sorry, I'm not as well versed in ATI tech. A X1300se is the lowest level X1*** right? So it would be great for older games(Homeworld 2 MODs, Dawn of War) OK for resonably new games(Half Life 2, Civ 4) and poor for stuff like Prey and a slideshow for Crysis...
really? What about stuff like Civ 4? I know Supreme Commander would have to be at extra low, and Company of Heroes at what, mid-low?
By the way, what are ways I can reduce bottlenecks(without changing hardware---this is a laptop). My dad's laptop has a 2.0ghz Core 2, and 1 gig of ram, but only a X1400. Obviously, its GPU bottlenecked.(and maybe a bit RAM) I obviously cant overclock. Anyways I can increase perfromance at all?
so where does the GPU start to get more of the bottleneck? I'll guess that at 1080 720 its about even. 800 600 its CPU, and 1280 1024 on its GPU. Correct?
There is no clear point of when bottlenecks shift; it depends on your settings, the game, and even the kind of scene in the game. My favorite example would be in Oblivion; in a city, even a Core 2 extreme might bottleneck, say, a Radeon X800GTO; almost whatever you do, in cities in Oblivion, your CPU is determining your performance. However, on the flip side, if you go for a FPS title like Prey, you can go with a weak CPU and still get good performance with a solid graphics card.
can the CPU compensate for a weak GPU by a margin? For instance, can the Core 2 take some of the graphics burden for the 1400? I know that before seperate GPUs, CPUs did the graphics. Obviously the compensation would be minor, but will the Core help the x1400 at all?(in graphics)
Core2 won't take the graphics burden from the video card, but at lower resolutions where the graphics card isn't struggling as much the Core2 will finish it's own tasks faster.
Bottom line, faster CPU = faster FPS at lower resolutions.
I have a Dell Inspiron 1505 with a Mobility X1400 and honestly, I believe it was NOT money well spent... especially when I got it (back then it was a $149 upgrade) The variety of games that it can play is way too limited. Sims 2? It runs OK I guess. Star Wars Galaxies? Barely acceptable. I haven't dared attempt to play anything too modern on it (BF2, Oblivion, etc) and wish I'd have just kept my money and bought a Nintendo DS Lite instead of opting for that upgrade. It's a 4 pixel pipe card... that puts it WELL behind an Nvidia 6600 GT (8 pipes) Yes, everyone here rags on the Intel 950 video chip, but I think it would have worked fine for me and saved me some money.
Yeah, I was worried about that... My dad *needs* a light laptop(he likes the IBM lenovo thinkpads)... If I could have convinced him into getting a normal sized laptop I could have gotten a much higher level card... Still, ANYTHING is better than the old Radeon 7500 his old laptop used...
Unfortunately, there is no information on the frequencies (on both).
I was checking with a friend for laptops with something else than Intel graphics, but the difference in price from the GMA950 to the X1400 is to big IMO. And I don't think that X1400 can handle recent games, so it's really no difference from the Intel chip.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.