Hello, I'm in the market for a new laptop for general use and some photo/video editing. I started out wanting Nvidia or ATI onboard, assuming the best bang for the buck, but after today I'm not so sure. I created a CD based version of my registered "Passmark Performance Test" and proceeded to the retail store to compare models.
I looked at AMD X2 based systems with onboard Nvidia 6150 and ATI 1100 video as well as Intel Core 2 Duo based systems running Intel GMA 3100 and 950 based video. My results were very surprising to me. With similar amounts of ram and hardware and all running essentially the same Windows Vista configurations, the Intel GMA systems all ran faster 2d and 3d results than the Nvidia and ATI solutions. Even considering that the Intel Core 2 is just plain better than the AMD laptop cpu's I'm still surprised at this. Is this normal for laptops with low end onboard video? I was willing to live with a little less cpu performance in the AMD but expected the Nvidia and ATI solutions to perform better than the Intel video, especially at 3d, but they couldn't even keep up. Please have a look at these scores...
HP 6449, AMD X2 TL-56, Nvidia Geforce Go 6150
cpu 691.3, 2d 192.4, 3d 29.3
Acer 5100-5674, AMD X2 TK-53, ATI Radeon Xpress 1100
cpu 634.8, 2d 157.7, 3d 29.6
HP 6565, Intel Core 2 Duo T5250, Intel GMA X3100
cpu 785.4, 2d 179.3, 3d 118.8
Acer 5630-6288, Intel Core 2 Duo T5500, Intel GMA 950
cpu 871.8, 2d 206.2, 3d 114
Am I going crazy here? Does the cpu performance have that much to do with graphics performance using an onboard video solution? Is the Intel GMA just that good when coupled with their Core 2 cpu's?
I don't expect full blown 3d gaming capability with onboard video but I also don't want to make a mistake at my price point.
Please give me your thoughts. Thanks!!
Eddy Hicks
Solid Logic Design Inc.
I looked at AMD X2 based systems with onboard Nvidia 6150 and ATI 1100 video as well as Intel Core 2 Duo based systems running Intel GMA 3100 and 950 based video. My results were very surprising to me. With similar amounts of ram and hardware and all running essentially the same Windows Vista configurations, the Intel GMA systems all ran faster 2d and 3d results than the Nvidia and ATI solutions. Even considering that the Intel Core 2 is just plain better than the AMD laptop cpu's I'm still surprised at this. Is this normal for laptops with low end onboard video? I was willing to live with a little less cpu performance in the AMD but expected the Nvidia and ATI solutions to perform better than the Intel video, especially at 3d, but they couldn't even keep up. Please have a look at these scores...
HP 6449, AMD X2 TL-56, Nvidia Geforce Go 6150
cpu 691.3, 2d 192.4, 3d 29.3
Acer 5100-5674, AMD X2 TK-53, ATI Radeon Xpress 1100
cpu 634.8, 2d 157.7, 3d 29.6
HP 6565, Intel Core 2 Duo T5250, Intel GMA X3100
cpu 785.4, 2d 179.3, 3d 118.8
Acer 5630-6288, Intel Core 2 Duo T5500, Intel GMA 950
cpu 871.8, 2d 206.2, 3d 114
Am I going crazy here? Does the cpu performance have that much to do with graphics performance using an onboard video solution? Is the Intel GMA just that good when coupled with their Core 2 cpu's?
I don't expect full blown 3d gaming capability with onboard video but I also don't want to make a mistake at my price point.
Please give me your thoughts. Thanks!!
Eddy Hicks
Solid Logic Design Inc.
Comment