Quantcast NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Notebook Consultant
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    180
    Rep Power
    21

    Default NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

    Is this NVidia thing worth it or not?

    I'm seeing all these laptops where you can "upgrade" the integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 choice to an NVidia GeForce 7300 video card.

    Ok, so NVidia will probably be "better" for 3D games. But what does it really mean:

    - certain 3D games will not work at all? (I'm seeing games that "require" geforce - do games actually DEMAND a given manufacturers' video card - what about ATI for instance - you can't play that game with even a high end ATI? what the heck ?)

    - opengl? much better 3d polygon rates?

  2. #2
    Notebook Consultant
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    261
    Rep Power
    22

    Default Re: NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

    Intel GMA 950 SUCKS. It just sucks. Period. It can't run games very well (or at all). Intel GMA 950 is about as powerful as a nVidia 2 series.

    Here's some threads that might help you figure out what's better.
    Notebook Video Graphics Card Guide 2006
    Notebook Video Graphics Card Guide

  3. #3
    Snitch?
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,277
    Rep Power
    26

    Default Re: NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

    Let's just say on a scale of 1 - 10, the Intel GMA 950 = 0. Then nVidia GeForce 7300 would probably be a 2.5. Now if you do the math correctly, the nVidia is infinitely times better.

    Depending on the games you wish to play, the 7300 might just be your ticket. Older 3d games (warcraft 3, lets say) will run pretty good on the 7300. They would struggle a lot with the GMA 950. What computer are you looking at anyways? And what will you be using it for? Fill out this FAQ to help us get a better understanding of this.

    Oooh and another thing, if you are looking at customizing a computer online, from lets say Dell, they sometimes charge more for a worse graphics card. Dell on the Inpsirion E1505 they charge 30 dollars more for a 256 mb 7300 versus a 256 mb X1400 (an ATI video card), though the X1400 is better. Always do your research on little things like that before purchasing!
    Last edited by csinth; 28th August 2006 at 03:32 PM.
    Dv6t? Nope, MBP 13

  4. #4
    Notebook Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    28

    Default Re: NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

    Lets put it like this. The GMA900/950 is a decent general use GPU. Its biggest advantages are low cost and lower power requirements. If you game at all, the GMA900/950 will simply not cut it. It may run some older games, but its not a gaming card.

    The nVidia 7300 is capable of running most current games at playable settings. That being said, it cost more than the GMA900/950 and uses more power.

    If you want to play currenty high-end or next generation games, the 7300 will probably not suffice.

    So there you go. You choose. The GMA900/950 has its places, as does the 7300, as do the higher end cards. There is no better or worse. Just the best fit for you as user.
    Macbook Pro (Late 2011, 13-inch Aluminum) - 2.4ghz i5, 8gb, 240gb OCZ Agility 3 (SSD), Mountain Lion
    Macbook (Late 2008, 13-inch Aluminum) - 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo, 4gb, 320gb HD, Mountain Lion
    Macbook (Late 2007, 13-inch White) - 2.2ghz Core 2 Duo, 4gb, 320gb HD, Lion

  5. #5
    Notebook Consultant
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    180
    Rep Power
    21

    Default Re: NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

    Thanks for the feedback. I get it: the Intel one probably just provides the cpu a way to efficiently place pixels onto the screen, but other than that, it isn't going to draw 3d polygons efficiently by its hardware, and it's probably just up to the cpu to do all the work.

    One last thing: so the ati 1400 is supposedly better than the geforce 7300, both offered by Dell (right?). But I'm seeing games that state in the requirements that it needs a geforce-something-something. That is telling me that that particular game only runs on the NVidia brand of hardware, correct?

    Isn't it a little rediculous that even highish end ATI cards, for which people shell out a good buck, would *still* not be good for certain particular games? And I right on this?

    And what about the other way around? Can I go to the store and buy a box with a game in it that only runs on ATI hardware?

    Is it the war of the graphics cards now?

    AMD and Intel works together - programmers *have* to, and *do* cope with things by detecting the hardware that's used, and invoke the appropriate optimized subroutines.

    Can't this be the same for the graphics card flavours?

    peace... or not?

  6. #6
    Notebook Consultant
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    186
    Rep Power
    23

    Default Re: NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

    I don't know quite where you heard this a1mint,but theres no such thing like a game can only run on Nvidia only.

  7. #7
    NBR Lead Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA, USA
    Posts
    34,644
    Rep Power
    174

    Default Re: NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

    Here's more information on graphics cards:
    http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568
    Lead Moderator for TechnologyGuide Communities
    Brighthand | NotebookReview | TabletPCReview
    hp EliteBook 8740w - 17" DreamColor 2, Win 7 Pro, Core i5-560M, 8GB RAM, ATI FirePro M7820, Intel 320 Series 120GB, Hitachi 5K1500, Intel 6300 WLAN

  8. #8
    Notebook Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    21

    Default Re: NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

    I dont know what you're talking about but on my Fujitsu S6210 I was able to play WC3 JUST fine. No stutters at all.

  9. #9
    Notebook Consultant
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    180
    Rep Power
    21

    Default Re: NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

    Quote Originally Posted by shivy
    I don't know quite where you heard this a1mint,but theres no such thing like a game can only run on Nvidia only.
    No? A quick looking for Command & Conquerer requirements led to:

    http://www.cncden.com/renegade_sysreq.shtml
    "GE-Force 64MB Video Card"

    http://www.gameblitz.com/generals.htm
    "Geforce 4 and at least 1.3GHz"

    ps. is the "GeForce Go 7300" as good as a "Geforce 4 with 1.3GHz" ?
    Boy I'm out of date...

  10. #10
    Phillip J. Fry
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Earth 31st Century
    Posts
    1,736
    Rep Power
    28

    Default Re: NVidia GeForce 7300 vs Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950

    Anything is better than intergrated graphics. Unless you are going to use it for basic use such as word processing and maybe basic internet surfing then stay away from the intel card. Practically any card is better than the intel.

    ucb9999




    Sore wa subete yoi koto da. Laissez Les Bon Temps Rouler

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1