Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel GMA 950 beats GeForce GO 7600?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 14, 2006 11:31:41 AM

Hi,

The reason for this forum post is, simply put, that I as an average consumer is finding it increasingly difficult to understand why on earth I would pay more to get a notebook with e.g. GF GO 7600 graphics as opposed to the cheaper integrated solution from Intel, Graphics Media Accelerator 950?

They both support Windows Vista Premium (Shader Model 3.0, right?), so they're both future-proof 8)

Could anyone highlight WHY I should go for GF 7600 GO? Apart from gaming, are there any obvious advantages for example regarding video? Please keep the discussion from a consumer's point of view...

Thanks,
September 14, 2006 3:02:03 PM

Do you really expect a reply when 99% of us on this forum are hardcore gamers?
September 14, 2006 3:09:27 PM

Every computer piece made is for gaming.

If u dont want to game u can keep ur Celeron 1.4Ghz for the rest of the century. The ONLY reason to get anything above that it for gaming alone, or ofcourse 3D applications and things that need much computer performance like Blue-Ray and H.264 encoding/decoding, but thats only a sideline. No one buys a 2000$ PC to encode some videos..

If u dont want to game, then get the Intel GMA 950, wich works pretty like an Nvidia FX 5200, except that it decreases ur system performance by sucking ur RAM.
So any graphics card that has RAM of it's own would be best for u, because on a laptop u have less RAM and its more expensive. Getting a non-intergrated 50$ or less card would severely increase ur system performance when NOT playing a game. Isnt it ironic that u need a graphics card to not play games better?


And yeh, anyone who visits these forums daily is ofcourse at least a mid-core gamer cause only those interested in gaming are interested in PC hardware.
Related resources
September 14, 2006 3:42:34 PM

You're right if all you do is internet surfing and Word document.

But what about hardware support for video encoding and also good performances for gaming. If you ever intend to do one of these, stay away from on-board VPU. They do the job for office work, but that's about it. So yes, their is some really good reasonm to get powerful VPU, only not everybody need them.

Remember, you pay for what you get and you don't get much if you don't pay :twisted: .

Plus, wait for DirectX10 to come to us and you'll realize that VPU will probably be use more and more for other stuff than gaming. That's probably the reason AMD just acquire ATI and Intel is pushing hard to get their own team to devellop good (as oppose to bad in GMA950 case) DX10 VPU on the market.
September 15, 2006 1:31:49 AM

The Intergated stuff doesnt support Sh*t, no HDR, no SHR 3.0, those things are worthless FX5200's that can barely run MS WORD! If all you need the laptop for is basic stuff go for the cheaper one, if you like to play games and want a 20% performence increase go for the GeforceGO or ATI Express series.
September 18, 2006 2:35:07 PM

First, either you can't read correctly or I misunderstood your reply.

What I said is exactly this, on-board VPU is not good at gaming or to help video encoding. But unless you've been living under a rock for the last decade you should also know that at least 50% of poeple couldn't care less about gaming.

So, starting from there, I understand why most poeple don't want to pay for a nice and powerfull VPU. I only hope they won't come in complaining when they'll have the kick about so new Sims game that they can't run... if you see what I mean.

I also said that I wouldn't be surprise to see Intel getting into powerful discrete VPU (like present X1900XTX or GeF7950GTX) to counter AMD that might hold some performances advantage for ATI VPU working on their CPU from 2007 and on. According to various website Intel is hiring senior graphics architect of well known company around the world. All this while cutting over 10000 job on the ongoing years. If doesn't show an intent to join this area I don't know what is. Add to this that upcoming VPU on DX10 API will be as close to a real CPU as they ever were and I can easily imagine Intel getting such a product out by mid-2007. And if they don't get it right the first time, they'll get it straight by mid-2008. So there's no holding your breath there, but it's surely coming.

You should all remember that they add their own discrete GPU about 5 years ago but it didn't do well at all. I only hope they have learn from their mistake and will get it right this time around. There is enough Sapphire in this world to get this VPU to the market in a timely manner. 'Cause we all benefit from a healthy competition, and more is usually better.
!