Laptop with 6200 'GO'

Hi,

I have a choice of laptops, both with 512MB, and a Pentium M740. (1.73GHz)

All the specs are equal, but the Acer has a 64MB 9700Pro, and the more
expensive Sony has a 6200Go that is supposed to be 128MB, but I suspect that
it's some kind of shared compromise.

I know the 6200Go is really scraping the barrel, but will it be enough for
2D (I don't do 3D), and will the 2D quality be reasonable, as I've heard
that nVidia are crap in 2D?

The Sony has a better case and screen, but the only other difference is the
inferior graphics.

Thanks.

Dr Gordon Crowbar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a choice of laptops, both with 512MB, and a Pentium M740. (1.73GHz)
>
> All the specs are equal, but the Acer has a 64MB 9700Pro, and the more
> expensive Sony has a 6200Go that is supposed to be 128MB, but I suspect that
> it's some kind of shared compromise.
>
> I know the 6200Go is really scraping the barrel, but will it be enough for
> 2D (I don't do 3D), and will the 2D quality be reasonable, as I've heard
> that nVidia are crap in 2D?
>
> The Sony has a better case and screen, but the only other difference is the
> inferior graphics.
>
> Thanks.
>
>

NVIDIA's 2D quality has _ALWAYS_ been dependent on the 3rd party
manufacturer's choice of 2d components (filters, RAMDAC, etc). Before
the FX series went into major production and a QA progam started,
quality and differences from the reference board varied wildly.

Some people with a Leadtek TI4400 for example would get excellent 2d
quality in most situations, while the same model Powercolor card would
look like **** (blurry, ghosted, etc).

This has mostly been alleviated with GFX and GF6 series cards. The QA
program seems to work well with few exceptions. But on a laptop, your
absolute image quality will depend the most on your screen type (UXGA,
etc), it's specs and contrast ratio.

Also, the 6200 is not a bad chip by far, but I haven't seen any
benchmarks comparing it to the more traditional integrated 9700's and
9600's. And lastly, I don't think OEM's have started using the 6200 TC
(turbocache -- shared system/texture memory) in laptops. The 6200GO
should have it's own memory.

I'd say go with the GF6, but I'm an optimist and have only used lesser
integrated 8500 and 9600 chips in laptops.

deimos wrote:
> NVIDIA's 2D quality has _ALWAYS_ been dependent on the 3rd party
> manufacturer's choice of 2d components (filters, RAMDAC, etc). Before
> the FX series went into major production and a QA progam started,
> quality and differences from the reference board varied wildly.
>
> Some people with a Leadtek TI4400 for example would get excellent 2d
> quality in most situations, while the same model Powercolor card would
> look like **** (blurry, ghosted, etc).
>
> This has mostly been alleviated with GFX and GF6 series cards. The QA
> program seems to work well with few exceptions. But on a laptop, your
> absolute image quality will depend the most on your screen type (UXGA,
> etc), it's specs and contrast ratio.

This issue wouldn't apply to a laptop, or LCD monitor using a DVI
output, in any case - only to an analog VGA output.

--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/