• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

GMA X4500 Vs Nv FX 5600

Monkeynut

Monkeynut

Monkeynut

Soldato
Joined
7 Nov 2007
Posts
6,838
Location
Required
Hi there.

How much faster do you guys think the Intel GMA X4500 is compared to the Nvidia GeForce FX 5600? I've used the GeForce card for games back in the good ole days so it gives me a good idea about how much performance it has. :)

Thanks!
 
Cheers. The GeForce 5600 had awful DirectX9 performance though I believe?

The Radeon 9000 I had in my old laptop was fine for old stuff so I'd hope the X4500 will atleast match that..
 
Monkeynut said:
Cheers. The GeForce 5600 had awful DirectX9 performance though I believe?

The Radeon 9000 I had in my old laptop was fine for old stuff so I'd hope the X4500 will atleast match that..
Click to expand...

Ye it didn't have the best DX9 performance in the world, but it's far from horrible. Definitely better than onboard graphics.

Re the Radeon 9000 - I wouldn't hold my breath. I love Intel, they make great CPUs - but their onboard graphics are HORRIBLE. I doubt it'll beat the 9000 in actual gameplay, but I could very well be talking out of my arse. Basically the benchmarks I linked to had the games running at the lowest detail possible at 1440x900 - and none of them were playable.

It'll run old stuff fine though :)
 
Hi, thanks for the help so far. :)

after some googling it seems the GMA X4500 has more horsepower in some games, and less in others. The hardware itself seems half decent so it must be crap drivers as you say. :(

I'm probably getting the laptop in january now due to funds but when I do i'll run some tests and report back. :)
 
I had a look myself, due to the time difference its hard to find benchmarks of the same titles between the two. I heard the GMA x4500 is a lot better than intels previous efforts, although as said the drivers are still poor compared to ATI/nVidia.
 
Strife212 said:
The GeForce 5 series is shocking and probably wont even load those games!
Click to expand...

Not that bad! http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/msi_geforce_fx5600-vtdr128_review/page6.asp

It had a bad rep cause ATI brought out an unusually strong GPU and NV went for the incorrect precision re floating point calcs. NV went for either low or high, ATI went for the middle. Most games had NV running at higher precision which caused framerates to plummet.

It's similiar to the situation now, the GT200 series will probably forever be remembered as overpriced and underperforming. But in reality, performance-wise alone, it's OK.
 
5 series DX9 performance was unbelievably bad...

look at some half life 2 benchmarks released by Valve, the high end 5900 series was getting lower scores than the midrange 9600 series.
 
Spent about half an hour researching this as I like these kind of cross-generation comparisons, and still not too sure.

On the one hand, the notebookcheck tables have it outperforming the mobile 5600/5650 in 3dmark2003 - but chances are they're probably running with a faster CPU. Other benchmarks seem to place it slightly behind the 8400M G, which would make me assume it'd be faster than the 5600: http://www.notebookjournal.de/praxis/79/3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom