NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › 128MB ATIs™ Mobility Radeon™ X300
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

128MB ATIs™ Mobility Radeon™ X300 - Page 2

post #21 of 53
4/11/05 at 12:56am
I don't use my laptop for gaming but from what Ive seen the x300 is equal to my 9200 which is NOT meant for gaming, only graphic design
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 53
4/11/05 at 8:33am
I thought the X300 (ok, I know this for a fact on the desktop side) was the equivalent of a 9600 (9600 mobility in this case)? The ATI spec page misses some details so I couldn't verify on the mobile part...the desktop one is a lower clocked X600 with an option to use some onboard memory. This latter part slows things down in a 32MB part anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 53
4/14/05 at 8:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbrowning
I thought the X300 (ok, I know this for a fact on the desktop side) was the equivalent of a 9600 (9600 mobility in this case)? The ATI spec page misses some details so I couldn't verify on the mobile part...the desktop one is a lower clocked X600 with an option to use some onboard memory. This latter part slows things down in a 32MB part anyway.
No, the mobile X600 seems to be the equivalent of the 9600. The X300 is way slower.

The price difference between the X300 and the 6800 Go is not that much, and the 6800 is many TIMES faster. Getting a slightly slower CPU to get several times more graphics power is worth it.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 53
4/14/05 at 8:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guspaz
No, the mobile X600 seems to be the equivalent of the 9600. The X300 is way slower.

The price difference between the X300 and the 6800 Go is not that much, and the 6800 is many TIMES faster. Getting a slightly slower CPU to get several times more graphics power is worth it.
Absolutely agree,

Don't ever hope to have a decent gaming experience on somthing like the X300, which is barely better than the M Radeon 9000.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 53
4/14/05 at 11:06pm
Check the 3d benches for the X300. You'll be surprised that it's actually quite close to MR9600 levels.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 53
4/15/05 at 10:24am
I mean, you can look at ATI's page, it isn't like I made stuff up. :P Its a slower-memory version of the 9600 mobility, which can also use mainboard RAM, too.

Still, in regards to the original question, the 6800 is a LOT better.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 53
4/16/05 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbrowning
I mean, you can look at ATI's page, it isn't like I made stuff up. :P Its a slower-memory version of the 9600 mobility, which can also use mainboard RAM, too.
Where are you getting this from??? Do you have a link. Here are the facts...

MR9600 = 1200 MP fillrate, 6.4 GB/s bandwidth

MRX300 = 1400 MP fillrate, 9.6 GB/s bandwidth

The MR x300 destroys the MR 9600 and is more comparable to a desktop 9600xt.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 53
4/16/05 at 5:56pm
Dam I got a 9600xt 128mb in my PC. Its not bad for the price I paid for and get good FPS. But think its time for an upgrade!!
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 53
4/16/05 at 7:33pm
The X300 is a joke. As is the 9600m, the 9700m, and their various derivatives. If it can't hit at least 15k in 3dmark2001se and 4k in 2003, it's worthless.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 53
4/16/05 at 9:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeky1
The X300 is a joke. As is the 9600m, the 9700m, and their various derivatives. If it can't hit at least 15k in 3dmark2001se and 4k in 2003, it's worthless.

For those who just want to play games at 1024x768 or 800x600 res, the x300 and/or 9600 pro is fine.... much better than integrated intel graphics.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 53
4/16/05 at 9:14pm
From my experience, this is an ordered list with the weakest listed first:

R 7000
NV 5200
R 9000
R 9200
R X300
R 9500
NV 5500
NV 5600
R 9550
NV 6200 ?
NV 5600
R 9600
NV 5700
NV 5800
R 9700
X600
NV 5900XT
R 9800Pro
X600XT
NV 5900U
NV 6600
NV 5950U
R X700
R 9800XT
R X700XT
NV 6600GT
R X800
NV 6800
R X800Pro
NV 6800GT
2 x NV 6600GT
NV 6800U
R X800XT
R X800XTPE
2 x NV 6800
R X850XT
2 x NV 6800GT
2 x NV 6800U

You can dispute the order, but this is my perception of the effectiveness of these cards. I have used machines with most of these cards, and have heard my friends talk about most of the rest. So it's nothing scientific, just in my books.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 53
4/16/05 at 9:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeky1
The X300 is a joke. As is the 9600m, the 9700m, and their various derivatives. If it can't hit at least 15k in 3dmark2001se and 4k in 2003, it's worthless.
The 9700 isnt a joke, you are an idiot.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 53
4/16/05 at 9:47pm
Personally, I am not a gamer in the least. My idea of a good game would be 'Bejeweled 2'. So, for me the ATI Radeon X300 with 128MB of dedicated memory is all I need for my tasks.

If I wasn't concerned about battery life, I'd get the better nVIDIA 256MB GPU - 'just to have it', but why sacrifice all that battery life and deal with added heat and fan activity when it's not needed? I prefer the idea of having a 'decent' GPU as well as 4+ hours of battery life on a cool running quiet machine.

So at the end of the day it's about the kind of user you are and picking the GPU that is right for you.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 53
4/16/05 at 11:55pm
I have new Dell 6000d with X300 in front of me. It sucks donkey dongs. Dragged windows jitter and stutter, I get artifacts when scrolling ... a total joke. Thank god this is not my machine; my wife doesn't mind this sort of thing the way I do.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 53
4/17/05 at 4:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgordon
For those who just want to play games at 1024x768 or 800x600 res, the x300 and/or 9600 pro is fine.... much better than integrated intel graphics.
That's like saying that a new Honda Civic is better than a rusted-out 1989 Ford Taurus. Sure, it's better... but it's still a piece of crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deggs_37
The 9700 isnt a joke, you are an idiot.
gee... I think someone has difficulty dealing with the fact that the GPU in their notebook is a POS.

The 9700m is based on the Radeon 9600XT. The 9600XT is a piece of crap. Therefore, by definition, the 9700m is also a piece of crap. They're both hysterically slow, and they both have ridiculously small amounts of memory bandwidth.

I'm glad it meets your (obviously very low) standards. I'm afraid I have a hard time taking anything based on a budget chip (yes, a $150 9600XT qualifies as a low end graphics card as far as I'm concerned) seriously. If it can't run Doom 3 @ 1920x1200 (1920x1440 for 4:3 screens) with the detail settings maxed out and maintain at least 30fps (or close to it), it's simply not worth my time. The 9700m is simply too slow for that; Radeon 9800 Pros have a hard time with it-let alone 9600XTs-so as far as I'm concerned, it's a disgustingly underpowered piece of crap.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 53
4/17/05 at 8:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkAM
I have new Dell 6000d with X300 in front of me. It sucks donkey dongs. Dragged windows jitter and stutter, I get artifacts when scrolling ... a total joke. Thank god this is not my machine; my wife doesn't mind this sort of thing the way I do.
This sort of behavior doesn't happen even with integrated graphics, let alone a dedicated GPU. There is something wrong with her notebook - and it's not the X300. I'd try a clean install of XP and the drivers before pointing at any of the hardware.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 53
4/17/05 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeky1
That's like saying that a new Honda Civic is better than a rusted-out 1989 Ford Taurus. Sure, it's better... but it's still a piece of crap.



The 9700m is based on the Radeon 9600XT. The 9600XT is a piece of crap. Therefore, by definition, the 9700m is also a piece of crap. They're both hysterically slow, and they both have ridiculously small amounts of memory bandwidth.

Hey my 9600xt is not crap, some people don't want to by expensive GPU's due to the ever changing technology. It runs games well on medium detail and with a good setup works fine.
Prob you think my new Z71V 6600GPU is crap too?
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 53
4/17/05 at 12:12pm
Hey everyone has different expectations for performance. Some don't need any more than simple integrated video. For their uses, it's not crap. For some others though, it would be. I'm not considering anything less than a Go 6600 at this point.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 53
4/17/05 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sowelu
This sort of behavior doesn't happen even with integrated graphics, let alone a dedicated GPU. There is something wrong with her notebook - and it's not the X300. I'd try a clean install of XP and the drivers before pointing at any of the hardware.
I do have a clean install of XP Pro on this machine and the latest drivers. The X300 swaps in and out of system memory FYI (look up "hypermemory"), and I think that's why this is happening.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 53
4/17/05 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall
R 9600
NV 5700
NV 5800
R 9700
X600
If I recall correctly, the X600 is nothing more than a rebadged 9600, which makes it slower than the 9700 by default. I would have to confirm though.

EDIT: Confirmed, the X600 is a 9600XT, but actually slower. Since it has half the pipelines of the 9700 (4 vs 8), the 9700 is significantly faster.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › 128MB ATIs™ Mobility Radeon™ X300