NotebookReview.com Laptop Graphics Guide 2009: Part Three

by Dustin Sklavos

Now we come to part three of the 2009 graphics guide: ATI graphics. In Part Two I broke down the Nvidia mobile GPUs by the graphics chip that powers them in ascending order from weakest to most powerful. I'm also going to break things down for ATI here in Part Three. At the end I'll also briefly mention the parts ATI has announced that aren't yet available in notebooks, but will hopefully be in the near future.

VITAL STATISTICS
Before I get into the vital statistics I'll provide for each part, I do want to point out that the gulf between mobile performance and desktop performance is presently the biggest it has ever been. Even the fastest mobile cards are still only in spitting distance of $100 desktop graphics cards, and I don't know about you, but I find that pretty depressing and I think it makes a strong case for just building a small LAN box as opposed to getting a fat gaming notebook. Your mileage may vary.

If, however, you're the more casual LANner, this compression will still work out fairly well for you, at least if you're looking at only playing at 1280x800 or 720p, both common resolutions for 15” notebooks and under.

So, that said, here's where we're at:

GPU: The codenamed desktop GPU these parts are derived from.
Parts: The parts derived from that GPU.
Shaders: The number of unified shaders these parts have. Remember, ATI and Nvidia shader counts are not in the slightest bit directly comparable.
Memory: The bus width and memory supported by these parts.
Desktop: The desktop part or parts comparable to these parts.
Performance: About the average kind of performance you should expect.

And remember, per Part One and Part Two, Nvidia graphics bring CUDA support and in the case of higher end kit, PhysX, while ATI graphics bring support for DirectX 10.1.

INTEGRATED GRAPHICS

GPU: No codename.
Parts: Mobility Radeon X1250, Mobility Radeon X1270
Shaders: N/A
Memory: Shared with system memory.
Desktop: Radeon X1250
Performance: At this juncture, pretty poor and the worst IGP on this list.

The only reason I've included this DirectX 9-class part is due to it being the baseline for the HP Pavilion dv2z laptop. However, HP seldom releases those laptops into the wild without the dedicated Mobility Radeon HD 3410 attached, so this is basically here for completeness. That said, it's woefully inadequate for anything but older games at this point, and should probably just be avoided entirely.

GPU: 780G
Parts: Mobility Radeon HD 3100, Mobility Radeon HD 3200
Shaders: 40
Memory: Shared with system memory; or DDR2/DDR3 with a 64-bit bus width.
Desktop: Radeon HD 3100 (780V) or HD 3200 (780G)
Performance: Close to best in class; gaming between 800x600 and 1024x768 with medium-low settings, some games at 720p with low settings.

The only difference between these two parts in notebooks is clock speed, with the HD 3100 running a touch slower than the HD 3200. These are still very capable gaming parts for integrated graphics, and if you're on a budget you could do much worse. Some notebooks will actually include dedicated memory attached to the HD 3200, bringing its performance dangerously close to a dedicated HD 3400 series part. Additionally, some notebooks with Mobility Radeon HD 3400 series parts can also enable Hybrid Crossfire with the HD 3100/3200 to improve performance.

So ultimately, if you're on an extreme budget, these are going to be parts you'll want to look out for, but honestly dedicated parts can even be found under $700 on the market at this point, so you want to consider stretching at least a little.

BUDGET/LOW-END GRAPHICS

GPU: RV610
Parts: Mobility Radeon HD 3410, Mobility Radeon HD 3430, Mobility Radeon HD 3450, Mobility Radeon HD 3470
Shaders: 40
Memory: DDR2 or GDDR3; 64-bit memory bus
Desktop: Radeon HD 3450 for the 3470; rest are going to be slower than that and probably closer to the HD 3450's predecessor, the Radeon HD 2400 Pro.
Performance: Decent gaming at 1024x768 at most with medium settings, the occasional 720p.

The interesting thing about this lineup is that there isn't a HUGE difference in performance between any entrant from the 3450 on down, with the 3430 and 3410 sporting exclusively DDR2. That said, these are going to be bare minimum for playing any games, and while the Hybrid Crossfire with the HD 3100/3200 is fairly compelling it still doesn't reach into the ranks of better hardware.

I've read repeatedly on the forums that the Mobility Radeon HD 3470 was the fastest entry-level GPU available in notebooks, but that's likely changed since the HD 4000 series has become available. This should be the bare minimum for playing any games, but it's not likely to provide the performance even a casual gamer will be hoping for, and the common DDR2 and 64-bit memory bus are heinously crippling.

GPU: RV710
Parts: Mobility Radeon HD 4330, Mobility Radeon HD 4530, Mobility Radeon HD 4570
Shaders: 80
Memory: DDR2, DDR3, or GDDR3; 64-bit memory bus
Desktop: The 4330 will be a bit slower than the Radeon HD 4350; the 4530 will be about as fast as the Radeon HD 4350; and the 4570 will be about as fast as the Radeon HD 4550.
Performance: Strong gaming at 1024x768 with medium-high settings, 720p not wholly out of reach.

ATI's Radeon HD 4000 series and their mobility counterparts are major improvements upon the HD 3000 line and bring healthy performance boosts, including support for cheaper DDR3 that makes an excellent compromise between dismally slow DDR2 and more expensive GDDR3. These still aren't the most desirable for gaming, but they're a step up from the HD 3400 line and mercifully aren't too rarefied. In fact, the 4570 is remarkably easy to find.

Of course, if you want to do any serious LANning with your laptop, these may still not cut the mustard for you, but the general improvements made to the 4000s against the 3000s make them solid budget choices.

MID-RANGE GRAPHICS

GPU: RV640
Parts: Mobility Radeon HD 3650, Mobility Radeon HD 3670
Shaders: 120
Memory: DDR2 or GDDR3; 128-bit memory bus
Desktop: The HD 3670 will be slightly slower than a Radeon HD 3650; the Mobility Radeon HD 3650 will be substantially slower.
Performance: 1280x800 or 720p at medium-high settings.

Having used a desktop HD 3650 with GDDR3 and a Mobility Radeon HD 3650 with GDDR3, I can tell you these parts are not competitive with Nvidia's solutions in this market. The HD 3670 comes close, but the HD 3650 is terribly slow. It's faster than the HD 3400 and 4300/4500 lines, but otherwise not terribly desireable. Mercifully, they're not too common and Nvidia's solutions are much easier to get.

GPU: RV730
Parts: Mobility Radeon HD 4650, Mobility Radeon HD 4670
Shaders: 320
Memory: DDR2, DDR3, or GDDR3; 128-bit memory bus
Desktop: Radeon HD 4650 with DDR3 is probably the closest to the Mobility Radeon HD 4670; Radeon HD 4650 with DDR2 is probably closest to the Mobility Radeon HD 4650.
Performance: 1280x800 or 720p with maxed settings, can probably hit higher resolutions relatively comfortably.

Compared to the HD 3600 series, the Mobility Radeon HD 4600 series are beasts and typically as fast as or faster than Nvidia solutions in their range. In addition to having a shader count on par with the previous generation's high end, the HD 4600 line boasts improved shaders and vastly improved anti-aliasing, making them ideal for the LAN gamer. These can also be found in 15-inch laptops, and are capable of using cost-effective DDR3, which curbs the kind of performance hit DDR2 can take.

I'd happily recommend these over their counterparts in Nvidia's lineup, especially given their reasonable prowess with anti-aliasing (provided they're coupled with fast memory).

PERFORMANCE GRAPHICS

GPU: RV670
Parts: Mobility Radeon HD 3850, Mobility Radeon HD 3870
Shaders: 320
Memory: GDDR3; 256-bit
Desktop: Radeon HD 3850 for the 3870; 3850 will be much slower.
Performance: Up to 1080p with medium-high settings.

Unfortunately, RV670 is a decent chip but still suffers from the same problems endemic to the RV600 line. While anti-aliasing isn't a huge deal on lower-classed chips, on flagship chips, the RV600 line's poor anti-aliasing performance can be devastating. These didn't make it into the marketplace in large numbers, and all told it's probably better that way. While they're somewhat faster than the Mobility Radeon HD 4600 series, they're nowhere near as desirable.

Still, it's not going to kill you. With anti-aliasing disabled these chips are capable of being real screamers and offering excellent performance. I owned a desktop Radeon HD 3850 that offered very solid performance at 1920x1200 when anti-aliasing was disabled.

HIGH-END GRAPHICS

GPU: RV770
Parts: Mobility Radeon HD 4850, Mobility Radeon HD 4870
Shaders: 800
Memory: GDDR3 (4850) or GDDR5 (4870); 256-bit
Desktop: Between a Radeon HD 4830 and Radeon HD 4850.
Performance: 1080p with details maxed, sometimes with anti-aliasing.

The RV770's so impressive on the desktop, it's a shame its performance is hamstrung in the mobile sector. Here, unfortunately the Nvidia solutions are generally going to be a bit more attractive due to the comparably low clocks on these chips; RV770 on the desktop relies largely on higher clock speeds for its performance and without that luxury these are going to be performance-limited by the low core speeds, topping out at just 550MHz on the Mobility Radeon HD 4870.

The massive boost of bandwidth the GDDR5 gives to the Mobility Radeon HD 4870 is also largely negligible given the core clock is too low to really take advantage of it, so you're probably better off just hunting down a Mobility Radeon HD 4850 if you simply must have ATI. Otherwise, I'd probably look towards Nvidia's mobile high end.

I will say, though, that the HD 4800s in general have excellent anti-aliasing performance and don't suffer a precipitous performance drop at 8xAA provided they have enough video memory.

STILL TO COME
ATI has announced the Mobility Radeon HD 4830 and 4860, both based off the desktop Radeon HD 4770 (this actually makes some sense; the 4770 is horribly named and performs faster than a desktop 4830). Unfortunately, because the chip behind that card, the RV740, is pretty scarce, I don't expect to see these materialize in any appreciable numbers.

And finally, Microsoft's release of Windows 7 later this year will be bringing DirectX 11 with it, and ATI plans to be first out of the gate with DirectX 11-class parts. We'll see how that goes.

CONCLUSION
And there you have it, fairly compacted and condensed, the mobile lineups from Nvidia and ATI. I've made a lot of omissions (specifically Nvidia's 8 series and prior and ATI's HD 2000 series and prior), but the parts omitted are exceedingly rare these days, and with ATI's HD 2000 line, just change the 2 to a 3 and you'll have pretty much the same performance.

Of course, never use Intel graphics for anything other than displaying your desktop.

Finally, I would like to credit the following sites for their information on these parts:

• GPUReview (www.gpureview.com), whom I wish would get out of Nvidia's pocket and update on ATI's mobile parts.
• AMD's website (www.amd.com)
• Nvidia's website (www.nvidia.com)
• And most importantly, Notebook Check (www.notebookcheck.com). Notebook Check's graphics comparison chart, though much more thorough than what I've done here, is a little tough to follow. I've largely tried to digest that information into something more approachable in this series of guides. Nonetheless, if you crave more information, I heartily recommend checking them out.

Cheers!

 

i do not recommend notebook check

 

I actually play games on an external display at 1680x1050 with my HD 4330 on medium to high settings on many many games. It's only when you start hitting games like Crysis that you need to start turning it down to low-medium or dropping the resolution.

 

Nvidia fanboy much?

Yes, the RV770's have slower clocks as laptop parts, but at least they use the current generation of desktop part technology. 4850 performance is on par with GTX 260 performance in every benchmark I've seen. It's vantage score and non-Nvidia optimized games is on par with a GTX 280. You make it sound like it's only for people who "must have ATI"...

Also, why do people still talk about DDR5 HD 4870's like they exist... no laptop has ever had them.

 

Notebookcheck goes for synthetic benchmarks. Still, I have to say their gaming section where they display different FPSs for games is quite informative to me.

Great job as always Pulp!

 

Thanks for the 3 informative articles.
The one important category omitted which would have made it a perfect series is comparative impact on battery life.

 

I don't think it's fair to call Dustin a Nvidia fanboy. I might not completely agree with his word choice in that section either, but Dustin/Pulp is probably one of the least biased people I know when it comes to GPUs. In fact, I'm pretty sure he is currently an ATI user at the moment.

ATI and Nvidia routinely go back and forth in terms of how has the better options in the various market segments between integrated and high-end. Since 2000 I've had five desktops and three different laptops
(not counting work-issued laptops or laptops with Intel graphics) going back and forth between ATI and Nvidia. At some times over the last nine years ATI was the best choice in my price range and at other times it was Nvidia.

Being an ATI or Nvidia fanboy makes almost no sense for any consumer because in 6-12 months the other manufacturer might have a better solution on the market. My personal advice has always been to figure out what you can afford and then buy whatever the best GPU is (regardless of manufacturer) at the time you need to make your purchase.

 

I wouldn't call him an Nvidia fanboy. He didn't have great things to say about Nvidia's cards either.

I would take issue with his suggestion at the end I guess. The Mobility 4850, GTX 260M and GTX280M are all pretty close in performance. As long as a laptop had one of those higher end cards in it, I think you'd be fine for games. I'd make the decision based on other factors such as RAM, warranty and price.

I've got a 4850 in my laptop. I didn't buy it based on it being an ATI card. I bought it because I thought it was the best bang for the buck - at least $200less than any comparable laptop with a 260M or 280M.

He's definitely right about gaming on a desktop if you can though. Laptop gaming has improved, but my three-year old desktop, with a recently installed $250 video card, absolutely kills my brand new laptop.

 

Desktop is running a 1GB Radeon HD 4870. Media center is running a 512MB Radeon HD 4670. All of my friends are actually using Radeons on my recommendation due to their superior price/performance at time of purchase: one 512MB Radeon HD 4870, one 512MB Radeon HD 4850, one 512MB Radeon HD 4830, one 512MB Radeon HD 3870, and one 512MB Radeon HD 3850 (at $60 you can't miss.)

 

Okay, fanboy was probably too strong, but can you at least explain why you would only choose a 4850 if you "simply must have ATI" when the benchmarks do not lead to that conclusion?

 

AMD really dropped the ball by not basing their new mobile platform on the 80 shader RV710.

They led the field with the Puma platform and its 780G IGP, and they could have done so again had they used an 80 shader 4xxx series GPU.

 

Heat and power consumption are other issues that MUST also be kept in balance when you're talking about mobile GPUs. The 80 shader (per cluster) GPU is known for running fairly hot (that's why the desktop 4850 cards switched to the dual-slot form factor with larger heatsinks and fans) and power hungry on desktops ... so I imagine it would be insanely hot and kill battery life in laptops.

This takes time for AMD/ATI engineers to work out.

 

One thing AMD/ATI did wrong is to not officialy support the drivers, can someone explain me why? I cant find any logical explanation, I mean, it cant be that hard for AMD. They have a very reasonable market share in the mobile graphics area, Why?

Yeah, I know you can tweak the desktop driver or get support by the Laptop manufacturer but thats not my point.

 

Probably has something to do with the same reason Nvidia didn't support mobile drivers until late last year: notebook manufacturers like creating specific hotkeys for various controls (which often involve the graphics drivers for control over things like video output or resolution) it took Nvidia quite a while to work with manufacturers to develop standards that would allow Nvidia to handle driver updates.

Still, I agree that ATI needs to get off its collective rear end and start supporting mobile drivers. For example, a driver update for Nvidia graphics might provide a minor (though still noticeable) increase to graphics/gaming performance. That's pretty cool for Nvidia users ... and something that ATI-equipped notebook users can't enjoy until ATI starts supporting mobile drivers.

 

I get close to 3 hours on my GT725 with a 9-cell. It doesn't have a lot of headroom for overclocking without a notebook cooler, but stays in the safe zone with MSI's very quiet single fan.

I'll concede the driver issue, but the TDP of a 4850 is less than a GTX 260.

 

I whole heartedly agree on what you said about the 4600's... they're great cards. They're what I'm hoping to get in my next notebook.

 

+1

Sure its nice to have the best 3d performance but if I'm getting a laptop I may want to sacrifice some performance for more battery life. This is why I really like hybrid graphics

 

i am referring to the 80 shader RV710, not the 800 shader R700.

the RV710 has 241m transistors, as compared to 180m for the 40 shader GPU currently used.

so for ~35% more transistors you get double the shader power, particularly useful now that AMD have said Tigris will support OpenCL.

AMD dropped the ball on this one.

 

AMD can't just magically spit out new hardware, and 35% more transistors can introduce 35% more power draw and 35% more heat. They don't even have a RV710-based IGP for desktops yet. Try to remember how long it took from the inception of the Radeon HD 2400 until it materialized in the 780G anyhow.

You're playing armchair engineer here; they didn't drop the ball, and if anything they may just be trying to avoid Nvidian heat and power draw.

Besides, the 780G is STILL a fantastic IGP. If anything we may just get a nice bump to the 785G soon.

 

laughing @ Nvidian.

 

I too was a little surprised when I read the comments on the mobility 4850.

Judging by notebookcheck; Cinebench, Crysis scores [mid 40fps compared to the GTX260s mid 30s, in an NV-centric game!] et al, the 4850 mobility performs on par with the GTX 280M, whilst being cheaper, this surely makes it the chip to go for; especially when you consider a base spec, 4850M x2 crossfire laptop is now available for less than £1500, which is similarly priced to most GTX260 laptops, and a hell of a lot cheaper than any SLI Nvidia parts, whilst being anywhere from 1.1-2x faster, well in graphical capability.

It's also not neutered by lower clock speeds in the way he suggests; it's based on the same design as the 4850 desktop part; just comes clocked approximately 1/6th slower; it has the same number of shaders etc. When you consider the naming conventions Nvidia has used; I'd actually say the GTX280/260M parts are neutered, as they're not even based on the GT200 design, whereas the ATI parts are just downclocked, lower power versions of thier desktop compatriots.

A desktop 4830/9800GTX approximately in a laptop is nothing to laugh at.


I'd actually suggest the high end part in the Laptops Graphic guide could do with being rewritten.

 

Notebookcheck.net isn't very useful or accurate if you're only looking at the main GPU chart- LINK. The figures shown are just an average of multiple systems.

But if you click on the specific graphics card, it shows much greater detail (DDR2 vs. GDDR3, 256mb vs. 512mb) and often has multiple gaming (fps) results.

 

Which also isn't massively useful considering that other elements of the system setups impact some of those benchmarks.

Still, as far as tech specs go, most of the site looks fine.

 

The way i see it is thus:

The Puma platform was genius when it came out, a powerful IGP manufactured on a brand new process created a lot of FPS for not much required power, but time has moved on. a long way further on.

All this rumoured Tigris IGP is is a re-spin of their old 40 shader GPU from its original DX10 incarnation to the slightly less old DX10.1 version.

That is not enough to even bring it up to the power of the nVidia 9400 IGP and that has been out for nearly a year itself.

i expected greater progress so long after the PUMA release.

 

Good articles over all. ATI took a step in the right direction with the 4850m but faltered with the 4870m with no DDR5. It will be interesting if their 40nm can successfully be used in a mobile setting.

Hopefully Nvidias new chip will actually be something new instead of a respin of 2 year old tech. Im stilling betting its a binned version of their cheap 40nm desktop chip they released to OEMs. In that case they will take a desktop card worth $50 and charge $500 for the mobile version which is typical Nvidia.

 

Aye that's what I've been looking at. Thier overall table goes by 3dmark figures, which put the GTX260 ahead by higher 3dmark06 averages; however when comparing Crysis et al, the 4850 actually performs better.

Given its pulling a lower price point; and seems to be on par with the GTX 280M rather than the GTX260, I feel theres a valid case for relooking at that graphics write up, because in general terms; the 4850 seems to be faster than the GTX260, especially if you looked at the detailed views, and compare the machines used to produce the results they've listed; the 4850 results typically come from more modest machines.

For example:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-4850.13975.0.html
Crysis
38.89 fps on the high settings, tested with a P9500 (2.5Ghz), 4GB, 512MB 4850M (or 43 when using an E6600, possibly downclocked simulation)
Vantage GPU score
5500 with P9500/4GB/512MB card


http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-260M.14559.0.html
Crysis
37FPS using a T9550, 6GB, 1GB card.
Vantage GPU score
T9550/6GB/1GB card - 5000 or 4750 with a Q9100/8GB Ram job


In comparison, a GTX280M has scored 5300 in Vantage GPU using a X9100/2GB RAM.


This is what I mean; the article reads as though the ATI chips are inferior, but people playing with them at the moment, and some early benchmarks are saying something completely different; the 4850 keeping up with more expensive parts.

This leads me to believe that if decent crossfire drivers (desktop drivers mobility modded perhaps), that the 4850X2 should keep up with a GTX280M SLI, in a platform substantially cheaper, and decent mobility 4870 with GDDR5 if they ever arrive should be faster chip to chip than the GTX280, whilst again probably being cheaper.


Sorry if I sound biased; I was actually originally going to buy a GTX260M based laptop (or that was my initial plan) but having seen people coming out with mobility 4850 figures; the Nvidia parts seem pretty overpriced, and not as competetive as they should be; not to mention an M4850 should scale better with overclocking, as its based on a more powerful architecture. I don't think its really a good thing that this guide is making them out to be poor performing, second-best choices; when that's clearly not the case. The current ATI designs take much less of a hit with AA than the G92 GPU series from Nvidia; and I think there are plenty of reasons to suggest considering a ATI chip; rather than relegating them to the chip you should consider if you can't avoid Nvidia.
The 48-series mobility chips are also faster than ALL the 9/8 series Nvidia mobile chips, so again the writeup can give a misleading impression by putting them in the same category.

Hope what I'm saying makes sense.

 

I have a question regarding the lowest end ATI X1270 IGP solution. Gateway has a netbook out on the market that comes with this and an AMD 1.2GHz Athlon 64 processor. I don't want to play games or anything like that. I am simply curious about HD video playback. I have conducted previous research but have yet to receive a solid answer.

I browsed Nvidia's website and it appears that the motherboard (on this netbook) supports h.264 decoding (with proper software). I just want to playback HD videos. I know that it can play SD videos in iTunes (640X480, h.264, 1.5Mbps) but I am curious about 720p videos in iTunes and 720p/1080p videos in other applications.

I am thinking about purchasing the Gateway netbook for $399 but only if it can playback HD videos. Otherwise I will have to go with HP's Mini 110XP netbook with a Broadcom Crystal HD acceleration chip.

 

The 3650HD is not that bad, Ive read it is slightly below the same-category-GPU 9600M GT. And their OpenGL versions leads to think that the V5700 is a much better solution than the FX770M.

Something about NVIDIA, that kinda insulted me, is that the 8xxx, 9xxx and GTX2xx series are the same architecture, but with a faster memory, more shaders enabled or more memory available. If this is true, then what a shame.

On the other hand ATi claims that the 4xxxHD are completely new architecture over the 3xxxHD.

And I am not biased, I do have an ATi IGP in my laptop, but after reading/hearing about his architecture, well, NVIDIA disappointed me.
Also, arent ATi cards generally more warm that NVIDIA? Or this is only limited to AMD CPU compared to Intel?

 

I have a Gateway M 6862 and my graphic card ATI Radeon HD 2600 512mb GDDR3 ram , where does that rate low end. mid range etcc. I dont really play any games but watch a lot of movies and shows but i plan on playing Diablo 3 when it comes out..

 

I can tell you this is not the case. The HD 3650 is actually pretty abysmal, I've used it myself and the 9600M actually runs roughshod over it. The 9600M GS with DDR2 in my laptop is actually faster than the HD 3650 GDDR3 in some instances.

 

That's what I should have said... It's obviously not Nvidia favoritism since in the midrange section the 4650 is given its proper respect. However, the conclusion mysteriously appears without any valid backing. The only complaint given for the 4850 is the lower clock speeds, which is ALWAYS the case with mobile cards. All real-world benchmarks have shown the 4850 easily keeping up with a GTX 260...

So, I don't care if the conclusion stays the same, but more reasoning needs to be given.

 

Hey neil, if you've got the time, run some RE5 benches, the thread is found in Alienware side topics.

 

I actually already did that, results are posted in the thread on that benchmark in the gaming section. My numbers on DX10 without AA were close to KevinJack's overclocked 260m. This was with a benchmark downloaded from an Nvidea site, and my CPU is far from the best.