PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on Quadro vs GeForce in a laptop


tyreth
11-04-02, 11:40 PM
Hi

I'm considering buying a laptop, but looking for the best video card. I was wondering, for gaming purposes, whether there is much advantage in getting a quadro4 instead of a geforce 4 go?

Also, what's the speed diff like between geforce 4 go 440 and 460? Worth waiting to get the latter?

Are these the fastest available for laptop at the moment?

Any opinions would be appreciated thanks.

thcdru2k
11-04-02, 11:57 PM
woh woh for gaming there is absolutely no advantage in going quadro4. i'd definately get the geforce 4 go 460. the performance isn't very compelling so i'd definately get the 460. however ati currently offers a better mobile option. certainly give them a try.

tyreth
11-05-02, 12:14 AM
hmm thanks, though I'm using Linux so nvidia is the only option at the moment. Hopefully ati will release some drivers sometime.

tyreth
11-05-02, 01:48 AM
so how would performance on a 2.2ghz Mobile P4 be with a geforce 4 460 go be as a gaming machine?

saturnotaku
11-05-02, 07:20 AM
I have a P4 1.6 with a 64 mb GeForce4 440 Go. Gaming performance in older games (Q3a, original UT, etc) is outstanding and would only be better on the system you describe.

In UT2003, I have to turn down my resolution to 800x600 and have the details turned down to normal to get a playable frame rate. That's because the GF4 Go is merely a GF4 MX stuffed into a laptop chassis.

Since you're a Linux user, you really don't have much of a choice as to which graphics chip you would use, or else I too would recommend the Radeon Mobility 9000.

tyreth
11-05-02, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
I have a P4 1.6 with a 64 mb GeForce4 440 Go. Gaming performance in older games (Q3a, original UT, etc) is outstanding and would only be better on the system you describe.

In UT2003, I have to turn down my resolution to 800x600 and have the details turned down to normal to get a playable frame rate. That's because the GF4 Go is merely a GF4 MX stuffed into a laptop chassis.

Since you're a Linux user, you really don't have much of a choice as to which graphics chip you would use, or else I too would recommend the Radeon Mobility 9000.

That sounds wierd. I currently have a desktop 1.33ghz Athlon with a 32mb Geforce 2 MX. I can play UT2k3 with the same settings as you describe at a playable framerate.

Do laptops play slower than PC's of the same settings?

vvolkman
11-05-02, 08:50 AM
Quadro series cards are a waste of money for gaming. Get the Ti4600 and put the difference into more RAM, faster CPU, or a new motherboard.

thcdru2k
11-05-02, 08:57 AM
read the thread man..notebook not desktop.

saturnotaku
11-05-02, 09:57 AM
Bear in mind that the Pentium 4, especially at speeds less than 2 GHz is totally outclassed by lesser Athlon processors. The AthlonXP 1600+ is only a 1.4 GHz CPU, which isn't much faster than what you have.

Further, the GF4 MX liine of graphics cards is nothing more than a glorified GeForce2. So it's not surprising that that your desktop system and my laptop perform comparably.

Not that I'm complaining, mind you. My laptop is great for what I use it for, which is mostly work, audio listening and some gaming.

My desktop machine is my all-out gaming rig with its Ti4600, AthlonXP, etc.

stncttr908
11-05-02, 12:15 PM
Pffff...Quadro isn't any good for anything you'll be doing! Don't sink that kind of cash into one of those...no sir!