ATI

Message

Stingray · #1 Post by **Stingray** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:43 pm

Hi all:
Do you think it is really worth it paying a bit extra for an ATI 604 mg card or should the Intel graphics be okay??? I won’t be playing any games on the laptop… just some movies and web browsing… Any takers?
Gracias...

DIGITALgimpus · #2 Post by **DIGITALgimpus** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:51 pm

For movie and web browsing there will be no difference.

For gaming, or anything that uses OpenGL, there would be.

kyrotech · #3 Post by **kyrotech** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:38 pm

get the ATI card, you wont regret it

Stingray · #4 Post by **Stingray** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:21 am

Thanks for the input guys...

Trip · #5 Post by **Trip** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:41 am

I'm not sure what you mean by 604 mg, but if all you aren't going to be doing any gaming or 3D graphics work, then a discreet card really isn't worth it. The one advantage it might have is if you want to upgrade to Windows Vista in a year or whenever it's supposed to come out, but the GMA 900 graphics will also be fully capable of running Vista, although maybe with less of the eye-candy MS has planned.

If you're going to stick with XP, though (that's definitely what I'm doing), then there's no real reason to go for the ATi card. You'll save some money, and probably get bettery battery life and less heat production with the GMA 900.

EDIT: Just got it - 604 mg = 64 MB, right?

Stingray · #6 Post by **Stingray** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:26 am

Thanks for the input Trip... and yes I did mean 64....

DIGITALgimpus · #7 Post by **DIGITALgimpus** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:59 am

Technically 16MB-32MB is enough for just about anything.

For games, or if you want to run Windows Vista with full graphic effects... you'll need 128.

Eventually more will be better for basic tasks. For example, Firefox 3.0 is expected to take advantage of a graphics card. But that's still a while off. It's rather unusable in this mode thus far.

christopher_wolf · #8 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:18 am

Whoa...128MB just like that? That would mean we would need a T43p or T42p to run Windows Vista or a game at a decent pace? I don't think so..I have been able to run HL2 and several, quite intensive, render processes quite good with just 64 MB. Sooner or later, 128 MB will be required, but right now and for the near future (a year or so) 64 MB should be enough.

DIGITALgimpus · #9 Post by **DIGITALgimpus** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:10 pm

again, that's vista with full graphics. You could of course tune down the user interface to the most basic level, and use a 64MB graphics card.

Stingray · #10 Post by **Stingray** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:49 am

Thanks Digital and Wolf.....

dssjon · #11 Post by **dssjon** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:22 pm

Lately I have had to come to terms with the fact that my gaming rig (desktop) is for gaming, using vista, etc. And that my laptop is for surfing the internet, writing, programming, and other various school related activities. I cant complain that my thin & light wont play HL2 or run Vista's Aeroglass theme like my huge desktops 256mb x850 pci-express card.

Esben · #12 Post by **Esben** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:54 pm

The last report of Vista memory usage I have seen, recommends 64 MB as minimum for Vistas advanced user interface.

Hopelessness · #13 Post by **Hopelessness** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:15 pm

Yeah, I found it rather surprising how capable the 9600 mobility in the T42 is. Especially after coming from a T43 with an x300, whuch I found to be decent, but not great. (Actually, I was sort of expecting graphical performance to go down when I returned the T43 for the T42, but it's been quite the opposite, moving from a 2668-75U to a 2373-M3U.)

#14 Post by **ZaZ** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:14 pm

I had Vista Beta 1 running on my T42 for a bit. Everything looked fine to me. I'd say a dedicated card with DirectX 9 support is a good idea if you want to run Vista in all it's glory. Supposedly the hybrid ATI 200m is Vista compliant. We'll see.

ATI

ATI

Who is online