Best 3d Video Accelerator for laptops?
AcCeSsDeNiEd
I don't know much abt laptops 'cos I hate using them.
But I guess I don't have much of a choice now in my present
stituation.
So what is the best 3d mobile chipset in the market now? If so, which
laptops presenlty carrying these chipsets?
I heard about ATI.
I'm pretty much of a gamer and need the best performance laptop to
feed my "habit" :)
Thanks.
To e-mail me, remove "rm_"
Chris K.
arguably the best in the laptop market) with the 32 MB ATi Rage Mobility M4
(4x AGP) chip in it.
Chris K.
"AcCeSsDeNiEd" <ssdillon@rm_mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:3a9b37a8...@news.cyberway.com.sg...
Psyphon
It performs way faster than the ATI counter-parts. It's slightly slower than
a GF2 MX.
"AcCeSsDeNiEd" <ssdillon@rm_mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:3a9b37a8...@news.cyberway.com.sg...
Drillah
putting it in thier laptops and when? Do you know?
"Psyphon" <psy...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:ZtHm6.35986$Xx3.2...@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au...
Vic
Drillah <dri...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:97fh2b$761$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
agveme
Better for a gamer than the ATI stuff.
Soon ATI will have a "Mobility Radeon". That may be as good as the GF2GO.
Wait and see. It may take some time untill the labtops it the market.
"Drillah" <dri...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:97fh2b$761$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Sebastian Adamczyk
onboard (nothing about shared!)
i only have a 8MB rage pro lt and this card on Laptop sucks!!!!
Next time i'll buy one from xeron
CU Sebastian
AcCeSsDeNiEd <ssdillon@rm_mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:3a9b37a8...@news.cyberway.com.sg...
yeta...@netvigator.com
Unknown
just fine, do I need a GF2GO?" (rhetorical question)
I see the ATI chipsets as being about as tested in laptops as is
possible and the GeForce series isn't known for it's wide range of
compatibilty either. I personally have a GeForce2 GTS in my main
computer and have had all kinds of problems with it (especially since
I have a KA7 motherbaord which has two strikes against it in regards
to nvidia 1. VIA based and 2. AMD based). I can remember the old
Rage Pro I had and how solid it was (not the speediest mind you).
Personally I would rather have the most solid chipset even if it
doesn't give me 3000 3dmarks. So far I've had stuff from S3, 3dfx,
nvidia, and ATI and by FAR I would rather buy ATI but they just can't
get the speed up there so I keep having to buy nvidia for my desktop.
When I'm no where near my manuals and the internet I don't have the
luxury of being able to use a buggy video chipset, I want something
that I can depend on (and doesn't have new driver releases every
week).
I'd really like to see some more reviews that focus on more than just
3D benchmarks (if you buy a laptop and expect to play nothing but 3D
games on it then you've been smoking that rock too much, you can get
an ass-kicking desktop that performs MUCH better for MUCH cheaper).
It took nvidia a good while to take the crown from 3dfx in the desktop
arena, it'll also take a good while for them to take the crown from
ATI in the laptop arena. I'm more looking forward to the mobile
Radeon myself.
Don't forget, even the GeForce2 (GTS, Pro, Ultra, MX, etc.) doesn't
support over 1280x1024 on LCD screens, is there any word as to whether
or not the GeForce2Go will be able to handle 1600x1200? Something to
think about for those that want to get those nice 15" UXGA screens.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 06:06:49 GMT, "Psyphon" <psy...@optushome.com.au>
wrote:
Ben Miles
> get the speed up there so I keep having to buy nvidia for my desktop.
Thought about the radeon? It rocks!
yeta...@netvigator.com
is not perfect...
currently i am running a gts and is consider stable.
Marc de Vries
>Here are some quick benchmarks that I've taken:
>
>Compaq Presario 1800
>Pentium3 800mhz
>ATI Rage 128 Mobility (AGP2X) 16MB
>128MB 100mhz SDRAM
>32GB 5400rpm hard drive
>
>In 3DMark2K:
>1024x768x16 (default benchmark) - ~1900
>800x600x16 - ~2700
>
>Quake3, Unreal Tournament, Half-Life, etc. are all completely playable
>at resolutions at or below 1024x768 and with 16-bit color. I have
>even begun recently using the laptop for occasional TFC clan matches.
>In the above benchmarks 32MB of RAM and AGP4X wouldn't make a large
>difference because the Rage 128 Mobility chip is already being pushed
>to it's limit (and at those resolutions and color depth w/ 16MB ram
>there is very little if any swapping to system memory).
I don't agree with that. The benchmarks that I have seen indicate that
32MB makes a LOT of difference with the 16MB version. (I think sharky
did a review of both)
My brother has a 32MB Mobility 128 (M4) at 4X agp in his laptop, and
it performs very well. (TNT2 performance level)
> I would
>definitely suspect the Geforce chipset in laptops to perform better,
>but I fear that it will only become apparent how faster it is once
>newer games come out (since I already get 75fps average in Half-Life
>at 800x600, do I really need that much more?). It's kinda like "do we
>need higher benchmark scores on a machine that was never really meant
>to compete with the desktop in 3D performance?"
Keep in mind that the power consumption of that geforce chip is really
a bit too high for laptop. I wouldn't be suprised if the actual chip
being used would be made a bit slower, to save power.
Precisely for the reason you already give. Both the mobile radeon and
the mobile geforce will be fast enough, and the power usage is
extremely important for laptop users.
(I only have a Mobility M1 *sniff* ;-))
Marc
Marc de Vries
>i think geforce2 go is the best 3d card for laptops.
How would you know, since no laptop uses it yet and no review sites
have had their hands on it?
They have only been able to look at the specs on paper, and they look
good. Although the nvidia chip will take a lot more power, which is a
major issue for a laptop.
Therefore there is a good chance that the nvidia chipsets that will
actually be implemented by the laptop manufactureres will have a lower
performance, but use less power.
We will just have to wait and see.
But if you need a laptop with 3D performance _right_now_, (that was
the question that was asked) then ATI mobility M4 is the only choice.
Marc
Marc de Vries
>I think the question is "if the ATI Rage 128 performs in Q3 and UT
>just fine, do I need a GF2GO?" (rhetorical question)
<snip>
>Don't forget, even the GeForce2 (GTS, Pro, Ultra, MX, etc.) doesn't
>support over 1280x1024 on LCD screens, is there any word as to whether
>or not the GeForce2Go will be able to handle 1600x1200? Something to
>think about for those that want to get those nice 15" UXGA screens.
That would be a big minus for Nvidia. My brother has a Dell laptop
with a 15" screen at 1400 resolution. That screen is so incredible
nice to work with. If the Geforce can't handle that, than I wouldn't
care if it were twice as fast as the radeon, I would still not buy it.
(Ionly have 1024 resolution on my Compaq...;-))
Marc
Unknown
hell yes. Speed-wise the Radeon doesn't stand a chance against the
GeForce2 Ultra and only starts coming close to the GeForce2 GTS.
Believe me, every 3 weeks I attend a lan party where right now the
fastest computer is a T-Bird @ 1.3ghz+ with a Radeon AIW and the guy
asks one a friend with a GeForce2 Ultra if he can borrow it for
benchmarking :) I think the highest the computer gets in 3dmark2k
with the Radeon is around 7000-8000 and he can get nearly 11000 with
the GeForce2 Ultra in the system :) Every other benchmark seems to
corelate with the performance difference (in Quake3, etc.).
Overall I would prefer the Radeon if I wanted to get something like
the AIW, but if I want to put in a card that will give me the ultimate
in 3D performace, well, the Radeon will definitely get dropped for a
GeForce2 and DEFINITELY dropped for a GeForce3 :)
That isn't to say that the GF line is a safe choice for laptops, and I
think I covered the reasons why :)
Unknown
<mjtde...@planet.nl> wrote:
>On 27 Feb 2001 10:41:03 -0600, Flash Masta <> wrote:
>
>>Here are some quick benchmarks that I've taken:
>>
>>Compaq Presario 1800
>>Pentium3 800mhz
>>ATI Rage 128 Mobility (AGP2X) 16MB
>>128MB 100mhz SDRAM
>>32GB 5400rpm hard drive
>>
>>In 3DMark2K:
>>1024x768x16 (default benchmark) - ~1900
>>800x600x16 - ~2700
>>
>>Quake3, Unreal Tournament, Half-Life, etc. are all completely playable
>>at resolutions at or below 1024x768 and with 16-bit color. I have
>>even begun recently using the laptop for occasional TFC clan matches.
>>In the above benchmarks 32MB of RAM and AGP4X wouldn't make a large
>>difference because the Rage 128 Mobility chip is already being pushed
>>to it's limit (and at those resolutions and color depth w/ 16MB ram
>>there is very little if any swapping to system memory).
>
>I don't agree with that. The benchmarks that I have seen indicate that
>32MB makes a LOT of difference with the 16MB version. (I think sharky
>did a review of both)
>My brother has a 32MB Mobility 128 (M4) at 4X agp in his laptop, and
>it performs very well. (TNT2 performance level)
The benchmarks Iisted aren't really pushing the AGP bus or filling up
the 16MB memory to the extent where there is major swapping. If I was
talking about 32-bit color or resolutions greater than 1024x768 then
I'm sure 32MB and AGP4X would make a major difference.
Ben Miles
64DDR. It may be faster, but it aint 3 times faster! :o)
<Flash Masta> wrote in message
news:uf5r9tsp1ot5nrd53...@4ax.com...
Joni Jarvenkyla
Flash Masta <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>I can remember the old
>Rage Pro I had and how solid it was (not the speediest mind you).
I have two laptops running right now with 8 MB Rage Pro and I can tell
you there is nothing solid in that.
No working OpenGL drivers; the drivers which somehow work are labeled as
"experimental" and that shows: total system hangups every now and then
trying to play games which use OpenGL.
TV output sucks, not enough conrtols for sizing the screen. Needless to
say, the whole chip does not work at all with games for TV output (at
least using OpenGL).
The ATI software coming with the chip does not work; video capture,
playback etc full of bugs which halt the machine. Needless to say, these
software do not work at all with the OpenGL drivers.
ATI support sucks big time, never received a reply to anything I asked,
and I asked nicely.
Personally I'd rather go for anything else except ATI on a laptop. These
two laptops are ruined simply because of the ATI chip.
And all the more for GeForce, which is the 3D performance king.
--
Singapore Straits Times: http://straitstimes.com.sg
Costa del Sol, Singaporelaista asumista: http://www.ped.com.sg/costahome.html
(Muita lehtia maailmalta: http://www.thepaperboy.com/)
Chris Ciccarello
common misconception.
In article <nDNm6.1121$OL.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
egg...@ntlworld.com says...
>
> The mobility Radeon is pretty much the same as the Radeon VE. i.e. it has no
> T&L engine, so in Quake3 for instance its very unlikely to come close to the
> Geforce2go.
>
> SteveP
>
>
>
Hans Bergengren
"Stephen Powell" <egg...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The mobility Radeon is pretty much the same as the Radeon VE. i.e. it has
no
> T&L engine, so in Quake3 for instance its very unlikely to come close to
the
> Geforce2go.
> However it's power consumption is supposd to be lower, and this is kinda
> important in a laptop :)
But, if you are playing games maybe power consumption isn't first and
fore-most on your mind? ;-)
Also, as the M-Radeon lacks T&L, that could in theory cause it to force the
CPU to work harder compared to a GF2-Go, thus negating the power-advantage
it holds... But that's just speculation on my part, I have no way of knowing
if that is really true.
Bye!
/HB.
Carter Coberley
3 timedemo
at 16 bit I get 50fps.
Compared to Mobility 128 which only gets 37 fps at *640x480* ! The
GeForce2go is clearly a very fast chip (and my results are only with the 16
meg version, when the 32 meg version comes out it might even be faster).
This chipset rocks
"Hans Bergengren" <fa...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:EGmq6.22912$AH6.3...@newsc.telia.net...
Marc de Vries
wrote:
>I am getting 29 fps at 32 bit with all options maxed at 1024x768 with quake
>3 timedemo
>at 16 bit I get 50fps.
>
>Compared to Mobility 128 which only gets 37 fps at *640x480* ! The
>GeForce2go is clearly a very fast chip (and my results are only with the 16
>meg version, when the 32 meg version comes out it might even be faster).
I didn't know there was already a company that is shipping laptops
with the Geforce2go? Which laptop do you have?
And with what Mobility 128 did you compare it? The Mobility 128 32MB
that I have seen had much better results than that. Did you compare
with a 8MB mobility 128?
<snip>
>> > However it's power consumption is supposd to be lower, and this is kinda
>> > important in a laptop :)
>>
>> But, if you are playing games maybe power consumption isn't first and
>> fore-most on your mind? ;-)
Well if you are playing games in the train (like I do when I go to
work) then you want your battery to last the whole trip.
So yes for me power consumption is very important when playing games
too.
>>
>> Also, as the M-Radeon lacks T&L, that could in theory cause it to force
>the
>> CPU to work harder compared to a GF2-Go, thus negating the power-advantage
>> it holds... But that's just speculation on my part, I have no way of
>knowing
>> if that is really true.
I wonder if anybody would look at the power consumption when they do
their benchmarking.
Marc
diebold
"Marc de Vries" <mjtde...@planet.nl> a écrit dans le message news:
V2irOq13nOnnl4...@4ax.com...
Hase anybody a latop with the new geforce2 GO?
I would like to know his score with a benchmark to compare with a geforce2
MX and a geforce2 64 Mo DDR.
thanks
Hans Bergengren
"Carter Coberley" <c...@ufl.edu> wrote:
> I am getting 29 fps at 32 bit with all options maxed at 1024x768 with
quake
> 3 timedemo at 16 bit I get 50fps.
The 16-bit score was pretty darn good, if I may say so...
> Compared to Mobility 128 which only gets 37 fps at *640x480* !
The M-128 *is* a generation behind both the GF2-Go and the M-Radeon, so
that's really not too surprising.
> The GeForce2go is clearly a very fast chip
I would tend to agree. It's not spectacular compared to desktop systems, but
for portable computers, it's a small revolution. ;-)
Bye!
/HB.