New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Graphics on the R4035

post #1 of 13
6/4/05 at 12:41am
Thread Starter 
I say today at a local computer store a Compaq R4035 which sounded amazing considering the price:

AMD 64 3500+
1Gb RAM
80GB HDD (4200rpm)
15.4 Screen (Wide)
DVD-RW/DL

All for 1599CAD (about 1280US).

The only thing of concern to me was the graphics card. Its an integrated ATi Radeon Xpress card 200M with 128mb dedicated memory. I tried to compare this to other known ATi cards but it was difficult to get a clear comparison.

Can someone tell me how this card compares to other Mobility Video cards such as the 9700 128mb?

I don't play many games but the ones I do play are quite graphics and processor intensive.

Any input is appreciated.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 13
6/4/05 at 9:38am
That does sound like a good deal...

From what i hear the 200M kicks butt...

My laptop (see sig) has an ATI Mobility 9000 IGP with shared memory set at 128MB and with HL2 i get about 35 - 45fps with full details (no AA/AF), and the max widescreen resolution for my laptop...

When you consider how old my graphics card is, its great...
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 13
6/4/05 at 10:05am
I bought that same laptop for that same price here in canada about 18 hours ago, and Ive been loving it.

I'm gonna maybe try and write up a formal review, but if nothing else I'll post some synthetic benchmarks - I don't game much, so getting real-world benchmarks won't be so easy.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 13
6/4/05 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ffenliv
I'm gonna maybe try and write up a formal review, but if nothing else I'll post some synthetic benchmarks - I don't game much, so getting real-world benchmarks won't be so easy.
Benchmarks are good... I've had a lot of people ask me about the 200M and i can just say that i know its better... With benchmarks i will be able to tell people how much better it is... Plus i would like a zv6xxx when they release the intel version...
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 13
6/4/05 at 11:25am
The 200m is a decent card but it is not in the same league as the x700, x800 or the Nvidia 6600/6800. It is actually derived from the core of the x300 & performance will be lower than the x300( it is more like the x200 even though it is not named as such)

I would not recommend it if you are gamer but for occasional gaming might be fine. There are some benchmarks posted in the Review section, you might want to take a look at them.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 13
6/4/05 at 1:06pm
lol... well still does better than my Rad9000...
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 13
6/4/05 at 1:12pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the replies.

I'm still undecided yet. Its just that its such a great deal for a notebook that its hard to pass up.

However, I run FS2004 with quite a few add-ons and it brings my, granted 3yr old, desktop to its knees. I wish I knew how this 200M graphics core could handle that software.

Thanks again to all who replied. And ffenliv, I look forward to any further input as far as gaming performance (you don't have FS2004, do you? )
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 13
6/4/05 at 3:59pm
i'm afraid i dont game at all really, at least nothing that you could test anything with.

I play an older f1 racing game, and some of the old star wars rogue squadron games .. i use it mostly for graphics and video editing, at least I will when it's al set up.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 13
6/4/05 at 7:01pm
Thread Starter 
No problem, thanks for checking.

The more I read about the 200M core the more I learn that its similar but even more basic than the X300, which itself isn't going to cut it for FS2004, I'm afraid.

Back to the drawing board.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 13
6/4/05 at 9:38pm
The xpress 200 or x300 is not a high end card by any stretch, but are you sure that it wouldn't handle FS2004? What do you have in your desktop? I think the xpress 200 can be compared to a value version of the radeon 9600. So far, the only game I have heard that it definitely can't handle is doom 3.

edit:
I just installed FS2004 on my zv6000 3200+ and it ran well. I'm not a graphics guru, so my opinion might not be the best to use, but I set all settings to high, 1280x800-32, set the target frame rate to 40. But I'm not sure what it actually ended up running at. The narrator audio sounded a little choppy at a few points during the flight lesson, though. I flew the sydney trip with the rain and it was very playable. I don't know how much smoother it would be on a higher end system, but I don't think I'd have a problem playing it at whatever frame rate it reached.

But even so, if you are really concerned about graphics performance, you should look at a different video card, probably a nvidia go6000 series or radeon x600 or above.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 13
6/5/05 at 1:22am
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input.

I know it probably will run, its just a matter of how well. One of my desktops has a GeForce Ti4200 64mb and the other has an ATi 9800 128mb. The NVidia card struggles; the 9800 does well but not at max settings. My addons on FS2004 make even the 9800 struggle with it.

You can check frame rates by pressing Shift-Z twice in FS2004. Ofcourse thats not the definitive test, but rather smoothness/fluidity. Some systems show high fps but you can see micro stutters in the graphics. And although Im sure the 200M will have no problems running it, if its anything like the X300 then with my setup it won't be fluid.

Its too bad that high end graphics in notebooks (like 6800s and X800) aren't making their way into mainstream brands like HP/Compaq or Toshiba. I really don't want to get a Dell.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 13
6/7/05 at 3:46am
Yeah, you'd probably want at least an x700 if you already have a 9800.
The gateway m680 with an x700 would probably give decent performance. (but the 9300/w6800go is an excellent value though).

FYI, I tried the ctrl-z thing. On high settings, target framerate set to 59, the mt. rushmore flyby trip is a solid 59. But the sydney trip with all the rain effects on high, settled at about 20.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 13
6/7/05 at 11:36am
Try using this free program, www.fraps.com. It constantly shows frame rates in the corner as you play the game. My 4012US while playing GHOST RECON plays at 60 FPS with vertical sync ON, and ALL settings on HIGH. Resolution is set at 1200x800x32. Now my desk top (6800 ULTRA) plays at 150-300 fps, (1600x1200x32 resolution) online with vert sync off. Try going into options and turning vertical sync OFF and see what (FPS) you get. I have the Radeon ATI 200M 128mb card in this laptop and its playing games pretty damn good for a NOT built for gaming laptop.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HP, Compaq and Voodoo Notebooks