Help comparing cards

wolfeking

banned
okay, so taken a whole month, but I know what laptop I am getting now to replace my M90 and D630 while they nest under my desk for forever folding and BSODing. A t61p, but I need help comparing the graphics card to know what it can do, and how well it will do what I ask of it.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lenovo-Thin...tops_Nov05&hash=item3377c7a9a1#ht_1396wt_1396 is the exact one. As it says, its a FX 570m, C2D @ 2GHz, 3GB, 1200p, and a few other do dads that I will probably never need or use.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-Quadro-FX-570M.6938.0.html Tells me it is more or less a 8600m GT with 128bit/256MB/32 cuda cores.

okay, so this means nothing to me. I am coming off a NVS135 and FX2500m. It will clearly out perform the 135m as it has double the cores and bandwidth. But how does it compare to the 2500m? They are a different architecure, so makes it harder for me. The FX2500m has 24/8 and is based on the 7900m GTX. So I guess I am asking how the 7900m GTX is compared to the 8600m GT?

Really, It will definitely do what I ask of it. I can run Blender off a integrated chip, but it will take forever to render what I do. But how will it do with games? More precisely, BF2 and a few older games n DX8 and DX9 like Global Operations, Medal of Honor all of them, but the older versions, AA and PA and the like, and Command and conquer up to generals. I really want to be able to use them on the go if I can to kill time. But I want to be able to max them @ 1200p. I know I can on teh FX2500m while burning my lap, but Will I be able to max them on the 570m? Or will I need more vRAM?
 
i think you'll need more vram, but a lower res should still look great, and i'm pretty sure the 7900 should beat an 8600 by a bit.
 
but by how much?
I will launch BF2 (should be teh most demanding I regularly use) on the M90 and see how much it uses on 1200p. Screenshots to come.
 
!@#$ it uses 400+ MB @ 1200p. :(

BF2_2012_06_29_17_44_30_843.jpg

BF2_2012_06_29_17_50_06_875.jpg

BF2_2012_06_29_17_47_05_500.jpg

BF2_2012_06_29_17_50_02_250.jpg

BF2_2012_06_29_17_50_04_875.jpg
 
okay, I am a bit confused. the BF2 requirements recommend a 256 MB DX9 card, but it uses 400+ MB. How does that work out?
 
okay, I am a bit confused. the BF2 requirements recommend a 256 MB DX9 card, but it uses 400+ MB. How does that work out?

when BF2 was out, do you think 1200p was even around, do you think 1080p was even close to the norm> pretty sure it woulda been like the enthusiast monitor and the recomended specs would be for something wayyy lower
 
2006 is when it came out. It is single threaded I think, and 1200p was available then. http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3047 shows that the M90, what I was using to check memory usage, was out in june of 06. http://gamesystemrequirements.com/games.php?id=131 actually shows it was released 15 june 2005, but I don't think it was so far back to be a new thing for 1200p the next year. Im gunna pull it up on the desktop @ 720p, but I have a feeling it too is going to be quite a bit above 256.
 
500MB used @ 720p. Attaching pics to prove it. And I do not see how a lower resolution can result in more memory used.
BF2_2012_06_30_00_05_14_527.jpg

BF2_2012_06_30_00_07_06_886.jpg

BF2_2012_06_30_00_11_25_289.jpg

BF2_2012_06_30_00_07_33_974.jpg

BF2_2012_06_30_00_07_33_331.jpg
 
Back
Top