5160 = 5165 On 22 sep, 21:11, MSI WIND <[email protected]> wrote: > No that's not it but I don't get it because you said you should go for > a ATI 4650/4670 if you go for an ATI (I rather go for GeForce but I > can't find something that good), now I found a 5160 (which is better > than a 5470, WHAT I DON'T GET?!) what is actually a renamed 4650 > (quote from > notebookcheck:http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5165.24579.0.html > ) > > What's up with the names ATI uses?! > > On 22 sep, 19:03, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well, seems like MSI WIND really wants an ati, fine then. I said my > > piece. > > > Espio, recent toshibas no longer have drivers locked, but there are > > still a few not so old models that still have issues with any driver > > other than their own. > > > And man, how I hate that new trend of 16:9 screens. When will they > > learn that there are tv ratios and computer ratios, and it's a very > > stupid thing to mix them up. Computer users just end up having less > > screen real estate. > > > On Sep 22, 5:57 pm, MSI WIND <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 -- 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
