Yet another laptop graphics question

All other things being equal, which is the better bet?

nVIDIA GeForce 9500 512MB

nVIDIA GeForce Go 8600M GT 256MB

I'd guess the 9500. The extra memory and newer design will more than make up for being only a 5 series rather than a 6?

Whenever it says 'Go' or 'mobile' it means that the thing is designed for laptops so it uses less power and generates less heat. It also means that it is underpowered compared to the regular version.

errr yeah - that's why the title's "yet another laptop graphics question"

Oh so if the 9500 is also for a laptop I would just go with that cause the number is higher. Thumbs up! Hooray!

If you go with the 9500 you need to pay closer attention to heat. Higher end cards run hotter.

Go for the 9500, but not because 9 is a higher number than 8.

If you look at the specs, the 9500M GS (the only mobile version of the 9500, and the one you're most likely talking about) is actually exactly the same as an 8600M GT. They both have:

* 32 Stream Processors
* 475 MHz core clock
* 950 MHz shader clock
* 700 MHz memory clock
* Up to 512 MB memory
* 128-bit memory interface
* 22.4 GB/s max memory bandwidth
* 7.6 billion texels/s texture fill rate

All other things being equal, the only difference between the two is the internal architecture, not the performance. So if one has the full 512MB of memory, and the other just has 256, the 512 is obviously the winner. If you could somehow magically add another 256MB to that 8600, they'd be absolutely identical, performance-wise.

That's assuming, of course, that you are indeed talking about the 9500M GS, not the desktop version of the 9500. While some high end gaming notebooks do take desktop cards, the cast majority don't. I would assume that whomever listed the specs of whatever notebook you're looking at with that 9500 in it (conveniently) forgot to add those three little letters on the end.

If you are really talking about the desktop 9500, though, then it would be formally called the 9500 GT (no M), unless there's some other 9500 out there that I don't know about, which is certainly possible. If it is the GT, things go even more in the 9500's favor. A few specs are the same, but most are significantly increased:

* 32 Stream Processors (same)
* 550 MHz core clock (17% increase)
* 1400 MHz shader clock (47% increase)
* 1000 MHz memory clock (43% increase)
* Up to 512MB memory (same)
* 128-bit memory interface (same)
* 25.6 GB/s max memory bandwidth (14% increase)
* 8.8 billion texels/s fillrate (16% increase)

The only downside to the desktop card is power consumption. I don't know about the 9500's specifically, but generally a desktop card will use about 3-5 times as much power as it's laptop counterpart. If you throw desktop components into a laptop, your battery is basically just a 15-minute "look what I can do" gimmick, or at best a temporary UPS device in case your electricity goes out.

Other than that, any way you slice it, the 9500 is the way to go.



ETA: My last laptop had a 256MB 8600M GT in it, and it ran SL really well. So with that additional 256MB, that 9500 should do great.

Also..

The newer card is probably based on a smaller die, which means less heat and longer battery.

It also has a few features like improving blu-ray playback.

The speed of the memory also plays a part. Although the card specs are identical, if the 8600M GT comes with GDDR3 memory (for example, the Dell M1530) then it will outperform a 9500m GS with only GDDR2 memory.

Frankly nVidia have set out to make their lineup as freaken convoluted as possible. No wonder there's so much confusion over their new cards on the forums.

Given that the 8600m GT has been out for what seems like a decade, it's a joke that nVidia have brought out a new card with identical specs. I would be reluctant to accept either card at the moment.

With Centrino 2 right around the corner. It's worth holding on for 3 or 4 weeks...

Thanks folks, I don't feel so bad about being confused now!

One of the options is indeed the Dell M1530, the 9500M option is the Asus M50SV-AS030G.

I think I'll take Anthony's advice and dither for a while longer though....

Just to muddy the waters further....

http://www.asuslaptop.co.uk/proddetail.php?prod=Asus_Laptop_M50VM-AK005G

NVidia GeForce 9600 with 1024 MB VRAM (DDR2)

So what's going to work best, Dell M1530 with 256MB DDR3 or this one with 1024MB DDR2?

I have the 8600m GS and running dxdiag show my Approx. Total Memory at 1008mb. My laptop is about 3 months old and runs SL beautifully. I think it uses some of the system ram

I would always get the best graphics card you can afford in a laptop because they cannot easily be upgraded. Personally i usually go through a laptop in about 18-24 months by which time the graphics I'm so excited about today will look bleak and slow compared with the cards available in such a short timescale.

I don't have benchmarks to hand, but I would expect the M1530 to have a slight edge. GDDR3 memory gives a nice performance boost, while the extra memory gives a smaller performance boost unless the software is really taking advantage of it. You might for example get a 20% boost with the faster memory but 10% boost with the extra memory. Having 1gb of graphics memory would be taking more away from system memory too, so you may take a slight performance hit there if you run alot of memory intensive apps.

Asus seem to be gaining a good reputation. One thing that niggles me though is they use below par keyboards, and this is important to me. A couple of magazine reviews mention spongy quality keyboards in an otherwise excellent laptop. But I guess it doesnt bother most people. I have the same issue with the MacBook Pro keyboard too (which is worse than Asus etc because in addition to the spongy keyboard it has a poor UK layout). Just something to watch out for if you do alot of typing.

PS: despite what I said about the 8600M GT there, I'd be tempted to go with the 9600M given the choice, because the 8600M GT runs incredibly hot so with any luck it wont be quite as hot with the 9xxx card, and they're a ticking timebomb too - nVidia have set aside millions because of a flaw in the 8600M GT and other laptop graphics chips.

dont forget the issues w/64bit vs. 32bit.
my mem leaks are getting pretty annoying by now.

Why would this happen? Is the graphics memory not in addition to the main system RAM or have I misunderstood something?

Thanks for the wisdom!

The graphics memory is in addition to the system RAM, yes. But it's all subject to the limitations of the system as a whole.

The relevant issue is that all 32-bit operating systems have a hard limit of 4GB RAM. That includes system RAM and video RAM combined. So if you're using a 32-bit OS, and you have 1GB of video memory, the most system RAM you can have is 3GB.

This isn't necessarily a problem, unless you do an awful lot of multi-tasking. 3GB is generally plenty.

To give you an idea, I have two 768MB video cards in my XP desktop. The system considers this to be a total of 1.5GB, even though the same data is mirrored across both cards. So I can only have 2.5GB of system RAM.

At any given time, I usually have SL, Photoshop, Maya, and at least one, if not several, browswer windows running all at once. Every once in a blue moon I run out of memory, but not usually. It would be nice if I could have more than 2.5GB, of course, but it hasn't been a problem. I'm sure you'd do fine with 3.

If you're running a 64-bit OS, then that 4GB restriction wouldn't be there. 64-bit Vista supports anywhere from 8 to 128 GB of RAM, depending on the version.


As for the 1GB DDR2 vs. 256MB DDR3, that's a tough call. DDR3 is going to perform anywhere from the exactly the same to 4 times as fast than DDR2, depending on what type of each is in question. You'd need to find out the exact specs of both cards to know what speed of memory is in each one. Assuming the DDR3 is faster, which it probably is, then the question becomes how much of the slower one do you need to have to equal the performance of the faster one. That can be very difficult to determine. The likely answer, I suspect, will be "it depends". It could vary from task to task.

At the end of the day, you're probably not going to go wrong with either card. Your best bet may be just to consider the cards equal, and then pick which machine to get based on other factors.

aaah, gotcha. Thanks Chosen, that makes sense now.

Looks like I'm worrying too much over this, and either card will do me fine.
I'll try and get a hands-on play, then decide based on the really important stuff, like which comes in the prettiest colours.