Can't find one with this spec AMD64, NVidia, SVGA+

[uOpt]

Hm, I can't seem to be able to locate a notebook with this spec:

- Athlon 64
- NVidia GeForce Go 440 or better NVidia
- SXGA+ or better display

The Compaq/HQs only have WXGA, and that Ferrari part ATI graphics. Must be possible. Anybody know a model which might fit?

Most cool would be to have a lot for a desktop harddrive, but yeah I'm dreaming.

 

[MDE]

Why Nvidia graphics? Their mobile chips just plain suck compared to ATI's. The eMachines M68xx series has a 1280x800 15.4" widescreen, Athlon 64, and 64MB Mobility Radeon 9600.

 

[ChuaChua]

I don't see very many mainstream laptops using the amd64s. Only the high end ones you find online have the athlon64s.

 

[theblackbox]

emachines, compaq and hp all have amd64 setups.
the emachines is by far the best of the three, with the 9600 pro
i think the compaq/hp use geforce 440 go, which kind of sucks these days.

hp has the zv5000v you can configure with amd 64 3700+ and wsxga+ for under 1400...
if you want mainstream.

i used to have a emachines 6805, and i liked it. well built and durable

 

[ChuaChua]

I said "very many".

The compaq one just doesn't have the video card power.
GeForceGo 440 vs. Radeon 9600 64MB. C'mon.

 

[zodder]

I saw somewhere that some machines are selling with the mobile 6800 pci-e video cards. I'm pretty sure it was Sager. They aren't A64 machines, but the mobile P4s they put in them are cream of the crop chips.

 

[uOpt]

I don't want to start a flame war but I passionately hate ATI for deceptive marketing tactics that left we with an unusable chip in my last $2200 notebook and for non-working drivers. Furthermore I run Linux and FreeBSD and not only do their Linux drivers suck, they don't even try to work on the Linux variant I use, not to mention FreeBSD. All the while NVidia works just fine.

I game on my desktop, so a GeForce 4 mobile will do fine.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: MartinCracauer
I don't want to start a flame war but I passionately hate ATI for deceptive marketing tactics that left we with an unusable chip in my last $2200 notebook and for non-working drivers. Furthermore I run Linux and FreeBSD and not only do their Linux drivers suck, they don't even try to work on the Linux variant I use, not to mention FreeBSD. All the while NVidia works just fine.

I game on my desktop, so a GeForce 4 mobile will do fine.

Please explain.

- M4H

 

[uOpt]

Well, folks, I am new to this forum and I have a very negative opinion on ATI.

I wrote down what I hate about ATI elsewhere and could copy and paste it here, but I realize that mny here are happy with their ATI cards and might feel offended.

So what's your recommendation? Is it worth posting it, possibly triggering a flamewar or should be keep it to private mail?

%%

In any case, lets restrict ourselfes to the Linux drivers first, I think nobody doubts that NVidia's are much superior:

- ATI's wrapper around the binary module os much more flexible, you could use the 2.4 kernel drivers for 2.6 without NVidia's help
- ATI has no 2.6 kernel support at all. You can nether use the 2.4 drivers like you could with NVidias, nor to they offer 2.6 drivers. It is obvious that even if they support 2.6 at that time you'll have the same problem with 2.8 kernels
- ATI does not support kernels with the 4GB/4GB VM split, which is what Fedora Core 2 (and I) uses
- ATI does not have FreeBSD drivers
- While both companies have less performance under Linux than Windows, the difference is bigger with ATI
- The NVidia drivers are rock stable, the ATI drivers occasionally crash your X11 session
- While ATI supports TV out in the newest drivers, it took them several years to do so after NVidia did it all along

That's just the Linux situation, I have more reservatiosn when it comes to the hardware itself and Windows drivers.