NotebookReview.com Laptop Graphics Guide 2009: Part Two

by Dustin Sklavos

Now we come to part two of the 2009 graphics guide, the "fun" part. In Part Two and Part Three of the guide I'm going to break down the 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 into Nvidia (Part Two) and ATI (Part Three) instead of consolidating them in a single list. This seems counterintuitive, but you'll discover why I did this when you look at their numbers. A lot of parts just clump next to each other, so it's easier to just say "these from this vendor will perform at these settings" and so on.

At the end, I'll also briefly mention the parts Nvidia 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-inch notebooks and smaller.

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, Nvidia parts bring CUDA support and in the case of higher end kit, PhysX, while ATI parts bring support for DirectX 10.1.

INTEGRATED GRAPHICS

GPU: No codename.
Parts: GeForce 8200M G, GeForce 9100M G
Shaders: 8
Memory: Shared with system memory.
Desktop: GeForce 8200
Performance: 1024x768 with low settings, seldom 720p.

These parts are integrated into the motherboard and share RAM with the CPU; as a result, they're going to hit memory-based bottlenecks long before their cores are over-taxed, and this usually results in a resolution wall between 800x600 and 1024x768. These IGPs also only appear in AMD-based notebooks, where they face stiffer competition from the likes of ATI's Radeon HD 3100/3200 integrated graphics which generally offer superior performance.

GPU: No codename.
Parts: GeForce 9400M, GeForce G 102M
Shaders: 16
Memory: Shared with system memory.
Desktop: GeForce 9300
Performance: 1024x768 with low-to-medium settings, sometimes 720p at low settings.

The GeForce 9400M and G 102M are powerful parts that materialize in Intel-based notebooks as an alternative to Intel's anemic integrated graphics. These are actually almost powerful enough for some casual gaming and will certainly do in a pinch. With the GeForce 9400M, Nvidia essentially crammed its 16-shader GeForce 8400 core into the motherboard's northbridge, bringing with it strong performance for an integrated graphics part that threatens to cannibalize their low-end completely.

BUDGET/LOW-END GRAPHICS

GPU: G96 (8/16 shader variants), uncertain
Parts: GeForce 9200M GS, GeForce 9300M GS, GeForce 9300M G, GeForce G 105M, GeForce G 110M
Shaders: 8 (9200M GS, 9300M GS, G 105M); 16 (9300M G, G 110M)
Memory: DDR2 or GDDR3; 64-bit memory bus
Desktop: GeForce 9400 GT at most, generally close to a GeForce 8400 GS.
Performance: 1024x768 with low-to-medium settings, sometimes 720p at low settings.

These parts have actually almost been obsoleted by Nvidia's GeForce 9400M and GeForce G 102M. The G 105M and G 110M are going to perform decently faster due to their dedicated graphics memory, and it should be noted that the 9300M and 105M/110M parts can appear with the 9400M or G 102M for Hybrid SLI, leveraging the performance of both graphics cores to improve gaming overall. Still, these really aren't ideal for gaming, and if you're hanging out at this low end, you might as well stick with the integrated parts.

MID-RANGE GRAPHICS

GPU: G96
Parts: GeForce 9600M GS, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120M, GeForce 9650M GS, GeForce 9650M GT, GeForce GT 130M, GeForce 9700M GT
Shaders: 32
Memory: DDR2 or GDDR3; 128-bit memory bus
Desktop: GeForce 9500 GT at most.
Performance: 1280x800 or 720p at medium-high settings for most games, some at lower resolution depending on memory type.

If you're planning on doing any mobile gaming, this is really what you need to be targeting at a minimum. The GT 120M and GT 130M seem to exist almost entirely to at least consolidate the overabundance of parts in this range. It bears mentioning that all of these parts are within about 200MHz on the core of each other, so they perform fairly similarly, with the only differences being the possibility of turning settings up or down, but resolution will probably remain level.

You should also note that more than 512MB of video memory on any of these is a waste as the core is just not powerful enough to use it all, and that DDR2 can have a severely negative impact on the performance of the core (potentially as much as 20%.) DDR2 will always bottleneck these parts, so you'll want to seek out GDDR3 if at all possible.

PERFORMANCE GRAPHICS

GPU: G94
Parts: GeForce 9700M GTS, GeForce GTS 150M, GeForce 9800M GS, GeForce 9800M GTS, GeForce GTS 160M
Shaders: 48 (9700M GTS); 64 (all others)
Memory: GDDR3; 256-bit
Desktop: GeForce 9600GT at best, oftentimes closer to GeForce 9600GSO (256MB or 512MB models).
Performance: 1280x800 or 720p at maximal settings with possibly some anti-aliasing; may be able to hit 1680x1050 or 1080p with lowered settings.

This is where some of the more powerful mobile hardware begins to appear. These are all, with the exception of the weaker, 48-shader 9700M GTS, essentially desktop GeForce 9600 GT's with reduced clocks and as a result will perform fairly close if not a bit under. This is good, as a desktop 9600 GT offers solid if unexceptional gaming performance.

These are also about the most powerful chips you're going to find in a 15-inch laptop, and typically it's going to be in a bulkier laptop like the ASUS G50 series.

HIGH-END GRAPHICS

GPU: G92
Parts: 9800M GT, 9800M GTX, GTX 260M, GTX 280M
Shaders: 96 (9800M GT), 112 (9800M GTX, GTX 260M), 128 (GTX 280M)
Memory: GDDR3; 256-bit
Desktop: Slightly lower than GeForce 8800 GS (9800M GT), Slightly lower than GeForce 9800 GT (9800M GTX, GTX 260M), Slightly lower than GeForce 8800 GTS 512 (GTX 280M)
Performance: Should be able to play most games at 1080p at medium or high settings, oftentimes maxed out and occasionally with anti-aliasing enabled.

So these are the fastest Nvidia has to offer, and as a result, the most expensive. These will only ever appear in massive desktop replacement units, and are most likely to be seen in SLI configurations in these gaming notebooks. This is Nvidia's cream of the crop, but the GTX branding on the 260M and 280M is profoundly disingenuous, as these parts are nowhere near the performance of those desktop parts and aren't even the same generation of hardware.

STILL TO COME
Nvidia has also announced an entire five part line-up, the G200 series, spanning up to just under the GTX 260M and GTX 280M that support DirectX 10.1 and in some cases GDDR5. These parts look extremely compelling but unfortunately use the same manufacturing process behind ATI's scarce RV740, so I don't have too much faith in these getting to market in the near future. Interestingly, these have no desktop analogues; I suspect the desktop parts will actually come later.

Stay tuned for Part Three of the laptop graphics guide where I'll cover the latest graphics solutions from ATI.

 

Great work, I especially like how you compared the mobile chips to desktop chips. I'm looking forward to the upcoming ATI guide!

 

Good stuff, as usual, Pulp! I'm eagerly awaiting Part 3 on ATI

 

Good work, thanks for putting this together. For the mainstream users, there are 2 things that would help the buying decision:

1/ Power consumption. New Nvidia cards claim they save battery life by offloading the CPU. Is it correct and if so, by how much? It seems that integrated graphics are still the way to go for power efficiency... could you measure this for us?

2/ Great to have covered Nvidia and then ATI. What about Intel's 4500 line-up and follow ons? They are the most popular choice for mainstream notebooks and it would be good to know how they stack up.

 

I think the general consensus is that Intel's chips are all quite bad and any modern, graphically intensive games are not going to play well at all. Newer variants like the 4500MHD can play 720p video smoothly but that's about it. I think this guide is mainly targeted towards those who want to know about gaming performance, so Intel is basically out of the question.

 

The only thing that would be interesting to compare IMO w/ X4500 is battery life. The GM45 chipset takes 14.5W and the PM45 chipset takes 9.5W, so 5W for the X4500 (according to Intel chipset spec sheet). ATI's HD 4330 supposedly only draws within a 7W envelope, if this is true then X4500 is completely useless as with only 2W different, you can get 3-5x better graphics power.

 

.
Are you sure about this? GPU-z reports my 9300M GS as having 16 shaders. Same for other people aswell. I know that's the info from nvidia's site, I'm not sure it's accurate.

 

Great review, I see there is a part 3 coming? Nice work.

 

Good review, nice read. Hopefully the next versions from Nvidia will have some newer tech in them... or at least finally be up to the same speeds as newer 9800GTX+ cards... I'm sure we're still a long ways off from GTX280 desktop speed though.

In any case, by that time maybe my 8800m card will be ready for retirement . For the speed of a 9600GT, I must say that it's holding up pretty admirably.

 

Great guide, especially letting people know what to expect from their GPUs.
Just one thing I noticed - the 9300M G, 9500M GS (which didn't even make the list!), and 9650M GS are all rebrands of the 8400M GS, 8600M GT, and 8700M GT, respectively.
That means that the G86 core should be listed in the low-end segment (with 16 shaders), and the G84 core should be listed in the mid-range segment.

 

Dustin, THANK YOU, for categorizing and describing the NVIDIA GPUs. I finally have a place where I can actually look up, with minimal confusion, the differences between them, in some kind of order. Unlike nvidia.com

 

This was an absolutely fantastic article from this mid-level newbie to GPUs.

I have to ask because I simply can't wait: Where would the ATI Mobility Radeon 3670/4670 fit on in those categories?

I understand the shaders are completely unrelated, but I look at these two cards and the 3670 has 80 shaders vs. the 4670 have 320 shaders. Further, the 4670 is 1gb of ram and a pretty decently higher clock speed.

So I'm asking myself: Is it worth the extra $100 Dell charges on the XPS 16 to step up to the 4670 and extend it's usable lifespan before it becomes the bottleneck (since I can probably upgrade the ram, processor, and HDD if they become the bottleneck).

Joe

 

The 4670 (and most of the 4xxx series cards, when compared to the 3xxx versions) is going to be much better than the 3670, though it would help to know just how much gaming/what settings/resolution you plan on having to justify the $100 (rather steep in my opinion)

 

The problem is not what gaming I plan now (WoW, Neverwinter Nights 2), but what I plan in 2 years....maybe Diablo III? But we don't even know the specs for that.

I don't care about playing stuff on high settings. I'm fine with medium to even medium-low. And I don't care about extreme frame rates...I just want smooth.

I used to play Ultima Online Beta/and the real thing/ off a 56k modem and a machine that barely met it's specs. It was a disaster in towns. I just want smoothness

 

I'd like to hear about ATI's parts also, given that they are sometimes the choice that you have to make.

 

How bout listing which nvidia chips have eutectic solder vs high lead solder so we know which gpus are going to die in 6 months?

 

I wonder. Do all new NVIDIA GPUs are free of the frying-death the 8400 and 8600 were doomed?

 

There still are lingering concerns about the 9600M GT (some Macbook Pros have been toasted), but aside from that they should be safe.

 

And the GT, GTX, GTS series? How about Quadro FX?
I am scared I get a Quadro FX and my laptop gets fried!! Are they safe?
And I have never heard of an ATi "spicing things up" inside your laptop...

 

Would be cool if you could list some laptops that included these video cards. I'm wondering what company besides the usual Alienware are running cards like GeForce GTX 280M and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4870 X2.

 

Sager, Asus, MSI, Clevo, and the such boutique high-end gaming machines normally use this high-end hardware.