Thinkpads Forum

Hi

I am looking at getting either a T61 14" or a X61.

With the T61 I have the option of a Quadro NVS 140M (128) graphics card, or the integrated GMA x3100.

What I am wondering is, for most applications (outside of this years biggest and best video games), is there any significant performance difference to a 128mb discrete video card over a computer with a x3100, for example, and say 3GB of ram?

Based on what I've read, the discrete graphics (NVS 140m) would be more for intensive (3D) graphic work would come to mind. Like modeling, CAD, etc... some gaming of course (not the latest and greatest at max-ed out settings). Any dedicated vid card will run hotter (not hot-hot!, but warmer hot) and will, in effect, reduce battery life.

The onboard graphics (X3100) is quite sufficient for the vast majority of users, it runs cooler as well and hence offers better battery performance (I've read 30-45 minutes difference between these two cards).

Applications such as Photoshop are not as GPU intensive as they are RAM intensive, hence a discrete vid card will not help in this respect - Photoshop will perform very well with the x3100 even more so with the more RAM you have . A dedicated GPU will be beneficial in rendering graphics (NVS 140m is more effective for bilenear rendering) when using applications such as 3dStudioMax, Blender, etc.

Perhaps someone can chime in with greater detail.

I don't know much about the internal workings of computers, it just seems to me that 3 GB of available memory vs 128 mb of dedicated isn't much of a comparison.

Right now my biggest question comes down to the 1440x900 (or even 1280x800) T61 screen vs the X61 (1024 x 768).


I have used a dell with 1400x900 for the last couple of years, while I have an old T30 that is 1024x768, and it doesn't seem so bad, I worry about being limited by the resolution.

Just keep in mind that the X61 screen is physically smaller as well - it's only 12.1 inches in diameter. There's lots of info on the X61 over on that side of the forum.

But regarding your original question with regards to the video cards, it really depends on what you will be doing with the computer. If you expect to play games (the latest and the greatest), then the 15.4" t-61p with 256MB graphics card may be better. If you'll be using it for office (typing) work only, then the onboard graphics card would be best (saves more energy, better battery times) and you'll save some money as well.

CanadianNorth wrote:What I am wondering is, for most applications (outside of this years biggest and best video games), is there any significant performance difference to a 128mb discrete video card over a computer with a x3100, for example, and say 3GB of ram?

Basically... no!

The X3100 is more than adequate for general purpose computing tasks.

Cheers,

Bill B.

Also, IIRC, you can get more memory logically for the x3100

The 3 GB of system RAM vs. 128 MB of dedicated video RAM is an absolutely baseless and pointless comparison.

Discrete video has its very own RAM that's purposely designed for video use. IOW video RAM is used for nothing else but video. Plus discrete video has its own dedicated video GPU to process video data at a surprisingly effective speed, freeing up the system CPU for other tasks.

Integrated video must rely on system RAM plus there's no dedicated video GPU to process any video data at all so the system CPU must do everything. Adding insult to injury, the 128MB or so of memory used by the system CPU to render graphics is taken out of the available pool of system RAM so that applications can't use it.

Point is: even the lowest-end of low-end discrete video solutions yields enhancements that integrated video can't match.

meekus wrote:The 3 GB of system RAM vs. 128 MB of dedicated video RAM is an absolutely baseless and pointless comparison.

Discrete video has its very own RAM that's purposely designed for video use. IOW video RAM is used for nothing else but video. Plus discrete video has its own dedicated video GPU to process video data at a surprisingly effective speed, freeing up the system CPU for other tasks.

Integrated video must rely on system RAM plus there's no dedicated video GPU to process any video data at all so the system CPU must do everything. Adding insult to injury, the 128MB or so of memory used by the system CPU to render graphics is taken out of the available pool of system RAM so that applications can't use it.

Point is: even the lowest-end of low-end discrete video solutions yields enhancements that integrated video can't match.

++

Can't Discrete cards also pull from System RAM as well if they run out?

meekus wrote:Integrated video must rely on system RAM plus there's no dedicated video GPU to process any video data at all so the system CPU must do everything.

The Intel x3100 is a GPU.

The GMA X3100 is the mobile version of the GMA X3000 used in the Intel GL960 and GM965 chipsets. The X3100 supports hardware transform and lighting, up to 128 programmable shader units, and up to 384 MB memory. Its display cores can run up to 333 MHz on GM965 and 320 MHz on GM960. Its render cores can run up to 500 MHz on GM965 and 400 MHz on GM960. The X3100 display unit includes a 300 MHz RAMDAC, two 25-112 MHz LVDS transmitters, 2 DVO encoders, and a TV encoder. In addition, the product can support DirectX 10.

meekus wrote:Point is:

Thinkpads have been using integrated GPUs for quite a while now

This is easily resolved. Discrete graphics are *much* more powerful, even in an entry-level card like the Nvidia Quadro NVS 140M. Check out these benchmarks (there's a comparison with the intel integrated GPU too): http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVidia-Qua ... 216.0.html

the X3100 has improved alot from the Intel previous integrated graphics series.... as lot of Graphic processing has been moved from CPU to the new GPU.... the choice of two graphics card depend on whether you want value for money or just performance.... in the former case than integrated graphics card is the way to go, it also saves power when its on battery.... your system can chose to use either 8 mb to 384mb of system ddr2 ram.... while the Nvidia series of graphics have only 128 mb, but its GPU are lot more powerful... if you going to use GPU intensive apps than a performance gain of 20 % can be expected.... while the 256 mb version can have as much as 35 % performance gain... but in the end it really depends on the app you run.....

if you really need graphics power, even a low mid end desktop could beat the laptop... maybe just save the money and get a desktop... and use the x3100 t61.....

in Australia... T61 with X3100 ($1399) and T61p with Nvidia 256 mb Quadro ($2999) ... so a T61p cost more than two T61....