Laptop advice - graphics

Deetee · 29th November 2007, 04:53 AM

I'm looking for a small laptop, but with decent graphics, and am confused by all the specs given out by the different manufacturers. I need something that is reasonable for doing some video-editing work, and also standard type gaming. I appreciate it will be onboard/integrated graphics that is available. I was lead to believe at least 128Mb equivalent graphics memory was what I needed (have I got this correct?)

So how do I assess these examples (from PC World)?
Advent 8212 - "DX10 Shared UMA Graphics"
But what about the 9112? (- it doesn't give any detailed info)
And this Philips - what is it's graphics spec?

However, these laptops do give some info in terms I understand:
Toshiba U300-13u -"Graphics Card TypeINTEL GMA X3100: To enable images to be displayed on your monitor
Graphics Memory358 MB: The higher the memory the better quality images you are display"

This Packard Bell("Graphics Card Typei945GM SHARED")seems to suggest it has "up to 256 Mb" graphics memory.

Is it safe to assume that any machines in this sort of price range with a core 2 duo processor and 1+Mb memory will be of sufficiently high graphics specification for my needs?
Thanks for any advice/tips
Deetee

BigAl · 29th November 2007, 07:14 AM

IMO, unless you are either (a) buying a machine with Vista, (b) playing fancy PC games, or (c) planning to use Photoshop or some other huge application, every PC with 500MB or more is fine.

Video memory (RAM) is either shared or non-shared. For the former, the RAM is subtracted from the main memory. This used to be a small performance hit but with today's Gigabyte of RAM, you'll never notice it.

Vista changes everything, for the worse, IMO, and if you want it's full capability, you need a laptop that does 3D video well. There are 6 versions of Vista with increasingly higher performance requirements. IMO, you should buy a machine that comes with XP.

PC magazine has good reviews and there should be an article that will step you through the issues for Vista and comment on the screens of specific laptop models.
http://www.pcmag.com/
http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,2705,9,00.asp

Deetee · 29th November 2007, 08:58 AM

Thanks - I'll check the reviews out

abkaiser · 12th December 2007, 07:28 PM

Just writing to support the Vista point - A PC (desktop or laptop, actually) that runs lightning fast on Windows XP could easily be noticeably slowed by Windows Vista.

Either buy a brand-new PC with whiz-bang stats and Vista, or get Windows XP on it if you're getting a slower or used PC.

PixyMisa · 13th December 2007, 05:25 AM

Depends on what you mean by "standard type gaming". Any major game less than about five years old is going to run like a cow on integrated graphics. If you're thinking about card games and stuff like that, though, no problem.

With integrated graphics on notebooks, typically they take a certain percentage of your memory, rounded off to an appropriate point. So if you have 1GB of memory, it will probably reserve 128MB for graphics, which should be fine for most things. Memory is really cheap right now too, so if you need to add more it shouldn't be a problem.

jeremyp · 13th December 2007, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Deetee

Is it safe to assume that any machines in this sort of price range with a core 2 duo processor and 1+Mb memory will be of sufficiently high graphics specification for my needs?
Thanks for any advice/tips
Deetee

No.

For a start, you are going to want 1+Gb. :-)

If you want to do half way serious gaming, or even video editing (maybe - I'm guessing that it's quite video intensive), you are going to want a laptop with a proper graphics card, not one that steal RAM from the computer. Of course, you'll have to pay for the extra performance.

Apart from that, my advice is to stuff it full of as much RAM as it'll take.

29th November 2007, 04:53 AM	#1
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,788	Laptop advice - graphics I'm looking for a small laptop, but with decent graphics, and am confused by all the specs given out by the different manufacturers. I need something that is reasonable for doing some video-editing work, and also standard type gaming. I appreciate it will be onboard/integrated graphics that is available. I was lead to believe at least 128Mb equivalent graphics memory was what I needed (have I got this correct?) So how do I assess these examples (from PC World)? Advent 8212 - "DX10 Shared UMA Graphics" But what about the 9112? (- it doesn't give any detailed info) And this Philips - what is it's graphics spec? However, these laptops do give some info in terms I understand: Toshiba U300-13u -"Graphics Card TypeINTEL GMA X3100: To enable images to be displayed on your monitor Graphics Memory358 MB: The higher the memory the better quality images you are display" This Packard Bell("Graphics Card Typei945GM SHARED")seems to suggest it has "up to 256 Mb" graphics memory. Is it safe to assume that any machines in this sort of price range with a core 2 duo processor and 1+Mb memory will be of sufficiently high graphics specification for my needs? Thanks for any advice/tips Deetee
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,788	__________________ "Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja "Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles "The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda "Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM Last edited by Deetee; 29th November 2007 at 04:54 AM.

29th November 2007, 07:14 AM	#2
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	IMO, unless you are either (a) buying a machine with Vista, (b) playing fancy PC games, or (c) planning to use Photoshop or some other huge application, every PC with 500MB or more is fine. Video memory (RAM) is either shared or non-shared. For the former, the RAM is subtracted from the main memory. This used to be a small performance hit but with today's Gigabyte of RAM, you'll never notice it. Vista changes everything, for the worse, IMO, and if you want it's full capability, you need a laptop that does 3D video well. There are 6 versions of Vista with increasingly higher performance requirements. IMO, you should buy a machine that comes with XP. PC magazine has good reviews and there should be an article that will step you through the issues for Vista and comment on the screens of specific laptop models. http://www.pcmag.com/ http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,2705,9,00.asp
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397

29th November 2007, 08:58 AM	#3
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,788	Thanks - I'll check the reviews out
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,788	__________________ "Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja "Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles "The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda "Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

12th December 2007, 07:28 PM	#4
abkaiser Student Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 29	Just writing to support the Vista point - A PC (desktop or laptop, actually) that runs lightning fast on Windows XP could easily be noticeably slowed by Windows Vista. Either buy a brand-new PC with whiz-bang stats and Vista, or get Windows XP on it if you're getting a slower or used PC.
abkaiser Student Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 29

13th December 2007, 05:25 AM	#5
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Depends on what you mean by "standard type gaming". Any major game less than about five years old is going to run like a cow on integrated graphics. If you're thinking about card games and stuff like that, though, no problem. With integrated graphics on notebooks, typically they take a certain percentage of your memory, rounded off to an appropriate point. So if you have 1GB of memory, it will probably reserve 128MB for graphics, which should be fine for most things. Memory is really cheap right now too, so if you need to add more it shouldn't be a problem.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

13th December 2007, 03:09 PM	#6
jeremyp Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 1,277	Originally Posted by Deetee Is it safe to assume that any machines in this sort of price range with a core 2 duo processor and 1+Mb memory will be of sufficiently high graphics specification for my needs? Thanks for any advice/tips Deetee No. For a start, you are going to want 1+Gb. :-) If you want to do half way serious gaming, or even video editing (maybe - I'm guessing that it's quite video intensive), you are going to want a laptop with a proper graphics card, not one that steal RAM from the computer. Of course, you'll have to pay for the extra performance. Apart from that, my advice is to stuff it full of as much RAM as it'll take.