No announcement yet.

Shopping new laptop - onboard video card results surprising

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • efhicks
    Thanks for the reply! I'm still confused about the huge variation in 2d and 3d scores though. On the lowest end (Nvidia 6150, ATI 1100) I can understand it, but as you look at better and better graphics cards the Intel GMA still shows better scores. Sorry for asking, but it makes me wonder if the 2d and 3d benchmarks could be flawed? I ask because a look through the results database shows some very curious comparisons between the low range and middle range laptop video, even when comparing laptops with the same cpu. As there were too many examples to post here, please have a look and see if it makes sense to you. Thanks so much!

    - Eddy

    Leave a comment:

  • David (PassMark)
    Fast video and a fast CPU means high power consumption. So laptops are never going to be as good as desktop machines that you could get for the same price.

    Yes the faster Core 2 CPU will definitely help get higher 2D and 3D scores.

    If you are only planning on using the machine for video and photo editing, you can pretty much ignore the 3D result in any case.

    Leave a comment:

  • efhicks
    I guess I'm answering my own question here... I found a website comparing laptops and their hardware . Comparing each of the onboard video solutions I discovered they are all very similar in capability and performance. Obviously, the power of the Intel Core 2 Duo is helping the Intel GMA video a lot. I would still like to hear any perspectives you might have but at this price point I think I'm going to stick with the Intel/Intel solutions.



    Leave a comment:

  • Shopping new laptop - onboard video card results surprising

    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.
    Last edited by efhicks; Jul-29-2007, 05:29 AM.