current integrated gpu from nVidia is the 8200M G.

 

The 8400MGS has 2 times the amount of shaders compared to the 9200M GS. I reckon its just a die shrink of the 8400M G (not GS) and they just clocked it far higher.

Johnny T

 

My fault.

But yes, they are both 64bit, with one having double the Unified Shaders. The 8400m GS should be more powerful. Clocks are clocks, but without Shaders, they mean nothing.

 

the 8400m gs is about 15% faster

 

The days of more ram = better card are long gone, and I long. As for the 9200 it is a dedicated card according to here, as well as it is slightly faster then an 8400GS. But measuring a card by ram level is incorrect. They sell low and mid range cards with 1gb of vram when they know the card cant even take advantage of half the ram available.

so it goes like this:

2
1
4
3

 

The 9200M GS is faster in synthetics benchmarks, but one won't notice a difference in real-world performance..!!

 

Why is the X4500 ranked worst, even after the X3100

 

Where did you see this..??

 

Both of the people who have put number rankings in this thread have it this way.

 

9200M GS > 8400M GS > X4500 > X3100

It must be an error I guess....
2
1
3
4

 

Well yeah obviously they just messed up and put the numbers the wrong way, but just pointing it out.

 

The most current, but practically unknown, mobile IGP from NVIDIA is the GeForce 9100M G.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_9100m_g_mgpu.html

-J.B.

 

Good find. I can't believe they already have a 9 series IGP so soon after the 8200M launch.

 

They gotta catch up to the 3200 igp from ati

 

isnt the intel gma x4500 faster than the nvidia 8400??

 

I haven't seen much on the x4500, but I HIGHLY doubt that it's as fast as an 8400.

 

no, the intel gma is an integrated card (trash) and the 8400 is a mid-range dedicated card (slightly better trash )

 

The HD3200 IGP is around the same performance of a dedicated 8400GS or better that is pretty impressive for a IGP

The X4500 is not even close to the same performance of a 9200GS

 

Slight off-topic :is the any performance-wise videocard compatible to Ati x1950 ?