Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Shared 64 DDR video vs 32 DDR dedicated question

Last response: in Mobile Computing
Share
April 2, 2003 4:19:18 AM

I recently purchased a laptop. A Sony NVR23, paid about the = of $1250 US. Its meat is an XP1800/ G4 420 32 DDR dedicated video card and 256 DDR. A big reason I chose this model was the dedicated video card and XP1800 plus other multimedia features(heat issue is not a problem at all)

Now I have come across a 2100CA (same as 2100US) Compaq, (1.6 Celeron 128 cache, 512 DDR, 64 Shared Radeon graphics). I have also come across a HP z1260 ( P4 1.6C/512 DDR/ Radeon 7400 32 DDR 4xagp video card dedicated for the same cost as my Sony, all other features are the same except one less USB port and a slower burner.

I can get the 2100CA for about = of $1000 US after the instant and mail in rebates. I am wondering would a 64 DDR shared card perform, equal, worse or better compared to a 32 DDR dedicated mobile chip. Next of the Radeon 7500 32 DDR and the Nvidia G4 420 Go 32 DDR which would be better overall.

I can return the Sony and save some cash but only if I choose the 2100CA Celery based laptop with shared graphics, but is shared alot worse than dedicated. Also would the diff in processor power be worth keeping the Sony? Or is the 250-300 US savings worth it, all other features on both systems are similar except Sony has a 15"screen vs 14.1 on the 2100CA, but the z1260 is pretty equal but comes stock with more ram.

As far as quality would one give the nod to the Sony or the Compaq/HP machines??

Thanks
Cisco KId
April 2, 2003 6:35:45 AM

Why would you want to go from an AthlonXP 1800+ to a Pentium4 1.6GHz? The graphics on the HP are slightly superior to the GF4go 420 in your Sony, but certainly not noticibly. A Celeron performs a lot worse than a P4 clock for clock, and the 512MB memory that the Compaq has would have only equal 448MB because it would be sharing it's RAM. And the RAM would only run at 266MHz, whereas the dedicated RAM on ur GF4go 420 32MB, and the M7 32MB will run at just under 400MHz depending on the chip.

The only bonus either of them offer from the specs that you've mentioned is RAM, which is cheaper to buy with less hassle than a whole new notebook.

The M7 (Mobility Radeon 7500) is superior to the GF4Go 420, but not by much. BOTH of these are FAR superior to the onboard graphics of the Compaq.

I would keep ur current system, if you want graphics performance, look at a Dell. I consider HP, Compaq, Sony to be in the same quality range, and I have seldom been unimpressed with their products.

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
April 3, 2003 1:54:13 AM

Thanks for the feedback. What I had concluded from some info between the M 7500 and the G4 420 Go I found that the edge was given to the Nividia chip for performance and powersavings options. I have decided to keep my NVR23 unless a store will give me the same price for their display HP z1260, I would consider it cause it is a little slimmer but the downside is the burner is slower and it comes witht he R7500 mobility. I am passing on the celery solution becuase since my post there was a store in the chain where I bought my NVR23 that had a disply on for $100 less than what I paid, and they gave me pricematch so in the end I got a very sweet laptop for a really good price. I have now paid about 41170 US approx, and from what I have compared a Dell could not even give me all the same features as the Sony, it would cost at least $250 more. I agree with you that buying ram separate is better and I have a 256 stick of pc2100 by Crucial on its way to me so this thing should fly along pretty darn good :) 

Cisco KId

NVR23 Laptop and a Killa desktop too much too list
Related resources
April 4, 2003 8:47:23 PM

The M7 is definitely a much higher performer than the 420 go, and is only slightly less thrifty. I would have no hesitation in choosing the M7 over the 420 Go - but if you don't need graphhics performance, stick with the 420.
I'm glad you got the RAM separately, and best of luck.

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
April 5, 2003 12:08:25 PM

Any performance difference difference will be lost when he goes from the Athlon to the celeron. I am assuming it as a northwood celeron so that makes it even worse. He should not change.
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'
April 5, 2003 12:13:48 PM

Stick with the current one you have. I dont know if the listed radeon is faster or not but lets go on that is is a faster GPU than the GFtogo. Any performance improvement in the GPU will be gutted if you go from the Athlon 1800 to the celeron 1.6gig. I assume it is a northwood core celeron at that. They are just garbage. Plus the shared memory will make a massive performance kill on the GPU as standard DDR is much slower the graphics cards DDR. Stick with what you have. You will be MUCH better off.
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'
April 8, 2003 4:24:44 PM

I am keeping the NVR23 , area 51 nice laptops but not in pricerange I can afford to spend, the NVR was about = to 1175 US after my most recent and final pricematch, I am very happy with its performance and once I get my other 256 crucial it should fly along pretty good. Unless I can find a discoed HP z1260 for less than what I paid before Wed 11 pst I will keep the NVR23. But how would a P4 1.6 C compare to an XP1800 I am guesssing slower.

cisco kid



NVR23 Laptop and a Killa desktop too much too list
April 9, 2003 1:31:29 AM

Well toms here overclocked a celeron to 3.0gighz. And the XP 1600 was still able to best it in most benchmarks. That should give you some idea.
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'
!