question about integrated graphics...

is the intel gma 950 faster than a geforce2 mx400? also, is the geforce go 6150 only slightly faster than the intel gma 950? thx

 

The GMA 950 should be similar to the mx400, but it lacks some features which might be in the mx400(hardware T & L). The Go 6150 should definately outperform the 950. The 6150 is similar to the ATi 200m in performance and the review shows that both are much better than the 950...

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=3

 

geforce is way better go with that!

 

I apologize if this is considered to be somewhat off-topic

In regards to your typical 3D game, the GMA 950 should be very close (if not slightly faster) than the Xpress 200M that is installed in HP/Compaq notebooks.

The important thing to take note of is that just about all of the Xpress 200 reviews that you may read include benchmarks taken from a system operating in Dual Channel mode and not the Single Channel mode that the Xpress 200M for AMD processors is restricted to (due to the use of Socket 754 mobile processors). When running in a system with Dual Channel memory, the Xpress 200 (non Mobile) for AMD processors is significantly faster than the Xpress 200M for AMD processors.

That being said, at resolutions of 800x600 to 1024x768, the Xpress 200M for AMD processors operate at about 1/3 of the performance of an X300 when using PC3200/DDR400 memory. Since HP Socket 754 notebooks come with PC2700/DDR333 memory I would say that the performance would be a little more than 1/4 of an X300 which is likely slightly slower than the GMA 950 in competing HP/Compaq notebooks. Keep in mind that at this point, the difference in speed may not be visually discernable (eg. 20 fps vs 22 fps).

 

Well, Skt 754 is a thing of the past. Although you can still find many Skt 754 based machines. All Turion64 X2 and Semprons are now based on Skt S1(639 pins) and have dual channel as well as DDR2. So, that point is not really valid anymore. Also the AMD's were never bandwidth limited. Even with single channel memory controllers. If you want to take a look at the 3D mark tests run by all the reviews here on NBR and compare it with the GMA 950s, you can see some good percent of differences. Even though it might not be totally realistic, it does have some truth in it.

Also some HP 200m based AMD systems had 128MB of dedicated memory(dv5000z, dv8000z, zv6000) and in this case your argument is totally void.

 

Hi Miner,
My DV 5030Z consistantly benchmarks at 1530 in 3DMark03. This is without overclocking.

 

*This is a long post, and is likely my final reply this topic*

The Xpress 200M chipset (which my original remarks were addressing) is of no relevance to Socket S1 processors.

Now, when it comes to discussing 3D Mark results I choose not to comment; giving credence to a program that encourages many end-users to spend countless days/weeks and even months of their lives trying to obtain “an impressive 150 point increase”…that necessary 0.7 frames per second discrepancy between a 3.2 fps average and 2.5 fps average, is not my forte. On a whole, such programs do not accurately reflect how these low end graphic chipsets perform in any game configuration which an end-user of these products would tolerate.

In regards to the Xpress 200M the shared memory bus/bandwidth plays a huge role in how it can perform. My statements never referred to the impact that Dual Channel memory configurations have on an Athlon 64 (architecture) based processor's performance.

I am sure we can agree on this simple fact:

Socket 754 CPUs feature an IMC that is 64-bit wide and lacks support for Dual Channel memory operation.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, just about all of the Xpress 200 (non-mobile) for AMD processors reviews that you may have read use Socket 939 processors, and paired memory operating in Dual Channel mode. This configuration undeniably results in the graphics core of the Xpress 200 having access to a 128-bit shared memory bus which theoretically increases its shared memory bandwidth twofold.

I am sure we can also agree on this simple fact:

When it comes to ATI video chipsets and today’s or yesteryear’s "3D games", when two motherboards of the same model/revision feature the same graphical chipset, the chipset with the wider memory bus and higher effective memory bandwidth will yield better performance results than its crippled sibling as the resolution increases.

e.g. In most games at 800x600 or 1024x768A an X300-SE with its 64-bit memory bus, will be significantly slower than a vanilla X300 with a 128-bit memory bus.

Miner, I do appreciate the fact that you mentioned that certain HP notebooks come equipped with dedicated memory, as I forgot that was the case (I am getting old). However, I would not discredit my original post in its entirety since several of my statements will still apply.

There really is not anything more that I can say to inform those who have been indirectly or directly misinformed by others, which in general , are who I direct my seldom NBR posting efforts to.

Obserabbit, best of luck with your future notebook purchase!