|And I don't think the X600 comes even close to the 6600 so i'm not sure where you found those benchmarks. What I do know is that the 6600GT and the X700 Pro are supposed to be pretty evenly matched.
That being said, the 6600GT andn the X700 Pro are both desktop cards
Originally Posted by lysis
From all of the review that I have read, the x700 does not perform 25% if at all better than the 6600 go in games. The z71v does suffer from a bad chipset and gfx cooling solution, but that can be modded if you're hardcore. For me, I have no heat problem, and have jumped the gfx clocks to the design defaults. I play bf2 and hl2 and css and wow with 2Xaa and 4-8 af no problem.
like rob said... :P This laptop is waaaaaaaaay better than my m6805 from emachines. I am never buying an integrated gfx card again!
Also, if you'll check the topic where I compared the benchmarks on the 6600 and the X700, the 6600 scores about 2200ish overclocked, while the X700 scores 2800 overclocked. Hence, 25% faster. That being said, neither cards are slouches, but considering the pricing isn't THAT different, and you do get more for your money, the Z70Va is pretty much a no-brainer.
Anyways, there's no "bad chipset," there's just a poorly designed one. The reason you haven't encountered the error is because you're using a SATA drive, not a PATA--if you try using the Hitachi 7k60, which uses PATA, you'll have half the bandwidth since it shares an IDE channel with the optical drive. So basically, if you ever plan on listening to music, playing games that require a CD/DVD, watching movies, or burning anything, you'll encounter the same problem. Several resellers don't offer PATA drives for this reason.