Jump to content
LaptopVideo2Go Forums

WHOA! GF Go7400 sucks?


mew905

Recommended Posts

Alright, I found this benchmark comparing the XPS M1710 to a number of other laptops, and something caught my eye.

HP dv5000t (1.83GHz Core Duo, nVidia Go 7400 128MB) 2,065 3DMarks

My laptop is an inspiron 5150 2.8GHz HT w/ GeForce FX Go5200 64MB. My laptop scores right around 2250 3DMarks in 3DMark 03 (the HP laptop above was the 03 score). Is it just me? or does the 7400 just suck for older games? Honestly I can understand it if the 7400 was purely optimized for todays games, and not for things 3 years back. But honestly, is the FX5200 not such a bad screw up as I thought? I mean, yeah I can run NFS Most Wanted at 30 frames at lowest settings with the FX... but would the 7400 do just as well, better or worse? I'm in the market for a cheap, effective laptop that will play the latest games at decent settings (I am willing to run them low). My FX Go5200 runs 30-60fps in half life 2 by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In every GPU generations there are entry level, average and top notch GPUs. Both the 5200 and 7400 are entry level... Beyond the technology (015 to 0.09) evolution which allows to boost the clocks there are little functionnal changes... yeah the pixel shader version that went from 2 to 3.

So why is the new entry level performing that bad... the 5200 had a 128 bits memory bus width... but the 7400 only has a 64 bits wide bus. Hence a poor memory bandwidth... which leads to bad score.

If you want a real upgrade aim for 7600...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol i'm an idiot. I forgot that 2250 3DMarks I got was at 640x480. My card would average +/- 1150 at the settings this card was likely benchmarked at. My bad XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Alright, I found this benchmark comparing the XPS M1710 to a number of other laptops, and something caught my eye.

HP dv5000t (1.83GHz Core Duo, nVidia Go 7400 128MB) 2,065 3DMarks

That was a screwup on the reviewer's part, that was the 3DMark05 number as tested on this review: http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2853

3DMark03 numbers are around twice those.

(Sorry to bring up an old thread, I was researching this system heavily as my next upgrade saw this thread and review and got depressed, when I saw the error, I got much less depressed).

I also verified his result by a review from PC-mag, a magazine that I somehow got a free subscription to. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...