mobile video card

I was just wondering if anyone could kind of explain to me how mobile video cards work. Can you say add a card to an existing laptop? Replace one in an laptop? Or are you just pretty much stuck with what you got? I am asking because i am looking into buying a new laptop but was wondering if i could save some cash up front and get a card later (or get a low end card then upgrade). I don't care about being able to play the lattest games maxed out, but would like to option to play games if i so desire. Thank you before hand for any info / advice.
30 answers Last reply
More about mobile video card
  1. would a 8400 be enough to play most games??? i really like the looks of a dell. also does any one have screen size opinion, i really like the thought of getting a 14.1", but would that be too small? i like the idea of being really compact, easy to take with me when i go places. also the dells have the option for a cd / dvd burner / blu ray player drive for an additional $160 that seams like a really good price, then i could use it as a blu ray player as well. just throwin ideas out there.
  2. o, also, what about a mac? would a mac book work for gaming as well as a dell with a 8400??
  3. Most laptops you are stuck with the card you purchase. You may be able to replace them, but it is a hassle to find cards for laptops (not readily available like desktop cards). You are better off buying the laptop with the best card it comes with. The 8400GS is a little weak in the gaming department. You are probably better off getting an 8600m. the 8400 would play most games, but you won't be able to play at high resolutions or settings. As far as screen size, that's 100% personal. Best suggestion is to go to a local electronics store that sells laptops and look at the screen sizes they have on display. Get a feel for what you like and go from there. And to the Mac, don't know, don't use one.
  4. I agree with L&W get the best graphics you need for now and then add other easier replaced items later.

    There may be more flexability in the future with things like the ASUS XGstation and ATi's Lasso solution, but they are not really very practical right now.
  5. TheGreatGrapeApe said:
    I agree with L&W get the best graphics you need for now and then add other easier replaced items later.

    There may be more flexability in the future with things like the ASUS XGstation and ATi's Lasso solution, but they are not really very practical right now.

    That's the first time I've heard of Lasso. Could be good, but ATI is developing a reputation for being late to the game. Have you heard any more about the XG Station? It's been a while since Asus has said anything.
  6. A Dell 1520 is the best deal I've seen so far. you can configure one with 8600m gt and a few other nice features for around 1K after coupons (dell has coupons for $200-$300 sometimes).
  7. yeah i think i am gonna go with the dell. what really is sellin me is gettin the blue ray drive for 150 bucks. i think i am gonna get it with just 1 gig or ram and buy a seperate 2 gig stick to put in. should i get the glossy, or the antiglare screen??? i like the look of the glossy, but ive heard that they glare really bad, true??
  8. o another question, this one is kind of a biggy i guess. xp or vista, i know its personal preference, but i haven't had that much time to play around with vista. is it true that vista makes games run slower? i guess my thoughts are i might as well get vista cuz its gonna come down to that eventually anyway, right?
  9. I'm not sure if they'll let you configure it XP with BluRay, but if you have the option XP all the way.

    Vista is for Summer of 2008 IMO, unless you have no legacy software or hardware you enjoy using. If it's a fresh start then it won't make much difference, even the performance differences are still small, but the hassle and legacy support issues are huge IMO.

    As for the screen, I prefer the anti-glare, but the glossy gives you better staturation. I have both and I find it depends on what I'm doing. Editing and gaming I like the Glossy, but for text / surfing I much prefer the anti-glare. You don't notice the difference of the anti-glare unless they're side by side, but the reflections and overbrightness of the glossy is really noticeable to me. But it's really about preferences.
    I'd prefer an anti-glare LED lit screen for the best of both worlds.
  10. I have both, I highly prefer the glossy...its sharper and more vivid...never really notice any glare.

    I prefer XP over Vista anyday.
  11. XP overall runs faster and uses much less memory. I bought my laptop with vista and downgraded to XP (it's good to know that I can upgrade again later).
  12. so if i get the laptop with vista, i can downgrade it when i get it to xp and be able to upgrade again to vista later for free?
  13. No Vista for laptops !!! :fou:

    VISTA is another bog down your PC "upgrade" that delivers absolutely no usable features over XP,
    or not enough to warrant the wasted hardware. Unless you're in the business of ripping off Mac OS
    Looks & Miss-functionality. Hardware & Software compatibility will give you a real wake up call.
    Some Games will not run on Vista at all. XP is fast on just 1gb ram & service pack 3 is out there to
    patch some errors & add some features, get SATA/3GB drives and see your apps. open in an instant.
    The only speed claims made by Engineers to topple XP is for x64 processors, 64bit hardware & 64bit Vista.
    This is not your standard consumer item & definitely highly customized lots of Ks for such laptop.

    Wake up and smell what Longhorn is cooking !
    Squeal !
  14. 1) I run Vista on my laptop, and it most certainly does have a lot of additional useful functionality. Also, every game I've tried on it runs just fine, including some that go back to Windows 95.

    2) Thread necromancy alert.
  15. [2) Thread necromancy alert./quote]

    Yes - LOL but perhaps timely. Lasso has matured and will be available in a Fujitsu production machine. Although the XGstation died because it was only single lane, the connection came back alive as the XGP PCIe 2.0 interface (although only available in the 8 lane version for now).

    Cyberat, I'm afraid you're off base on this one. You can only use hybrid crossfire or use an XGP connection for an external graphics card with Vista as your OS.
  16. Hi

    To CJL this comment is objective nothing personal but - Vista is for the mentally retarded who have to have everything on a screen wide button, flashing, fading and must have all the fashionable stuff as change for the sake of change, I truly hate that. I am a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. & if it's not broken don't fix it.
    Name one feature XP cannot do for you, name one hardware XP cannot handle.
    As to incompatibilites here's just one example which is a simple game not too old not too new - Delta Force JOTR & I believe all the Novalogic line will not run, although I did not test them all.
    (yes, my xp desktop resembles Win98 closely).

    piratepast40 - external graphics card ? are you saying SLI does not work with vista ? anycase I am done with
    Microsoft, I will keep and XP gamer box, the laptop/work side I will switch to linux.
  17. Well, for starters:

    1) XP does not have as easy to use or as powerful of mobility controls and power modes
    2) The new search in Vista is awesome - much faster and more powerful than the one in XP
    3) Any and all DX10 stuff will not have its full potential without Vista
    4) Vista Ultimate does full image backups of your hard drive (XP cannot do this without an external utility)
    5) Vista is far more secure - the integrated firewall is much better than XPs, and Windows Defender is pretty good too

    Oh, and of course SLI works with Vista.
  18. Meh, all those are software utilities or in the case of firewall hardware utilities that I can get better versions of it and rather pay, then have it all system integrated & not be able to rely on it due to being made by Microsoft.
    I have DX10 never a problem, next, most backup software including Nero can do image backups of my drive, don't need vista for that.
    Want mobility get Norton Ghost software, much cheaper.
    Being locked into buying top dollar from Microsoft is what I DON'T need,
    slowing down my hardware is what I don't WANT.
    It's a shiny out of the box do a lot for you, inefficient expensive crap, that does nothing perfectly. You and Bill Gates have a nice relationship. LOL

    SLI & Vista 64bit vs. 32bit systems ?
  19. Yes, backup software can do images of your drive. It also costs money. I didn't have to pay extra to get image capability in Vista.

    As for Ghost for mobility? Not quite sure what you mean, as I have a copy of Ghost for an older computer, and I fail to see how it adds mobility in any way.

    By the way, I would never recommend an upgrade to Vista for anyone on their current computer. It's an improvement from XP, but an incremental enough one that I don't think it's worth the money if you're already running XP. However, for a new system, it is worth getting Vista, as you need an operating system, and the price difference between Vista and XP is minor.

    (BTW, as far as inefficient goes, I actually dual booted XP for a while when I first got the computer because of initial compatibility problems, and Vista actually ran faster than XP did on the same system. Note that I have most of the really slow stuff such as the Sidebar turned off - I prefer efficiency to gadgets and eye candy)
  20. Cyberat - I was referring to the hybrid crossfire feature with the Puma platform (IGP and discrete GPU crossfire) and the new XGP (PCIe 2) interface that allows use of an external video card. Those only work with Vista.

    The title of the thread is "mobile video card" and there have been significant technology advances since it was started.
  21. Hi, :bounce:

    piratepast40 - thanks, that maybe a bypass solution good to know, but I doubt my Fujitsu Laptop is capable & it is socket M, so cpu upgrade from the T5500 will not take me far enough to make it a decent laptop for games. Besides, like I was trying to explain, I'm not at all satisfied with Vista for other reasons.
    I have an XP system, would've liked to downgrade the laptop to XP, like that other user wrote, but no dice.
    I'll see how Wine works on Linux, run what games I can run on the laptop.
    Did some research for an XP micro gamebox with all external drives, comes to about $4000+ without monitor.
    Not in my near future for now. :ouch:

    CJL - Microsoft is the biggest waste of hardware you can find, which is why I am questioning core 2 duo performance. Will do some research on that too. What do you mean by mobility ? Transfering your system to another PC ? Ghost will do that. Like I said in my previous post, no desirable features, no hardware advantages. In the meanwhile people, get Linux, Microsoft copied Mac looks and realized Linux gives away free software, but guess what ? You still need to pay for applications like Office Suite, Frontpage, Money (or some other financial program), FTP, IRC - where you can get it in Linux for FREE, plus many more goodies for geeks, freaks, gamers & leets. Novell's package is comprehensive, runs Red Hat, while Ubuntu is the latest Debian with an excellent install system.

    Calling all rebels Fight the MSN Empire !!! :sol:
  22. Nope, I mean the wide variety of power configuration options, as well as the presentation settings and many similar features.

    As for transferring to another PC, Windows Vista will do that too, and Ghost costs $50. As for paying for FTP or IRC? Not at all. FTP is included, and there are a number of good IRC programs for free. I use Virc. OpenOffice works on Vista, though I've tried it and found Office 2007 to be far more powerful for what I do (it helps that I got the full Office 2007 suite for $20). Also, I don't see how you can't call DX10 a hardware advantage.

    Honestly, I somewhat doubt whether you've actually tried Vista for any reasonable length of time on a decent system.
  23. CJL or should I say Mr. Tie Fighter :lol:

    I haven't met the person yet that could show me needs to use Office 2007 vs. Office 2000 other than "oooh got to have the latest, it got flashier buttons, it's da bomb". So that may be in detrimental of my argument, but throw me a few pointers of what you HAVE TO HAVE in Office 2007 that you cannot find in any other app. including WordPerfect Suite. OpenOffice is not the only one that you can get Free for Linux. I didn't call DX10 an advantage, just said it's not a disadvantage for XP, as it can run it.
    I'm just doing this for argument's sake I am past "trying" Vista, ok I may upgrade your title to Tie Interceptor because you are relentless. Hahaha. Tell me how you got it for $20 ?????? So you agree Vista does not have everything out of the box. The free apps. you got did not come with Vista or mfg. by MS.
    I don't need a "decent" system if the OS was efficient and compatible, you already buying the MS concept of
    discarding tech. in exchange for inefficiency, slow performance & mediocre choices, but hey why not pay for an upgrade patch next year ?
    XP offered support for Hyperthreading processors, Duo Core & more memory vs. Windows 2000, 64bit OS & easier network setup which came with a lot of insecure holes and bad defaults but that is the hardware advantage I am talking about. Keep in mind XP had its hardware/software incompatibilities as well, including some Creative Labs sound cards (sheesh). I don't want to even see the VISTA hardware list......yikes !!!
    Does anyone remember how amazingly efficient the Commodore 64 was ?
    Yeah demands and performance multiplied, but efficiency is in the dumpster thanks largely to Microsoft.
    IBM had a very efficient GUI, at least 50% over MSW, it was called OS/2 Warp, do the masses know this ?
    No and they don't deserve it, go back to your Victory Class Destroyer & report you won another battle,
    remember to bring a fat wallet always. May the pork be with you.

    Hah. :kaola:
  24. I can show you right now why I need Office 07 - I'm currently (for my job) working on a 240 thousand line spreadsheet. Excel 2003 runs out at 65536.

    As for Creative stuff, their drivers are known garbage. Don't blame XP for crap driver support. As for $20? It's through a program where employees of some companies can get it for home use (the full version) for $20. I can get cheap (though not quite as cheap) copies of Windows too.

    As for decent system, the main point is RAM. As I said, I dual booted XP and Vista for a while, and Vista actually runs faster on a good system (it isn't just a linear performance scale). XP is better if you are short on RAM, but on a fast system, due to superfetch and various other new additions in Vista, Vista actually runs faster than XP.
  25. CJL

    Ok, fair enough on the office 2007.

    Vista benchmark speeds however are in the dirt vs. XP.
    The ONLY way you can even compare them is on the same hardware specs.
    Don't tell me Vista with 4gb ram Core 2 Duo 3.0 ghz runs faster than XP 1gb ram P4 3.0 ghz, that is not a comparison. The ONLY Benchmarks that Vista beat XP on the same Core 2 Duo processor was in 64 bit.
    Any OS incapable of handling the most compatible sound cards in the world that is Creative Labs is a stupidly designed OS. With the mentality of encouraging more money spending on new hardware. You must be what they
    call a tax & spend liberal. Not to take political sides here.

    Fight the Microsoft Empire !!! :sol:
  26. Creative sound cards the best in the world in compatibility? What a joke. It is not Microsoft's fault if drivers are crap. CREATIVE writes the drivers for their sound cards, not Microsoft, and as a result, Creative is to blame when their drivers do not work. Actually, Creative's cards are some of the most poorly supported and in general worst sound cards you can buy as far as compatibility is concerned. (this didn't stop me from getting an X-fi though, which so far seems to work all right in Vista, despite the lack of any drivers even remotely recently).

    As for speed comparisons, every test I ran was either equal, or in Vista's favor on this machine. That is dual boot, XP on one partition, Vista on another. That is 4 gigs of RAM, C2D @ 2.33GHz, good graphics card, etc.
  27. CJL - much like religious people & potheads, you are unable to accept what is not confirming your beliefs & lie to cover up. I will not post anything more on this subject, it does not fit the thread here. It's not my fault you work for Microsoft directly or indirectly, I feel sorry for you. Don't try to justify a dead OS, with dillusions of grandure.

    Don't Buy Vista or use it cause it's free, choices exist today !
    :pfff: :fou:
  28. I fail to see what you mean. Where in my post is a lie?
  29. Sorry cjl - looks ike the rat had both of us "doing the hokey pokey" while he sat there and laughed.
  30. sorry if i'm bringing this back from the dead, but one aspect where Vista shines over XP is on the 64 bit side. Vista x64 really outperforms XP64. Even from a stability standpoint. I'm a mechanical design engineer, and with our CAD software at work we deal with extremely large assemblies with 1,500+ individual piece parts in our assembly models. Our workstations have decent hardware and plenty of memory (at least 4gig, some 8gigs). We've run XP pro, XP64, and Vista32 and Vista64. Vista64 dominates! It's faster and much more stable. Keep in mind that at the time i'm writing this service pack 1 has already been out for a while for Vista. Many earlier posts may have reflected views of vista pre-sp.

    Don't get me wrong, i'm a huge Linux fan, and certainly don't mind Mac, but I'm at the mercy of certain CAD applications.

Ask a new question

Read More

Mobile Laptops Graphics Cards