Am I an idiot?

Message

kuma · #1 Post by **kuma** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:01 pm

I ordered and I am waiting for a 2373GRU, with the Mobility™ FIRE GL ™ T2 128mb video card. I thought that by spending the extra cash that I would be getting a better video card that would be faster for online videos, and for the new Microsoft operating system. But I just read that this card is optimized for optimized for OpenGL and DirectX based applications and with 128MB dedicated graphics memory, professionals can work with complex models and large textures interactively. I don't do any of these and never will. Should I have went with the 2373H6U and the ATI Radeon® 9600 card? Since I just want a machine that will be able to handle all the new websites that will have more videos in the next four years?
Please help, this is a $500 difference for a poor first year med student.
Should I cancel my GRU and order teh H6U?
Yes or No?
1000 thank yous.

#2 Post by **daeojkim** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:11 pm

kuma,

In that case yes. Graphic card does not make a lot of difference when you run 2D graphics like online videos etc.

But the $500 premium... perhaps could have been spent for something else. As a medical student, the most important things is the screen. A high resolution is must for those histology slides, X-rays, etc.

JK

Kenn · #3 Post by **Kenn** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:36 pm

I tend to agree, just because the price differential is so high. The FGLT2 is exactly the same as the MR9600, except with more RAM. I think 64MB will be more than enough for videos and mainstream 3D apps for the next few years. Are there any other difference between the systems (be careful of any 1yr/3yr warranty diffs)?

FRiC · #4 Post by **FRiC** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:03 pm

You might want to check the number of simultaneous video streams the cards can handle. But unless you have a very very very very very fast Internet connection and you're opening up multiple extremely high resolution video streams, I can't see how any modern video card can't handle online video. (Think DVD and Quicktime HD.)

#5 Post by **RonS** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:35 pm

For $500 extra, you probably also got some other features in addition to the extra video memory. Fingerprint reader, DVD burner, fast hard drive, etc.

When Windows Longhorn (Microsoft's next operating system) is released, you'll be glad you have the extra video memory.

Kenn · #6 Post by **Kenn** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:36 pm

RonS wrote: When Windows Longhorn (Microsoft's next operating system) is released, you'll be glad you have the extra video memory.

Actually, my take on it is that no current T-series owner would get a comparable Vista experience with the current level of hardware on our machines. Running the Aero Glass interface will take a much more robust 3D accelerator than the MR9600 or FireGLT2 (or the X300, which is nearly identical), and the extra 128MB won't be the deciding factor. I think that unfortunately, most of us will have to upgrade for Vista.

kyrotech · #7 Post by **kyrotech** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:46 pm

MobilityFIRE GL T2 128mb is not a gaming card, is a professional card. The Mobility 9600 64 MB will be a better option for gaming. Check out my benchmark numbers for my system:

All tests done with 1024x768x32 noAF noAA, Powerplay disabled and
High Quality Texture and Mipmap, Maximum Peformance laptop settings.
Used Benchemall 2.651 for game testing at high settings. Overclocked setings are 420 / 230.

3DMark 2001 SE Build 330
default:10,326 overclock: 11,490

3DMark 2003 Build 360
default: 2,837 overclock: 3,280

Aquamark 3
default: 22,459 overclock: 23,180

GL Excess v1.2
default: 6,524 overclock: 6,967

Steam VST
default: 49.25 FPS overclock: 58.63 FPS

Half-life 2
default: 38.53 FPS overclock: 49.29 FPS

Unreal Tournament 2004
default: 90.87 FPS overclock: 102.19 FPS

Need for Speed Underground 2
default: 33.93 FPS overclock: 39.41 FPS

Battlefield 2
default: 29.67 FPS overclock: 34.78 FPS

FarCry
default: 36.93 overclock: 40.25 FPS

Return to Castle Wolfenstein
default: 103.43 FPS overclock: 110.65 FPS

Not bad for a little mobile card

kuma · #8 Post by **kuma** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:02 pm

Thanks for the tips. I talked to IBM and they said that if and when Vista comes out that I could just upgrade the video chipset. I didn't know this.
Now I have the machine I ordered stuck en route, and I realize that I should get the different machine, but it will take at least two weeks to get here. I don't want to wait that long, since I could be using it for classes. I know I should cancel my current order and then order the other computer. But the IBM person told me I had 30 days to try out the computer I ordered, so I could do that and order the other machine and return my initial order when my new computer (with less vram) arrives. But I don't think that is all that ethical. Is everyone else with me, or am I being foolish?

Thanks again.

Kenn · #9 Post by **Kenn** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:59 pm

Kryotech: The only difference between the MR9600 and the FireGLT2 is the extra RAM on the FireGL and the software drivers. The hardware is identical. Without comparing those benchmarks to an equivalent system equipped with a FireGL T2, it's hard to say whether one or the other is really better. Everything I've read so far says the drivers between the two amount only to a couple of fps net.

Kuma: the video chipset isn't upgradable. The CPU is in a ZIF socket, but the GPU is soldered in, iirc.

emorphien · #10 Post by **emorphien** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:36 pm

It totally sounds way cooler to say you've got a FireGL than a 9600!

Navck · #11 Post by **Navck** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:49 pm

X300 does good too.

#12 Post by **daeojkim** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:56 pm

kuma wrote:Thanks for the tips. I talked to IBM and they said that if and when Vista comes out that I could just upgrade the video chipset. I didn't know this.

But the IBM person told me I had 30 days to try out the computer I ordered, so I could do that and order the other machine and return my initial order when my new computer (with less vram) arrives. But I don't think that is all that ethical. Is everyone else with me, or am I being foolish?

Thanks again.

I do not think that you can upgrade the video chipset. From what I know, all the video chips are soldered to the motherboard and you cannot upgrade it unless you change the entire motherboard.

About the ethical issue, IBM has policy for 30 days. That means you can order, oe of each series T,X,G,R use each one and choose the one that you want. This is because IBM do not sell at the retailers like Best Buy where customers can go and actually look at the product at hand.

Honestly I do not think you are not being unethical at all. In my point of view, having to set up a new computer will be more of time consuming. You are a medical studet you could use every minute you have.

smakdown61 · #13 Post by **smakdown61** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:15 am

Even thought the MR 9600 is essentially the same as the fireGL, don't expect to be able to run any of the new graphical features of Vista with 64mb of video memory as it will be a huge video memory hog. Im not even sure 128 will be enough but it will def. let you do more than 64 when it comes to vista.

kuma · #14 Post by **kuma** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:25 am

smakdown61 wrote:Even thought the MR 9600 is essentially the same as the fireGL, don't expect to be able to run any of the new graphical features of Vista with 64mb of video memory as it will be a huge video memory hog. Im not even sure 128 will be enough but it will def. let you do more than 64 when it comes to vista.

What are some of these features? I can always disable them though right, and still have it run fine? It just wont be as fancy though right? Right now I have both on order. Crap!
This was my orginal thinking as well, (more ram=better Vista) but I don't know if it is worth it to me for the extra money.

Any idea what these features are going to be?

I should be studying Biochem right now.

kuma · #15 Post by **kuma** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:50 am

Reading more things online...why am I not in bed?
Will the 128mb Fire give me a lot better performance than the 64mb ATI 9600?

I'm using Mac 10.3 with my G3 iBook with 32mb of vram. And it does all its magic of windows opening up and disappearing fine, not as smooth as say my dad's powerbook but fine by me. Is this going to be about the same?

Thanks.

Conmee · #16 Post by **Conmee** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 2:18 am

Folks,

No offense, but that argument about the FireGL is tired and inaccurate. True, the driver set that comes with the FireGL T2 is OpenGL certified and designed for stability over speed, but it is after all the same hardware as the MR9600, but with twice the video Ram. I'll take the FireGL anyday with twice the video ram over the MR9600. Want to even the playing field so to speak? Simply overclock the FireGL (just as easy as overclocking the MR9600) and load the latest Catalyst drivers.

I own a 2373-GRU, and it runs Doom3 and pretty much anything else I throw at it respectably. Is it a true gaming platform? No, but it sure as heck has an advantage with twice video Ram v. MR9600. And when it comes to all the textures and rendering going on, the memory is more important than the 2-10% performance difference between the FireGL and MR9600 (a difference only due to differing driver sets, which can be equalized by using Catalyst drivers, and a slightly higher memory speed with the MR9600).

So here are my scores for the various 3DMark benchmarks using default benchmark settings, and also some scores when I overclocked my FireGL using the factory drivers. Also, check my signature for the versions of 3DMark that I used.

First score is default drivers at default clock, second score is default drivers with overclocking (392 core/243 memory).

3DMark01 - 9646/11490
3DMark03 - 2629/3205
3DMark05 - 970/1162/

Not bad for a "non-gaming" card. Considering you can't upgrade the MR9600 or the FireGL T2 (they are soldered to the motherboard--don't know what idiot at "helpdesk" told you to upgrade the chipset), I wouldn't imagine why any gamer would prefer the MR9600 with 64MB v. the FireGL T2 with double video Ram 128MB.

As for Vista, there will be a number of levels of desktop interface. Ranging from the "requires PCI-X and 256MB of VRAM card" to a DirectX 9.0 capable card that runs both lower detail GUI and a "classic" interface. So short of running Vista with all the bells and whistles from a GUI perspective, a T42p will be fine. And a FireGL T2 will be a bit more capable than an MR9600 with 64MB in this respect, since you'll need the extra video ram given that the entire desktop and all open windows will be run in 3D.

As far as the $500 difference, maybe you might want to consider a 15" T42p for a larger screen, but other than that, the 2373-GRU comes with the SXGA+ 1400x1050, a DVD burner, Intel B/G WiFi, bluetooth, a 7200RPM 60GB drive (big plus), and generally, no fan problems... etc, lol. Only thing "missing" is the Fingerprint reader, which is as much a novelty to some folks as anything else.

Personally, I'd hold on to your T42p... after all, it's the same one I have. lol

Daniel.

kyrotech wrote:MobilityFIRE GL T2 128mb is not a gaming card, is a professional card. The Mobility 9600 64 MB will be a better option for gaming. Check out my benchmark numbers for my system:

All tests done with 1024x768x32 noAF noAA, Powerplay disabled and
High Quality Texture and Mipmap, Maximum Peformance laptop settings.
Used Benchemall 2.651 for game testing at high settings. Overclocked setings are 420 / 230.

3DMark 2001 SE Build 330
default:10,326 overclock: 11,490

3DMark 2003 Build 360
default: 2,837 overclock: 3,280

Not bad for a little mobile card

Jmmmmm · #17 Post by **Jmmmmm** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 2:23 am

I don't know much about video cards, but I got my t43 for medical school, and the x300 hasn't had any problems with any of the medical videos and programs I have attempted to use.

And biochem? I'm not surprised you don't want to study that. I should be studying anatomy right now. :0

asiafish · #18 Post by **asiafish** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:04 pm

Like most things, Vista will be very different when released than all the pre-production hoopla suggests. What claiming astronomical system requirements does is gets people to rush out and spend lots of money on new hardware that they don't need.

I remember the same upgrade frenzy when Windows 2000 was released. Of course, I had terrific results with Windows 2000 on my ancient Toshiba Portege 133MHz with a 2MB video card. Ditto for XP, which ran great on my 300MHz Pentium II ThinkPad 600 of the time.

Vista on the T42p? I am guessing that the 128MB FireGL will rip through absolutely anything Vista has for options and run them all at maximum settings. This is still a rather high-end card, and Vista is a operating system, not the lastest high-end game. Even Mac OSX Tiger still does all of its magic on a 32MB Radeon 9200, and I seriously doubt that Vista will come close to OSX in terms of quality or quantity of visual effects.

Kenn · #19 Post by **Kenn** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:45 pm

asiafish wrote:Even Mac OSX Tiger still does all of its magic on a 32MB Radeon 9200, and I seriously doubt that Vista will come close to OSX in terms of quality or quantity of visual effects.

Qualitywise, sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if whatever they do ends up needing a heck of a lot more processing and 3D power than Tiger

mattfromomaha · #20 Post by **mattfromomaha** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:03 pm

Kuma,

I'm a bit confused: do you need to do any graphics-intensive activities with your ThinkPad, or is it just for the run-of-the-mill E-mail, Internet, Word, blah blah blah type of stuff, but you wanted the extra video memory to ensure Vista compatibility?

Personally, if that's the case, I would just order the cheapest T-series that has the options you need, save the extra money, and worry about Vista when it actually comes out. I purchased a 2379R1U a few months ago and added another 512 mb of memory and it works flawlessly for me. I figure I got a great deal on it and can therefore justify upgrading in a couple years.

BTW, what medical school do you attend? I'm currently re-applying for medical school as we speak...didn't make it off the alternate list at a couple of schools last year....

Get back to that biochem...nothing better than a little beta oxidation to put a guy to sleep!

kuma · #21 Post by **kuma** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:36 am

I'm at U of Minnesota Twin Cities. Great school, I really love it, good luck with applications it is no fun.
Like you said just blah blah, no CAD stuff.

asiafish · #22 Post by **asiafish** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:10 am

Kenn wrote:
asiafish wrote:Even Mac OSX Tiger still does all of its magic on a 32MB Radeon 9200, and I seriously doubt that Vista will come close to OSX in terms of quality or quantity of visual effects.
Qualitywise, sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if whatever they do ends up needing a heck of a lot more processing and 3D power than Tiger ;)

Its Microsoft, so whatever they finally release will be rather mediocre, with the side-benefit likely that it will only require rather moediocre hardware to use.

Am I an idiot?

Am I an idiot?

Who is online