ATI xpress 1100 vs Nvidia Go 6150

[Lad]

Hi,

I've got 2 laptops to choose from. One has the ATI Radeon 1100 xpress GPU and the other has the Nvidia Go 6150.

I know that these are integrated GPUs so I don't expect a decent performance from them.

Out of the 2, which is better generally? Which will give better performance/picture quaility?

I want to hook the laptop to a TV, possibly some video editing, viewing photos and avi files, general word pro and internet surfing and maybe the odd game.

Thanks

 

[Threshold]

6150 go has support for Shader Model 3.0 as opposed to 2.0 for Xpress 1100. Both are 128MB shared memory, 6150 go is at 425MHZ while Xpress 1100 is at 400MHZ. Notebookcheck.com places the 6150 go at 1200 3DM03 points and the Xpress 1100 at 1330 points-which may be due to a processor difference, no details on benched systems are given. 6150 go is 90nm IGP and 130nm chipset, Xpress 1100 is 110nm and therefore theoretically consumes more power. Xpress 1100 should consume less than 10 watts, 6150 go is at 7.5...so it's not that significant, but it is there. 2 pixel shaders in each, 2 vertex shaders in Xpress 1100, 1 in 6150 go.

<snip>Lastly, NVIDIA's latest iteration of Pure Video supports H.264 decoding. As one of the codecs used for Blue-Ray and HD-DVD, H.264's importance will be growing as HD content does</snip> ( http://laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=45&page=4 )

I'd go with the 6150 go, assuming there's zero to a negligible difference in the rest of the system, but integrated graphics have really gotten a lot better and either one should be more than sufficient for light work, and the occasional non-FPS game.

If you're looking at Turion X2s, I'm going to have to recommend that you look at CD mobiles or whatever they're calling them. They wipe the floor with the Turions.

 

[Lad]

Thanks for the details, Threshold. Useful info there.

The laptop with the Go 6150 (Compaq) has 80Gb Hard drive and 2 USB ports but costs £20 - $38 more than the other laptop.

The laptop with the xpress 1100 (Acer) has 120 Gb and 3 USB ports

On the Go 6150 machine, I'm not too fussed about the 40Gb difference as it won't be my main machine I'll use (my desktop would be used for the heavy duty stuff). The loss of 1 USB port is also not too important.

Would Shader Model 3.0 be a big advantage over Shader Model 2.0 and 425MHZ siginificantly better over 400MHZ? Are these features only useful for games? Sorry, but I'm a newbie to this I plan to upgrade to Vista sometime.

Unfortunately, I'm restricted to getting either one of these Turion 64 X2. Out of interest where can I look for details about these CD mobiles you've mentioned?

Thanks

 

[Threshold]

I believe SM3.0 is a requirement for Vista, but I'll be damned if I can find the source I read it at. Supposedly there's only one SM3.0 game at the moment, and it and several other titles would kill either of the laptops, so that's sort of beside the point. 425mhz versus 400mhz isn't a world of difference, no.

Looks like I misread somewhere. According to MS's site, Pixel Shader 2.0 is required, but I'm pretty sure almost everything has that, though I could probably find one that didn't if I looked hard enough.

It'd be more for future proofing, really. And then there's the fact that while both of these chipsets are relatively mature, Nvidia is known for having better drivers/driver support. Yes, chipsets need drivers, too. Well, IGPs do, at least...

Anyway. I could link you to a bunch of laptops you can't afford to have shipped across the ocean, or you could confirm that you live in the UK (sorry, making an assumption there) and I can start looking on UK sites for you and/or recommend some.

Price range would help too-doesn't sound like you've got much to work with there, as I've seen some Turion X2 systems in the ~$700 range lately myself.

But then again I'm not real sure that anything you'll doing will really take advantage of a CD/C2D, either. It's honestly sort of like the difference between a Sempron and an Athlon (single core, for closer comparison)-Athlon has slightly better performance, but people who don't overclock won't notice much of a difference. Now admittedly there's more of a difference here, but the same principle applies.

And it looks like I may be leaving in a bit so I might have to do that after I get back.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Well for gaming the GF6150 is better, but for photos the X1100 would be slightly better.

For video you'll get access to some accelerated features with the X1100, a little more with the GF6150, but nowhere near those on offer from the GF7 or further X1K mobile lines, which will offer better hardware acceleration.

Overall both will do fine, and both have good drivers despite Threshold's statements (which are like his mis-statements about Vista). Remember ATi leads the mobile market and has alot more experience, so the nV 'history' isn't there, so this disparity he mentions is in his head (even the desktop is more equal than different, and the mobile market is the same where they are both good and much better than other options).

Overall I'd say unless you're working in professional 2D imaging (in which case get something better still), then the GF6150 is the better of the two options.

SM3.0 vs SM2.0 is primarily games, but there are some slight effect differences too (but it can't do FP16 HDR, because it doesn't have the ability in the ROPs, so that's the loss of one of the few benifits of many SM3.0 cards in games). It won't affect the 2D aspect of things, and whether either of these solutions is good enough to even make AeroGlass run well is another story. All things being equal (and I mean if you consider them equal) then it's better to have a feature than not, and in most situations the GF6150>X1100, with a few exceptions.

Oh yeah to quickly answer some of the other portions, US ports don't matter, get a hub, HD size matters a bit, unless like me you have additional external storage. Focus on the main features, you can upgrade the rest later.

 

[Threshold]

I did correct myself. Without an edit.

I'm not real big on laptops, I'm just trying to help-same as you.

I'm not going to fight with you over it.

 

[Lad]

That's brilliant guys, thanks very much for your replies. Sounds likes the Go 6150 is generally better than the xpress 1100 then. However, at the end of the day would you say there's really not much in it as it sounds like each has a strong point over the other.

GreatGrapeApe, have I read you correctly and that you are saying that for video, the x1100 has accelerated features that the Go 6150 doesn't?
Also, just to make sure, you mention the GF6150 rather than Go 6150 - is this just another name for the Go 6150?

Threshold, yes you are correct, I'm from over the pond and my budget is limited to a cheap laptop. There's no need to bother yourself and look for alternatives but thanks very much for the offer. I've pretty much narrowed it down to either the Acer 5102wlmi (the version I'm getting doesn't have all the features listed on their site) or Compaq V6133EU. The deciding factor for me, is the one with the better graphics card for my use (playing games isn't important to me).


Thanks

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

That's brilliant guys, thanks very much for your replies. Sounds likes the Go 6150 is generally better than the xpress 1100 then. However, at the end of the day would you say there's really not much in it as it sounds like each has a strong point over the other.

Yeah they're close. The X1100 does better than the GF6100, but the GF6150 does better than the X1100 in games. Now for the features it faovurs the GF6150 a bit, especially for video acceleration, but it's still only some of the features.

GreatGrapeApe, have I read you correctly and that you are saying that for video, the x1100 has accelerated features that the Go 6150 doesn't?

One or two, but the features for video acceleration favour the GF6150. My statement about additional benefits beyond the GF6150 require better products than both. Think of it like this, there are maybe 3 features the ATi solution has that the nV doesn't, but there's like 8 the GF6150 has that the X1100 doesn't. For primarily video playback the GF6150 will be better IMO, it will include accelerated video scaling (unlike the X1100 and GF6100, and also accelerated 720P decode, unlike those two).

Also, just to make sure, you mention the GF6150 rather than Go 6150 - is this just another name for the Go 6150?

Yeah GF stands for Geforce. I often use the full term GFGO6150, but it depends on my time, and I was and am writing from work, so being brief(er) about the naming.

The deciding factor for me, is the one with the better graphics card for my use (playing games isn't important to me).

IMO the GFGO6150 is the better choice, will offer you more features and in the worst case scenario the few places there are differences will not be percebtible.

But just to be clear, for what you want to do, they will both be below a GF7300 or X1300.

 

[Lad]

Thanks very much for taking the time out of work to reply, GreatGrapeApe, its much appreciated Look like the Compaq it is then. Its slightly more expensive but I guess the better build quality compensates for the extra expense. I don't have to get a VGA to TV cable as well as it has built in s-video (the Acer would require me to purchase one of these cables).

I just hope the loss of 40Gb storage won't cause me any problems!!

Cheers

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

No worries, I read/write during down times.

I wouldn't worry about the loss of some storage space. You can never have enough IMO, but I also think it's the easiest thing to fix, and I have 2 external drives for mine, plus a CD/DVD carousel.