Ok but the benchmarks from a GT230M in comparison with that ati are in
advantage of the ATI again... But I found a sony vaio with a GT230M,
specs:

Processor: Intel ® Core ™ 2 Duo Processor P8700 (2.53 GHz)

14" WXGA LED display (1366 x 768)

NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 230M graphics

Ram: ???

I'm not sure but I think it's a pink or red one (If it's pink it's out
of question!)

Also the Toshiba guy agreed with my 425 bid, but I can still cancel it
because it isn't totally arranged yet!

I'm going to kickbox now, I'm back within 2 hours! Let me know!



On 22 sep, 18:30, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote:
> MSI WIND, cod mw2 is a fairly simple game to drive, which doesn't push
> hw too much. Try checking if you find a laptop with a GT230M
>
> On Sep 22, 5:28 pm, MSI WIND <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yeah but benchmark for the ATI Modern Warfare 2 on high: 34 FPS and
> > for the GeForce 9600 GT Modern Warfare 1 on high: 25.7 FPS... So I
> > don't get it why a 9600 should be better than the ATI, altough the
> > features the 9600 won't be able to run a new game on high settings
> > (fps wise) while that ATI is! It's probably because I'm a rookie...
> > You guys have been a great help btw!
>
> > On 22 sep, 18:21, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > And it seems that nvidia antialiasing is faster than ati.
>
> > > On Sep 22, 5:18 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Oh, and hw physx of course :)
>
> > > > On Sep 22, 5:16 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Well, first there is Cuda, which is a godsend for any who plays high
> > > > > definition content, then you do have a faster geometry instancing than
> > > > > ati, for some reason it is faster but I'm not sure why exactly as from
> > > > > a specs point of view it shouldn't. A quite good nvidia gpu thats
> > > > > faster than 9600GT and probably at the same price is the GT230M, with
> > > > > the added support for dx10.1, which is something that the gpu can
> > > > > handle, while that ati will probably die trying to push dx11 content.
>
> > > > > On Sep 22, 5:12 pm, MSI WIND <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yeah but there are no i5 processor within my budget, at least not in
> > > > > > combination with a good gpu... I understand the way ATI names their
> > > > > > cards but in comparison with a 9600m GT that ATI kicks it ass
> > > > > > (benchmarks, graphics etc.)... But what features does this card miss
> > > > > > in comparison with for example the Nvidia 9500/9600?
>
> > > > > > On 22 sep, 18:05, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > i3 is nothing special, it's the lowest cpu of the new labeling. 
> > > > > > > i5 is
> > > > > > > the minimum you should be aiming for, specially because you have 
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > kinds of i5, both cheap and expensive, slower and faster. And then
> > > > > > > there is i7, and the world was never the same... ;)
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 22, 5:01 pm, MSI WIND <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Ok thanks tribaljet! But Hussam why is it crap? Because it's 
> > > > > > > > ranked
> > > > > > > > higher than the 9600 GT, the only score the 9600 GT outformed 
> > > > > > > > the ATI
> > > > > > > > was Shader processing, also the CPU benchmarks for the ATI are 
> > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > better than the 9600GT...  Also the i3 processor isn't the best 
> > > > > > > > i3
> > > > > > > > processor but altough it's a new/good processor right?! By 
> > > > > > > > new/good I
> > > > > > > > mean technology wise
>
> > > > > > > > On 22 sep, 17:49, hussam aulaian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > ATI 5145 & 5165 is only an entry level in the 5xxx series- 
> > > > > > > > > Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > > > > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit 
> > > > > > > oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk 
> > > bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

-- 
9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS

Reply via email to