GMA950 vs. Go 7200 in dv2000t

It sounds like this notebook is the best one for me, but I'm stuck deciding on which graphic controller to choose.

I get the impression from looking at video FAQ's that the Go 7200 is not too much of an upgrade. If I go with the 7200 just to be safe, I would like to know what I'm getting and if it's nothing I care about, I would not get it if it cuts any significant time from the already low end battery life (I'm just planning on getting the 6 cell battery).

I have no real interest in playing games on this machine.

I am interested in being able to drive both the LCD to a reasonable resolution and an external LCD to 1600x1200 simultaneously. I've had access to an inexpensive, older DELL which could not accomplish this. When displaying both screens at the same time, it was unable to drive the external to 1600x1200 where it could drive it to that resolution if that were the only monitor. I can't seem to find any information online that discusses these capabilities.

Assuming both the GMA950 and Go 7200 can do this, I would compare each's affect on battery life and the potential for smoother DVD playback.

Any information people can offer on these issues would be much appreciated.

 

The Go 7200 will be better for Windows Vista, should you choose to upgrade to that when it's ready. I installed Vista RC1 on my desktop, just to play with, and I must admit the eye candy is pretty neat. In theory the GMA950 will handle Vista's "Aero Glass" but I don't trust it. You will lose a little battery life by adding the Go 7200 though.

The nVidia GeForce 6150 in the dv2000z, while also a shared memory chip, is enough for Aero Glass and I trust nVidia's drivers a LOT more than Intel's.

While we're talking about Vista, be sure to configure a Core 2 Duo processor since the Core Duo's aren't 64-bit capable. If there is just one program you want to run that benefits from x86-64 and you don't have a 64-bit CPU, you're SOL, and if you're going to bother with an OS upgrade why not go straight to 64-bit? AMD notebook chips have, of course, been 64-bit capable for years (except for the Sempron economy line and even that's changing) since they designed the standard that Intel has belatedly implemented.

 

I had Beta 2 on my Compaq with Intel 950 card, Aero was not an option, but I personally found it annoying so it may not be much off a loss.

 

I have a M140 w/ GMA 900 right now that drives both my laptop LCD (1280 x 800) and my Dell 2005FPW (1680 x 1050) without a problem. I read somewhere on Intel's site (go there and search for 'GMA 950') that these cards can handle outputs of up to 2048 x 1536, so I'm sure the GPUs could handle dual monitor at the resolutions you're asking for.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure about the battery life and the DVD playback though. I *THINK* you might get better DVD performance with the 7200, as I don't think the 900/950 has hardware accelerated MPEG2 decoding.

Why don't you consider the Extended Battery...it would be great for either GPU, and I'm sure you would appreciate the extra time?

 

AFAIK, the 950 cannot handle Aero despite Intel claims (which might have been taken back by now)...regardless, I think I might start a crusade against Intel GPUs...I'll never buy one again!

 

No. night_2004 is wrong, and there is no "in theory" or anything.

The GMA950 is perfectly capable of running Aero Glass. Not only have I seen this personally on my own laptop, but with a short bit of time you could see a video of this.

I assume that Intel took the time to make decent drivers before releasing them. ATI's drivers for beta 2 were horrible.

The requisite drivers are available via Windows Update.

Build 5536 ran Aero Glass with a GMA950 better than an ATI Mobility X1400 ran it on build 5472.

The GMA950 will accelerate DVD decoding.

The GMA950 is capable of driving high-resolution external screens; over DVI, it will do 1600x1200 with regular blanking and 1920x1200 at reduced blanking. It will go up to 2048x1536 over VGA.

Some people claim that this will cause a performance hit, but they are probably lying and probably on a stupid anti-Intel crusade.

If you're buying a nVidia or ATI GPU on a notebook and you do not need heavy 3D acceleration, you are probably wasting your money and battery lifetime.

(On a HP laptop with an X1300 or GMA950 available, the GMA-based laptop is rated for 33% more battery life.)

 

I thought Aero Glass required DirectX9, which Intel didn't have until the GMA950? The Wikipedia Vista page says the GMA950 is required.

 

Can someone please, please let me know if the GMA950 can handle games like railroad tycoon 2 and 3 or do I have to go in for the 7200??

Thanks!

 

If you're planning on gaming at all i would suggest going with the Go 7200 upgrade.

 

Can anyone tell me the difference in performance of each graphics card. Does either show "ghosts" when watching dvds, are there any visble breaks in continuity of the picture? i went with the Intel950 but I'm starting to regret...is the card upgradable?

 

DVD's should be fine. The graphics cards major influence is in 3D applications where he GMA 950 outright sucks. Otherwise for general use it should do fine.

The graphics card is not upgradable.

 

this "ghost" issue is probably a product of your screen. the gma950 has no trouble outputting high-res video as long as the cpu can decode/process it fast enough.

Skipping would be caused by

My HTPC is a 2.0GHz Pentium M with a GMA900. It is completely suitable for watching 720p H264 content at 1366x768 with an unoptimized decoder.

despite the commonly held misconceptions, the gma950 is fine in many 3d applications such as lighter 3d games and games that are a few years old. saying it "outright sucks" is misleading considering that it works fairly well for Aero Glass and applications/games that do not make heavy use of newer DirectX features.

There's no reason to regret getting a GMA950 unless you want to play games that don't perform well. Otherwise, you should enjoy the superior battery life.

 

What is the biggest difference when playing 3-D games...is there more pixelation or are the 3d figures more "blocky"? Does anyone have some screen shots to show me the difference?

 

Not really. If it does not play most of the modern games then it is fairly correct assumption. This can be said of other integrated graphcis as well. But there is no hiding from the truth that the 950 was not meant to be a gaming graphics card.

 

The framerate will be very low. 640x480 res might be playable but even then I wouldn't bet on it. The GMA950, Intel's top-of-the-line GPU, is weaker than the current-generation ATI and nVidia shared memory GPUs and shared memory GPUs are inherently weak to begin with.

 

ATI and nVidia need to quit being cheap and come out with some better dedicated graphics solutions for laptops at the mid-range sector. Turbo Cache and HyperMemory are useless for anything outside of making the video card cheaper. I could of like to of had at least an X1400 with 256MB dedicated VRAM in my dv2000t but i guess i have to settle with a Go 7200 that uses Turbo Cache.