Go 5700 vs. ati 9600

[tlam617]

They both have the same memory which is 128 mbs. Which one is more powerful?

 

[SneakyStuff]

5700 is = to a 9600 pro in most cases, SOO the 5700 > 9600

 

[Cawchy87]

are you planning to put a retail card into a laptop?

 

[jdogg707]

Here is a review with a 5650 v. 9600 v. 9700

 

[Flashram]

I had both on my last 2 laptops (zd7000 and m505x) and the 5700 ran games MUCH better. 3dmark01 score was about 3000 points higher with the 5700 for whatever that is worth. Newest issue of laptop magazine has a shootout and gives the Go5700 top honors among all mobile chips.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Flashram
I had both on my last 2 laptops (zd7000 and m505x) and the 5700 ran games MUCH better. 3dmark01 score was about 3000 points higher with the 5700 for whatever that is worth. Newest issue of laptop magazine has a shootout and gives the Go5700 top honors among all mobile chips.

This was the latest I could find on the FX Go5700: review. They noted it as being behind the Mobility 9700, although there is supposed to be a higher-clocked Go5700 out there somewhere. This jives with most results I've seen -- the Go5650 generally loses out to the Mobility 9600 and 9700. Of course, the system configuration also matters quite a bit, which makes direct comparisons less useful.

Just curious: which games ran MUCH better? And what were the specs on those laptops? 3DMark01 can be very system-dependent.

 

[Flashram]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Flashram
I had both on my last 2 laptops (zd7000 and m505x) and the 5700 ran games MUCH better. 3dmark01 score was about 3000 points higher with the 5700 for whatever that is worth. Newest issue of laptop magazine has a shootout and gives the Go5700 top honors among all mobile chips.

This was the latest I could find on the FX Go5700: review. They noted it as being behind the Mobility 9700, although there is supposed to be a higher-clocked Go5700 out there somewhere. This jives with most results I've seen -- the Go5650 generally loses out to the Mobility 9600 and 9700. Of course, the system configuration also matters quite a bit, which makes direct comparisons less useful.

Just curious: which games ran MUCH better? And what were the specs on those laptops? 3DMark01 can be very system-dependent.

I don't care about 3dmark01 scores, but some people do. That's the only reason I listed it. And the games that played much better are: Everything I played (City of Heroes, UT2004, BF Vietnam, Joint Ops, Call of Duty).

That Extremetech article is fairly old. Like I said, the July 2004 issue of laptop magazine gave the nod to the Go5700, so obviously not everyone agrees that the ATI is better. The article took into consideration a number of factors, check it out.

For the record, I currently have a Mobility Radeon 9600. I just think the Go5700 gets a bad rap from a lot of people who have never used it.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Flashram

Just curious: which games ran MUCH better? And what were the specs on those laptops? 3DMark01 can be very system-dependent.

I don't care about 3dmark01 scores, but some people do. That's the only reason I listed it. And the games that played much better are: Everything I played (City of Heroes, UT2004, BF Vietnam, Joint Ops, Call of Duty).

I just looked up the specs on your two laptops -- of COURSE the ZD7000 is better; it's got a desktop P4 with HyperThreading and an 800MhzFSB with dual-channel DDR400 RAM! The m505x has a 1.4Ghz Pentium M (maybe equivalent to a P42.0-2.2B) with single-channel DDR266 RAM on a 533Mhz FSB. UT2K4 and BF:V are notoriously system-limited, as is 3DMark01 (the slow, single-channel RAM on the 505 is going to kill its scores). City of Heroes probably is, too, especially if you only had 512MB of RAM in the m505x. I'm not saying that the FXGo5700 is a bad card -- just that comparing a DTR gaming laptop against one built for mobility and battery life isn't exactly a fair fight.

That Extremetech article is fairly old. Like I said, the July 2004 issue of laptop magazine gave the nod to the Go5700, so obviously not everyone agrees that the ATI is better. The article took into consideration a number of factors, check it out.

It's only from February; the laptop graphics market moves much more slowly than the desktop one. No new cards have come out since then (although driver updates could have helped the 5700 somewhat, and you probably had one of the higher-clocked variants).

For the record, I currently have a Mobility Radeon 9600. I just think the Go5700 gets a bad rap from a lot of people who have never used it.

I'll freely admit that I haven't seen the 5700 in action; thus, I can only base my comments on articles I've read. I'll try to find a copy of Laptop magazine so I can take a look at that article.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

the m9700 is probably the best you can get, but if your only choice is between the 5700 and the 9600 then I'd have to lean towards the 5700 but I don't think you can go wrong either way.

 

[kylebisme]

do the nvidia laptop chips still suck a lot more power?

 

[Blastman]

elitbastards had a test in 14 games with 5700 go vs the 9600 (laptop). The 9600 core is a lot faster than the 5700 in newer games. In shaders heavy games like Farcry it?s about twice as fast.

?As you can see from the scores, despite its conservative clockspeed the M10 dominates the majority of the tests, winning 11-4 overall. Even more interestingly, had the 'preferred' configuration of the M10 of 350MHz clock and 250MHz RAM been used, it would have had a clean sweep in winning 100% of all these tests. The same is apparantly true of ATi's forthcoming mobile part codenamed M11, which is sampling at present.