What is the minimum graphics card for 3d

[walterblackberry]

Hi. I'm buying an IBM R ThinkPad laptop, and am a bit concerned about the graphics card. Most of them come with a Intel Extreme Graphics 2 - some with a 32MB ATI Mobility RADEON 9000 and some with a Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900.

I'm by no means a gamer, but I still would like decent high res / 3d graphics, primarily since many of the new OS's, Avalon, etc, plan to use it for basic work.

Are these cards any good? Should I look elsewhere? (Right now I am using a 32MB 3d graphics card and it seems fine...)

 

[Crashman]

All of those are bad video solutions, sorry. And I do mean bad. You'd want at least a Mobility Radeon 9600.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[cleeve]

The mobile Radeon 9000 is quite decent by laptop standards, I consider it the base spec for playing games...

but you say you're not a gamer. And if you're not playing games, unless you're using CAD - it doesn't really matter which graphics card you get in your laptop.

You won't see a difference.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 332/345)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>3200+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 400 FSB)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>5,354</b>

 

[ChipDeath]

Agree with Cleeve.

If you're not into playing games, then you're unlikely to notice any difference at all.

My laptop only has a Mobility Radeon (NOT 9xxx, just "Mobility Radeon")... And it's ok for some older games, and I think all the solutions you've mentioned are superior to mine.

Yes, they're truly awful for 'proper' gaming when compared to even comparatively old desktop Graphics hardware, but they'll be plenty good enough for you.

---
Winnie 3200+ @ ~2.5Ghz, ~1.41V
1Gb @ 209Mhz, 2T, 3-5-5-10
Asus 6800GT 128Mb

 

[cleeve]

Just to clarify though, if you're looking ahead to the next version of windows (Longhorn)... a Radeon 9600 would be the minnimum spec, as Crashman indicated.

But frankly, unless you have gobs of CPU and RAM, you probably wouldn't want to upgrade a laptop to Longhorn anyway.

It's bound to be a massive resource hog, just like every bloated successive version of windows has been.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 332/345)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>3200+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 400 FSB)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>5,354</b>

 

[walterblackberry]

Yeah, I am a bit concerned about Longhorn/Avalon compatability. And I think other OS's will go that way. I'd like the machine to have a usable lifetime of over 3 years (I'm getting plenty of RAM and HD space).

As a comparison, my current laptop (broken) had a 32MB video card and could play America's Army decently. Will any of those be able to do this?

 

[cleeve]

Pretty much any 3d chipset will PLAY america's army, but the crappy one's won't be fast enough to make it playable...

A rule of thumb; stay away from any graphics chipset made by intel.

A Radeon 9000 is the minimum for decent gaming, it'd play americas army pretty well.

Remember, you don't have to upgrade your OS to get more than 3 years of usefulness out of your laptop.

There are lots of people out there who are still getting usefullness out of Windows98 SE...



________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 332/345)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>3200+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 400 FSB)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>5,354</b>