Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel GMA 950 graphics processor

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 5, 2007 7:13:55 PM

well there's no real home for this topic but I'm guessing here as the best place (the alternative being motherboard chipsets)

the Intel GMA 950 graphics processor seems to be on lots of laptops at around at the moment and i was wondering how i could compare it to a standard card. the two main downfalls of this gfx solution is that it uses the same bus as the CPU (you'll have to correct me if i'm wrong), and uses system memory so will start to eat at your ram. the major advantage and the reason it is in lots of laptops is that it uses a hell of allot less power.

i'm running a nvidia 7600gt at the moment. how does this compare? having to share a bus makes me think its going to suck in comparison? but the 7600 is limited to its allocated 256 memory, so in theory the GMA could use 512? (again correct me!) so since i've only got 1gb of ram on my computer if i was to have 2gb on a laptop could it outperform?

is it worth the price? shared bus and shared memory for less power (and in most cases less cost)?
September 5, 2007 7:27:21 PM

No, stick with the 7600GT. The GMA 950 pales in comparison. The GMA's are also limited to how much memory they can steal. I think most are stuck with 256mb. My dad's laptop has the GMA 950 and it doesn't really like MechCommander2 which isn't a difficult game for a computer.
September 5, 2007 7:32:22 PM

well i'm looking into getting a laptop for uni and i have a love for proper laptops (i.e. ones you can carry with you easily and use on your lap, not a 17-19" beast). the macbooks look pretty gd but they use this chipset/gfx option. i'm aiming to run things like CSS and supreme commander. I'm guessing it won't come close toe SUPCOM
Related resources
September 5, 2007 7:37:19 PM

the 7600gt will smoke the GMA950 at any benchmark, even if the GMA950 is using 1gb of ram (I think it's limit is 256mb)

GMA950 will only be able to play games several years old.

It does use a lot less power, and if you're not using the laptop to game, at all, it might be worth it.

The GMA950 is designed for very rudimentary 3d applications. the 7600gt is a serious dedicated graphic solution. I would say at least 4x as powerful probably much more.
September 5, 2007 7:43:18 PM

well here comes the problem the laptop is for work, but how much works gets done at uni? i was running a geforce fx5600 before on my desktop, is that on a par with it? although I'm not spending loads of money on a laptop i can't upgrade if i can't use it for what i use the most for.
September 5, 2007 8:11:56 PM

What those guys said.
September 6, 2007 10:23:51 AM

well, slighty moving away, but whats a ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory like? from what i've found it looks about half the power of a 7600GT. the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT with 256MB memory is a few steps behind but at a much great cost...
September 6, 2007 4:08:46 PM

I'd put the 7600 GT and 2600 XT on equal footing.

The 2400 XT is alot slower, yeah. But for a laptop, not as terrible as the desktop part when you compare it to the playing field.
September 6, 2007 4:36:42 PM

I have an Intel GMA 945 in my laptop and it has problems running Rollercoaster tycoon 3 which is a 4 year old game. Any integrated graphic chips are gonna suck big time. This one of the reasons why AMD bought ATI so they could make a notebook Mobo/graphics chip combo that would be fast and efficient that would beat Intel's GMA garbage.
!