- 
I’d like to introduce you my last project: the website about laptops and PC games Gaming on Laptops.
This new site, in English and Spanish, covers the intersection between laptops and PC games: from gaming laptops to anything related to playing PC games on laptops. While it’s not exactly a news site, it’s going to cover the most important events about gaming laptops, in addition to collect useful information and publish articles about game performance on laptops.
I hope you find it useful!
The Nvidia GeForce GT 230M and 240M are becoming quite popular in mainstream and multimedia laptops, while the GTS 250M is being introduced in high-end and gaming laptops. So I think it’s interesting to have a look at the available benchmarks (mainly from Notebookjournal.de and Notebookcheck).
The GT 230M and 240M perform quite similarly, giving enough performance in most games at low resolutions and medium or high settings. The GT 240M gives 10-20% more performance than the 230M. The problem is that the good ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 is faster than the GT 240M, sometimes by a good margin. Of course both are faster than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4570. The GT 230M is used in many HP Pavilion laptops, such as the dv6t Quad , dv7t Quad
and dv8t
(UK link).
The GTS 250M could look like a gaming card because of the GTS prefix, but in many cases its performance is way lower than that of the GTX 260M, specially at high resolutions, and in many cases it’s closer to the one of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4670. The GTS 250M is often found in Core i7 laptops.
At the end of the day, the decision is going to depend a lot on pricing and the actual games you play, but generally speaking:
GTX 260M >> GTS 250M > HD 4670 > HD 4650 > GT 240M > GT 230M > GT 220M >> HD 4570
Main sources: GT 240M benchmarks at Notebookjournal.de, GTS 250M benchmarks at Notebookjournal.de
See also the benchmarks at Notebookcheck (go to the bottom of the page):
I just played the Batman Arkham Asylum demo and it is playable on my Dell Studio 1537 at Low settings and 800×600. Image quality is reasonably good and framerates are mostly 20-30 FPS, not much, but playable for this kind of game. You can always lower the resolution to 640×480 to get more performance. Update: I just tested the 640×480 resolution and Low settings, I get 25-40 FPS (sometimes going down to 20 or up to 50).
So this game is probably playable with any dedicated laptop graphics card. I’d avoid Intel and older integrated cards.
External graphics cards for laptops have always been interesting: they offer an easy way to upgrade the graphics card, a task that is impossible in most laptops, and they allow to combine a long battery life when traveling with a good graphical performance at home. But the fact is that the success of this devices has been very limited: products such as the Asus XG Station had limited availability and only in Australia, and others like the Magma ExpressBox have an insane pricing (729 USD the cheapest box, and without the actual graphics card!). But I have recently found an interesting alternative: the ViDock 2.
It is a box that houses a desktop graphics card, currently an ATI Radeon HD 4670 (512 MB DDR3), and it is plugged in the ExpressCard slot of the laptop. While the bandwidth of the ExpressCard 2.0 slot is narrower than that of a 16x PCIe slot, I have been told that the performance via the ExpressCard slot is only 7% lower than via the 16x PCIe slot. It seems logical, because the Radeon HD 4670 is a mainstream card that does not need as much bandwidth as high-end cards like a Radeon HD 4890 or a GeForce GTX 285. It has 2 DVI ports and 1 USB so, if you plug a USB hub in, the ViDock 2 becomes a true docking station.
Here you have the demo video:
The price of the ViDock 2 with the ATI Radeon HD 4670 de 512 MB is 309 USD at Xotic PC. What kind of performance do you get for the price? According to the official specifications, a laptop with an Intel Core 2 Duo T7250 (2 GHz) scores 6349 in 3DMark 06 (1280×1024), while a GeForce 9600M GT GDDR3 with a similar processor (Intel Core 2 Duo P7350 2 GHz) scores 5128.
All in all, I think it is a very interesting possibility if you have a light laptop with a weak graphics card as your only computer, because you can enjoy a long battery life when on the move and a good 3D performance at home, but if you need 3D performance on the go and you use a small laptop, you probably do not want to carry this box (in spite of not being a big one). If you have a desktop computer or a laptop with a powerful graphics card (GeForce 9700M GTS, Mobility Radeon HD 4650 or similar) the ViDock 2 is not very worthy, but the possibility of driving multiple monitors is still interesting. It can be a good investment to upgrade an older laptop: while it is relatively expensive, it is much cheaper than a new powerful laptop, if the rest of the components of the laptop are OK and you only need more 3D performance, go for it.
The ViDock 2 seems to have some compatibility problems: under Windows Vista you can only use it if the laptop has ATI graphics, because this operating system can use only single display driver at a time. There is an Nvidia solution in development.
Additional information: Xotic PC and Villagetronic.
Update: you have an interesting review at the Notebook Review forums.
Update 2: Notebookjournal has published a review. It seems that performance is not good in some games.
Update 3: ViDock 2 seems hard to find nowadays. Have a look to the do-it-yourself ViDock 2
Update 4: MSI has presented an alternative: MSI GUS.
Update 5: Villagetronic has launched a version with the ATI RAdeon HD 5670 on it: http://www.harmonicinversion.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&product_id=189&flypage=shop.flypage&pop=0&vmcchk=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3
I have seen some questions in other forums asking about a the ability of a certain laptop to play Empire: Total War, and I was curious to see that game and to test it on my laptop, so I promptly launched Steam and downloaded the demo.
The graphics card of my laptop is an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 (256 MB DDR2) and the processor is an Intel Core 2 Duo T5800 (2.0 GHz). More details in my Dell Studio 1537 review.
I set the resolution to 1280×800 and Low graphics. Gameplay was OK, with framerates of 23-26 FPS most of the time, that occasionally dropped to around 15 when looking closely at a battle, but nothing that could difficult the control of you units. So I have to say that, at least in the battle conditions of the demo, the game is playable.
The problem is that Empire: Total War is plain ugly at Low settings. Please look at this screenshot, and notice the blurry mounted units at left and the soldiers at right.
This does not happen at Medium settings, but my laptop gets 8-14 FPS even at 800×600 and with AA off (Medium settings include a x2 AA).
You can expect similar playability with other low-end graphics cards: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3410, 3430, 3470 and Nvidia GeForce 9200M GS and 9300M GS. Newer low-end graphics cards such as an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4330 or the Nvidia GeForce G 105M should perform better, but not dramatically. If I were looking for a laptop to play Empire: Total War, I’d pick at least an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 (but a 4530 or 4570 would probably be OK), Nvidia GeForce 9600M, GT 120M or similar. With an ATI 3200 it could be playable at 1024×768, but I have my doubts about an Intel GMA 4500MHD, even at 800×600.
Empire: Total War is known to be very processor-intensive and, while I think the slowdowns I have experienced are related to the graphics card, it’s quite possible than in battles larger than the ones seen in the demo a slow processor could be a bottleneck. So a 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T6400 or Pentium Dual Core T4200 (or a 2.4 GHz AMD Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86) are OK, but a faster processor (such as an Intel Core 2 Duo P8400 2.26 GHz or better) is a safer bet. Probably any current dual core processor is OK in most situations.
To summarize, if you don’t mind graphical quality, you would be probably OK with any laptop with a low-end dedicated graphics card and a dual core processor, but in my opinion a faster graphics card is a must to really enjoy the game.
I have just found these gameplay videos in Youtube, uploaded by the user nochio1. The configuration of this M17x is the top of the line: Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad QX9300, GeForce GTX 280M SLI and 8 GB of RAM. Here you have:
I daily search Youtube for videos of the M17x, stay tuned!
Notebookjournal.de published Nvidia GeForce GTX 280M SLI benchmarks, and they are the first ones as far as I know. The games tested are Call of Duty 4, World in Conflict, Lost Planet, Race Driver GRID, Far Cry 2, GTA IV and Call of Duty: World at War. The processor is an Intel Core 2 Duo T9900 at 3,06 GHz.
Very interesting if you are planning to spend a lot of money on an Alienware M17x with such cards.
ATI released today the Radeon HD 4770, world’s first graphics card built on a 40 nm manufacturing process (but the Mobility Radeon HD 4830 and 4860 were announced first). Here you have the first available reviews:
The main conclusion is that this card has an excellent performance/price ratio: with a recommended price of 109 USD its performance is higher than that of the HD 4830 and similar to that of the HD 4850.
I was personally interested on this card because I’m thinking about upgrading my HD 3450, but I see that in my case it is a bad option: my computer is on may hours, but I play games very seldom, so I’m looking for a graphics card with a very low idle power consumption and I was thinking on the HD 4670. The HD 4770, in spite of the 40 nm manufacturing process, has an idle power consumption much higher than the HD 4670. So my first option still is the HD 4670, even with a much lower performance. The power consumption of the HD 4770 under heavy load IS much lower than that of graphics cards of similar performance, so in this situation the 40 nm manufacturing process shows its efficiency.
At the moment none of my sponsors has the HD 4770 available.
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 is a quite common graphics card, often found in cheap laptops and its gaming performance higher than integrated graphics cards. While it is not a gaming graphics card, it delivers an acceptable performance in not very demanding games and, when resolution and detail level are kept low, even in the lastest titles. We are going to examine its performance in the demos of the games Call of Duty 4, Crysis, F.E.A.R. 2, Sacred 2, Red Alert 3, Unreal Tournament 3, World in Conflict, Race Driver: GRID, Far Cry y Half Life 2. If not otherwise noted, all fps measurements were taken using FRAPS.
All tests have been performed in the demo versions, not in the full games. What impact can you expect on the measured performance? Usually the full game is better optimized, specially after one of more patches have been released, so performance can be better in the full game; but it is also usual that the full game has scenes of a higher visual complexity than the demo, resulting in a lower performance in such scenes.
All tests have been performed on a Dell Studio 15 sporting an Intel Core 2 Duo T5800 (2.0 GHz), 3 GB de RAM DDR2-800 and Windows Vista Home Premium SP1. Stock drivers were used. So both a faster processor and newer drivers can deliver better results. Results are expressed in fps (frames per second).
Call of Duty 4 (COD4)
At 800×600 and all settings at the minimum it is completely smooth, but visually the game is ugly and, removing shadows and most effects, it feels quite unrealistic. With shadows on and dynamic lights the game is more realistic and it is still quite playable. In conclusion, it is very playable if resolution and detail settings are kept low.
Crysis
The demo is playable at 800×600 and even at 1024×768, but gameplay is not very smooth and can be annoying. In addition, some effects, such as fog and smoke, cause a noticeable reduction in fps, and this can be a problem in the full game: caution. The game is visually nice, but Crysis at minimum settings is not Crysis…
World of Warcraft
I took the 10-days free trial. It’s very playable at 1280×800 and Fair settings, and you can even use High resolucion textures. Beware of expansions (mainly Wrath of the Lich King), because they need more graphics power.
F.E.A.R. 2 : Project Origin
I was surprised that one of the lastest games, F.E.A.R. 2, is playable in my modest laptop. Visual quality is quite good, but performance is lower when there are spectres and phantoms nearby, scoring 10-32 fps (average 29.7), so caution with the full game. Removing shadows will result in better performance, but in a game like this one I think it is very nice to keep them on.
I uploaded a short video (30 s) to Youtube.
Sacred 2: Fallen Angel
It is good to find a game that works nicely at the native resolution of the monitor. fps scores are not very impressive, but this kind of game does not need as many fps as first person shooters. Perfectly playable.
Red Alert 3
Perfectly playable at 1280×800 and Low settings, but going to Medium quality results in slow moving units and laggy scroll, and that is a pity, because Medium graphics look really nice.
Race Driver: GRID
Perfectly playable at 1280×800 and Low details, but it becomes too laggy for me at Medium details, even at 800×600.
World in Conflict
Tests performed using the built-in demo benchmark tool, not with FRAPS:
The demo benchmark tool gives low fps when the big bomb is released, but playing the demo gameplay is smooth and visual quality is good. It is possible that, if big explosions are usual in the full game, playability can suffer, so caution.
Unreal Tournament 3
All tests performed in the map ShangriLa, that seems to be more demanding. In a multiplayer deathmatch you really want 30 fps at least, but you can get them. While graphic detail is low, gameplay is very smooth and visual quality is not bad (compare the textures below with the ones in the COD4 picture).
Far Cry
Far Cry is from 2004, but at that time it was one of the more demanding games in the market: at 1280×800 and medium details I still wish it was a bit more smooth. Anyway, it is very playable and visual quality is good.
Half Life 2
While contemporary of Far Cry, it is perfectly playable at 1280×800 and maximum quality: it is so smooth I did not bother recording the fps. Counter Strike: Source uses the same graphics engine (Source) and is from 2004 too, so it is likely that you can play this game at high details too.
Other current games
Sadly many new popular games do not have an available demo, but you can guess if they are going to be playable:
Conclusions
Is the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 a gaming graphics card? NO! But lets you play many current games at low detail and resolution. As that the tests have been performed in the demo version and not the full game, I would be cautious before buying a game when the demo was barely playable. If you enjoy playing current games at good quality, it is better for you to look for a “600 series” graphics card at least: Mobility Radeon HD 2600 or 3650, or Nvidia 8600 or 9600. You can be interested on the laptop graphics card comparison or on other articles in the benchmarks section.
If you play games on this card, leave a comment and tell us your experiences!
Laptop reviews of the week:
Other interesting reviews:
Asus N10 gaming benchmarks (Intel Atom + Nvidia GeForce 9300M). It looks like the Atom processor is an important bottleneck in most games.
Do you want to be always up-to-date in laptop reviews? Subscribe to the news section of Towards the optimal laptop.
toward the optimal laptop - optimitza.com - about - contact us
If not otherwise indicated, content in this page is under a
Creative Commons License and is owned by towards the optimal laptop
News section
towards the optimal laptop - optimitza.cat proudly powered by WordPress
News (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
