14 total posts
Intergrated graphics solutions offer great
energy savings but are terrible for gaming. When you get computers with what are popularly called "graphics cards" there are issues of dedicated vs shared memory resources to consider. There are GPUs like the ATI X700 that have all their own resources, in which case they don't use the PCs RAM to operate; they ususally come in 128 or 256 MB flavors. Then there are shared resources GPUs that may have as little as 32MB of memory on the GPU and use as much as 96MB system memory or 64MB on the GPU and use 192MB of system memory. The GPUs with all deicated memory are far superior and are needed to play the most demanding 3D games. The processor debate is hot right now. The herd is charging toward dual core processors that will soon be available. I think this is a poor decison right now. If you buy when they first come out you will pay the insane "I got it first" price. Secondly, you need to ask what you're doing that requires this technology... 64 bit processing and dual cores will be very useful tools for people who do extremely demanding computing tasks and require the power to do many tasks at once. If you need to compute asteriod orbits, write computer code and do gene mapping you may need the extra power; 99% of people don't. At this moment the P-M is the champ for mobile processing but the Turion is a very close second. The P-M runs about 1.6 times faster than a P4(The P4 is a desktop chip and the worst choice available for a notebook), likewise the Athlon 64 is desktop chip...not nearly as bad a choice as the P4 but still a hot chip that uses lots of battery life. Read the following, it will help:
First, go with a AMD Turion 64. It's a processor ready for the next Windows Vista x64 Bits. And NEVER take a Pentium 4 in a laptops ! The P4 is made to be in a aired place and it make a lot of heat. So the others components will use faster because of the heat. And a 2.2 GHZ Turion deliver better performance than a 2.8-3.0 P4 and it increase the battery life ! The Pentium M don't have the x64 bits technology so in 2-3 years, you will be obligated to change your laptop or your processor to be "update" with the technology. x64 Bits technology is the future applications technology ! So you should buy for the future !
A integrated graphic card will be a good choice. Go with an ATI XPRESS 200M. It's the best-in-class integrated graphic card. You can't regret it !
Finally, the only laptop that I found it's the HP DV8000. It has all the caracteristic that I told and HP deliver a very good after-sales service. Personnally, I will wait for January of February to buy it because all the prices drop after holidays !
that link was very helpful, thank you
the ones I have been looking at are a HP/Compaq 1.8 GHz turion 64 with ATI radeon x200m and a dell inspiron 6000 1.86 GHZ P-M with a radeon x300 dedicated card, I do like to play games on my computer so the dellwith the mobile radeon x300 is probably better, my concern about the turion processors and what prompted some of my first message was the $1000 laptop review cnet did, the turion performed worse than the celeron.
It's impossible that the Turion perform worst than the Intel Celeron ! It's absolutely impossible !
Between your two choices, maybe you should go with the Compaq. HP deliver better service than DELL. If you don't play 3D Games who demand a lot of GPU, the XPRESS 200M should be nice. But if you play D, it's certain that the DELL 6000 will be better than the Compaq. But the DELL doesn't have the x64 Bits processor ! Don't forget it !
Think to this !
the affore mentioned test
Acer Dell Gateway NX500X HP Compaq Toshiba
Performance rating 192 190 196 159 161
Battery life (hours:minutes) 2:01 3:44 2:55 5:55 2:43
Tested with BAPCo MobileMark 2002
the compaq had the turion, and the thoshiba had the celeron
I also thank whoever said the dv8000, that is a nice suggestion, I think i may go with the AMD turion processor its 64 bit which is a plus and cheaper, and even bigger plus my final concerns are of the performance of the graphics cards, how much better is the x300m than the x200m, the 200m is integrated with 128 mb shared memory, is it capable of playing the newer 3d games out there, and for that matter how good is the x300m at that?
About the ATI EXPRESS 200M
Maybe this GPU will be work with 3D games, but not with Half-Life 2 or Doom. This kind of games aks too much GPU and a 256 MB is requierd for this games.
But the XPRESS 200M have the Hypermemory Technology. This technology permit to take 128 MB of the DDR RAM for the GPU. So it's like you have 128 MB physical GPUC and 128 MB "virtual GPU". It's a good deal for big games.
I think the XPRESS 200M is a nice Graphic card. It's the best-in-class integrated !
Look at this : http://www.ati.com/products/Radeonxpress200m/index.html
ATI xpress 200m versus x300
I have an HP zv6000 with an ATI xpress 200M. It is the best integrated chipset out there right now but it is not going to be able to handle the most demanding 3-D graphics games. I am able to play most games I have with it. The only game so far I have not been able to play is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. It will run technically but it is very slow framerate and basically unplayable. The x300 will be slightly better but not by much. Basically, just look at it this way, the 200 is a lower number than the 300 so in ATI's nomenclature this shows that it is that much worse. If you could get a laptop with the x700 it would be that much better. The HP DV4000 is a good choice (Just be sure to get the one with the x700 rather than Intel integrated) or the Acer Travelmate 4400 series is another good choice. Good luck!
For Graphics Card Info go to this link
what games would a 128mb x200m with hyper memory not play? I have ati radeon 9000 card and I can play half life 2 no problems, granted I havent put doom 3 on this computer, but my one at home has a radeon 9200 and can play doom 3 no problems, and im assuming that a 128 mb x200m with hypermemory would be better than those, but maybe that assumption is wrong?
A turion should out perform a Celeron in a number of areas
Celerons don't adjust their power usage based on demand, P-Ms and Turions do.... this is a big deal as it directly relates to battery use and heat generated. based on what you've written, I think you might like to look at a HP Dv4000.
DV 8000 and dell 6000
hey guys, i have dv 8110us and my brother has dell 6000.
1.8 ghz with 512k L2 cache
1.12 gig of ram
256m ati xpress 200 series
2.0ghz with 2M L2 cache
1 gig of ram
125m ati x300
gaming wise, get dell 6000 because x300 better than 200m even with sharing another 125 from the ram.
i've played guild wars on full settings on both of the laptops and dell performs much better.
as far as the dv8000 goes, i love this laptop but gaming falls bit short....
i've tried running call of duty 2 and elder scroll iv, even on lowest settings, games still lags...
also, there is no upgrade option since its integrated, i know this because i just called HP tech.
since my laptop processor is ML-32(1.8ghz/512k L2 cache) and not ML-40(2.2ghz/1m) it does factor into gaming performance but once again, xpress 200 series is just not meant to play games all that much.
Other then that, i would still chose dv8000 series because of the wonderful 17'' wide HD screen and run much much cooler than dell 6000. Make sure you get the higher processor with at least 1M L2 cache though.
Good luck to find a Dell Inspiron 6000
Good luck to find one because it doesn't exist anymore. The Dell inspiron E1505 ( or 6400 ) took the place of the 6000. The E1505 is a better choice for the future because it has a Dual-core processor. We will probably be able to upggrade the processor for the future Pentium M MEROM which is dual-core & 64 bits, but don't make you ideas about this. It only depends if Dell get out a BIOS upgrade to change the processor.
It surprise me that the Turion laptop runs cooler than the Pentium M ... The Turion use 35 watt of power, that do a lot of heat. The Core Duo is arrond 30 watt I think ( not sure ) and the old Pentium M Dothan used 27 watt, that makes less heat than a 35 watt !
I heard that the new Core Duo run cooler because it can adjust his power to reduce the heat.
You don't need to get the higher processor 1 Think that the Core Duo T2300 ( 1.66 GHz, 2 MB Cache, 667 FSB ) is better than the Pentium M 2.00 GHz because it delivers more power per watt ( the new goal of both Intel & AMD constructor ). The goal is not anymore the biggest clock is the best processor ! The new goal is to deliver the best performance per watt. Intel & AMD don't care anymore of the clock of processors. Yes, a 2,26 GHz Core Duo processor can run faster than a 1,66 GHz, but the majority of people doesn't need the faster processor. And I think you can get a better battery life with a low clocked processor than a higher clocked one because it reduce the generated heat and the battery doesn't have to feed in electricity the samem number of transistors.
Even if you have a PCI-Express graphics solution, you can't upgrade it to a more performant. You must be very lucky to be able to change your graphics controller. The only technology that is able to change your graphics card is the MXM tchnology from nVIDIA. And the biggest problem now is to find a nVIDIA mobile chip to replace the old chip.
AMD Turion vs Intel Core Duo processor 2.16 GHz
How does the AMD Turion processor compare to the Intel Core Duo processor T2600 (2.16 GHz)?
I read a review on the PC Mag web site that said that the AMD processor was not impressive.