NVIDIA Fanboy

AMD vs NVIDIA vs Intel Mobile GPU

2011-07-14T07:00:00.000-07:00

If you're looking strictly at pure gaming performance, parts from either AMD or NVIDIA are going to be suitable for you (budget notwithstanding.) In the interests of fairness we'll include Intel in the pro and con conversation.

AMD vs NVIDIA vs Intel Mobile GPU

First, Intel has the best dedicated video encoding hardware on the market. AMD vs NVIDIA both offer solutions that allow you to harness their shaders to substantially accelerate video encoding, but Intel's Quick Sync is best of breed (behind pure CPU-based encoding), offering a healthy improvement in encoding speed while producing the best output short of doing encoding on the CPU itself. It's worth noting, though, that NVIDIA solutions and AMD ones supporting switchable graphics can take advantage of Quick Sync, so you don't necessarily have to tie yourself down to Intel to benefit from it.

If you take video encoding out of the equation, unfortunately AMD isn't quite as strong in terms of feature offerings, boiling down to arguably slightly better image quality and support for Eyefinity (provided the notebook has a DisplayPort.) They do have a hybrid graphics solution similar to Optimus, but availability is spotty and you'll have to research the notebook model you're looking at to see if their switchable graphics are supported. NVIDIA's Optimus on the other hand is pervasive and mature, and their mobile graphics drivers are more widely supported than AMD's. 3D Vision, CUDA, and PhysX are much more niche, with AMD also offering 3D support and materializing in 3D-ready notebooks. If you have a need for CUDA or a desire for PhysX, your graphics vendor has been decided for you.

Knowing what each vendor offers, now we just have to know what to look for.

The netbook or ultraportable gamer is pretty much stuck with either buying a netbook with AMD's E-350 processor or paying through the nose for an Alienware M11x (spoiler alert: heavier than most "netbooks.") That's not a horrible thing as the E-350 has a capable graphics core, but even though the CPU side is faster than dual-core Atom it's still not quite enough to pick up the slack.

Gamers on an extreme budget used to be more or less screwed, but thankfully that's changed. Notebooks with AMD's A6 or A8 processors are going to be your one-stop shop, offering a tantalizing mix of middle-of-the-road CPU performance with remarkably fast integrated graphics hardware. There's a reason AMD refers to the A6 and A8 graphics hardware as "discrete-class" and for once it's not just marketing jargon. If you want to game for under $600, this is the way to go. In fact, it's even a little difficult to recommend spending up for a notebook with anything less than a GeForce GT 540M or Radeon HD 6500M/6600M/6700M unless you really need the faster CPU on top of it. If gaming while on the battery is important to you, then you need to be looking for Llano.

Users looking for a more well-rounded notebook would probably be well served by the aforementioned GeForce GT 540M or Radeon HD 6500M/6600M. These will hang out between about $700 and a grand and notebooks using these chips are going to be fairly mainstream in form factor, so you won't be lugging a land monster around. Be forewarned, though, these GPUs are going to be inadequate for driving games at 1080p and may still struggle at 1600x900.

The serious gamer looking for an affordable machine should be gunning straight for notebooks with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 560M. This, or AMD's Radeon HD 6800M, will be the bare minimum for gaming comfortably at 1080p, but honestly the GTX 560M is liable to be the sweet spot in offering the very best balance in form factor favoring performance before you start getting into the huge, heavy desktop replacement notebooks.

Finally, for those who money is no object to, just about anything from the Radeon HD 6900M series or the GTX 570M or 580M is going to do the trick, and for the truly excessive users, an SLI or Crossfire notebook will yield dividends.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 500M Mobile Graphics Series

2011-07-13T19:00:00.000-07:00

The difference between NVIDIA and AMD on the desktop can seem a bit blurry in places, but in notebooks it's night and day. That's not a measure of quality so much as a measure of a radical difference in both features and performance.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 500M Mobile Graphics Series

While NVIDIA leverages major benefits like a better mobile driver program and Optimus graphics switching technology, as well as corner cases with PhysX, CUDA, and 3D Vision (note that 3D notebooks using AMD hardware are also available), it's also where the most creative marketing is liable to surface. Once you realize what desktop GPUs are powering what notebook models, you begin to appreciate both just how dire the entry level on the desktop still is and how nutty NVIDIA's mobile branding has been.

Even though NVIDIA does have advantages (particularly Optimus across the entire 500M line), their lineup can seem downright bizarre compared to AMD's bloated one, and the specs for the GT 555M are honestly something profane. NVIDIA's also still leveraging roughly the same chips that were introduced with the entire Fermi line, though their progress at least isn't anywhere near as sluggish as the 9000M/100M/200M/300M era.

Another important difference is that while AMD and Intel's graphics hardware employ a single clock domain for the chip itself, NVIDIA's chips have had separate core and shader domains for some time now. As a result, there's a "core clock" that will refer to roughly everything on the GPU that isn't a shader or "CUDA core," and a "shader clock" that refers to the clocks of the "CUDA cores."

NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M/520MX
48 CUDA Cores, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, Core Clocks: 740MHz/900MHz (520M/520MX), Shader Clocks: 1480MHz/1800MHz (520M/520MX)
64-bit Memory Bus, DDR3, Effective Memory Clocks: 1.6GHz/1.8GHz (520M/520MX)

Desktop Counterpart: GeForce GT 520 (GF119)
One of the major places NVIDIA has beefed up their mobile line is a general lack of 64-bit memory buses. There wasn't a single one of those performance bottlenecks in the primary 400M line, but look everybody, it's back! The GT 520M and 520MX occupy the same space as the Mobility Radeon HD 6300 and 6400 series, as a dedicated chip for corner cases. It's also slower than the GT 420M it replaces, which had both double the CUDA cores and double the memory bus width. Basically inadequate for any kind of gaming, the 520s don't offer anything over the Sandy Bridge IGP that you don't get just by virtue of having NVIDIA hardware. (No review available.)

NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M/540M/550M
96 CUDA Cores, 16 TMUs, 4 ROPs, Core Clocks: 600MHz/672MHz/740MHz (525M/540M/550M), Shader Clocks: 1200MHz/1344MHz/1480MHz (525M/540M/550M)
128-bit Memory Bus, DDR3, Effective Memory Clocks: 1.8GHZ

Desktop Counterpart: GeForce GT 430 (GF108)
While the GF108 that powers these three largely indistinguishable chips is slightly slower than the already anemic desktop GeForce GT 240 with the same number of shaders, it's a healthy boost for the low-to-mid end. The differences between these three are strictly clock speeds, and anecdotal experience with overclocking mobile NVIDIA chips has generally been very positive, so odds are decent the enterprising end user with the skill for it can probably get the 525M to gain about 25 model points. At about the 540M mark, though, 1600x900 gaming starts becoming a real possibility. The chip is still hampered by the memory bus (and NVIDIA has had a harder time taming GDDR5 than AMD has), but it's an effective midrange solution. (The GeForce GT 425M in the Clevo B5130M review will be slightly slower than a GT 525M; the Dell XPS 15 L502x review has a GeForce GT 540M.)

NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M "A"
96 CUDA Cores, 16 TMUs, 4 ROPs, Core Clock: 753MHz, Shader Clocks: 1506MHz
128-bit Memory Bus, GDDR5, Effective Memory Clocks: 3138MHz
Desktop Counterpart: GeForce GT 440 GDDR5 (GF108)

And this is where NVIDIA's mobile lineup completely loses its mind. The GeForce GT 555M is actually two completely different chips and configurations; the "A" and "B" are our designation. Our "A" configuration is essentially just a souped-up version of the GT 525M/540M/550M, with a higher core clock and the benefit of GDDR5. While NVIDIA lists both versions on their site (though lacking an explanation as to why this split was made), a glance at NewEgg suggests this "A" version is the more common of the two (powering MSI and Lenovo laptops while the "B" version resides almost exclusively in an Alienware.) You can recognize the "A" version by the use of GDDR5, but since it and the "B" version are so bizarrely matched we can't really tell definitively which one would be the faster of the two. (No review available.)

NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M "B"
144 CUDA Cores, 24 TMUs, 24 ROPs, Core Clocks: 590MHz, Shader Clocks: 1180MHz
192-bit Memory Bus, DDR3, Effective Memory Clocks: 1.8GHz

Desktop Counterpart: None (GF106)
The other configuration of the GT 555M is a substantially beefier chip with six times the ROPs, but it operates at lower clocks and lower memory bandwidth due to the use of DDR3 instead of GDDR5. It's essentially a die-harvested version of GF106, and is identifiable by both the use of DDR3 and memory configurations of either 1.5GB of 3GB. It remains inexplicable why NVIDIA decided to use two completely different chips for the GT 555M, but hopefully this makes it a little easier to tell which is which. Raw calculations of pixel and texture fillrate suggest this "B" configuration to be the faster of the two, and as such it's probably the one to look for. Thus far we've only seen it in the Alienware M14x

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M
192 CUDA Cores, 32 TMUs, 24 ROPs, Core Clocks: 775MHz, Shader Clock: 1550MHz
192-bit Memory Bus, GDDR5, Effective Memory Clock: 2.5GHz

Desktop Counterpart: GeForce GTX 550 Ti (GF116)
Admittedly with these clock speeds the GTX 560M probably performs roughly on par with the closely related GeForce GTS 450 (with the only major deficit being memory bandwidth) as opposed to the faster GTX 550 Ti, but it's still a force to be reckoned with in the mobile arena. The GTS 450 slotted in roughly between the desktop HD 5750 and 5770, while the GTX 460M traded blows with the Mobility Radeon HD 5850 and 5870. The extra 100MHz on the core in the 560M is bound to go a long way, and while we hope to get review hardware in soon, it's reasonable to assume it's at least competitive with the 6850M and 6870M if not outright faster. NVIDIA has scored several design wins with the GTX 560M, and it should really be the entry level for the serious mobile gamer, offering a strong balance between thermals and gaming performance. (Will be faster than the previous generation GeForce GTX 460M in our 460M-centric gaming notebook face-off.)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570M
336 CUDA Cores, 56 TMUs, 32 ROPs, Core Clock: 535MHz, Shader Clock: 1070MHz
192-bit Memory Bus, GDDR5, Effective Memory Clock: 3GHz

Desktop Counterpart: GeForce GTX 560 (GF114)
While the GTX 570M uses the same chip as the desktop GTX 560, it suffers a nearly 300MHz deficit on the core clock. It's still a strong upgrade from the GTX 560M, but second-fastest mobile GPUs seem to see much less success than their desktop counterparts and tend to be less common than the fastest model available. The 470M it replaces was extremely rare, but the 570M looks far better on paper and has at least one design win from MSI under its belt (as opposed to the largely Clevo-only 470M).

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M
384 CUDA Cores, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, Core Clock: 620MHz, Shader Clock: 1240MHz
256-bit Memory Bus, GDDR5, Effective Memory Clock: 3GHz

Desktop Counterpart: GeForce GTX 560 Ti (GF114)
Again operating at a substantially reduced clock than its desktop model, the GTX 580M nonetheless is the fastest mobile GPU available. The GTX 485M it replaces was generally about 10% faster on average than the Radeon HD 6970M, and the GTX 580M is a largely incremental update offering a minor increase in core clocks to go along with Optimus support (yes, your eleven pound gaming laptop can now live off of the battery.) But fastest is fastest, and if you want the best this is it...provided your pockets are deep enough. (Will be slightly faster than the previous generation GeForce GTX 485M, reviewed in a Clevo P170HM.)

C'mon NVIDIA fans, let us see your comment about those mobile GPU!

Motorola Droid X2 with Tegra 2 vs Droid X

2011-07-13T11:06:00.000-07:00

A lot of things have changed since last year(Motorola Droid X came up), and it’s time for the original Droid X to finally get replaced with something even more powerful, the Tegra 2-packing Motorola Droid X2.

Motorola seems to have taken an ‘if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ approach with the X2, as the new handset is superficially identical to its predecessor. In fact, it’s literally the exact same size, shape, and weight. I borrowed a friend’s Droid X and stuck the X2 alongside it for comparison. With both turned off, I doubt most people could tell the two apart.

The X2 even fits inside the original X case and uses the same battery. The only physical difference between the X and X2 is that the dedicated two-step camera button is now gone. It’s a bit odd considering how much of a fuss Motorola originally made about being one of very few Android handsets that actually offer a camera capture button, allowing you to quickly get into the application by holding the button, and make captures without tapping the screen and potentially losing the shot.

The nice thing about the two phones’ superficial similarity is that cases are backwards compatible, though you’ll get some useless bulge for the absent camera button. I stuck the X2 in my friend’s X case, and it fit perfectly inside. Likewise, the X2 uses the same exact BH5X 5.6 Whr battery that the original X used, so if you’ve got extra batteries laying around or are replacing an X, you can continue using them.

I see a lot of people carrying the X around just about everywhere - it’s clearly a hugely successful device for Motorola. Building some rapport with end users by keeping the design the same and doing things like using the same battery are a good way to keep people that bought Moto buying Moto a second time. It’s nice to see that we’ve moved on (at least somewhat) from the era where upgrading handsets meant having to re-buy almost all accessories but the charger.

Physical Comparison
	Apple iPhone 4	HTC Thunderbolt	Motorola Droid X	Motorola Droid X2
Height	115.2 mm (4.5")	122 mm (4.8")	126.5 mm (4.98")	126.5 mm (4.98")
Width	58.6 mm (2.31")	67 mm (2.63")	65.5 mm (2.58")	65.5 mm (2.58")
Depth	9.3 mm ( 0.37")	13.2 mm (0.52")	9.9 - 14.4 mm (0.39"-0.57")	9.9 - 14.4 mm (0.39"-0.57")
Weight	137 g (4.8 oz)	183.3 g (6.46 oz)	149.2 g (5.26 oz)	148.8 g (5.25 oz)
CPU	Apple A4 @ ~800MHz	1 GHz MSM8655 45nm Snapdragon	1 GHz OMAP3630	1 GHz Dual Core Cortex-A9 Tegra 2 AP20H
GPU	PowerVR SGX 535	Adreno 205	PowerVR SGX530	ULP GeForce
RAM	512MB LPDDR	768 MB LPDDR2	512 MB LPDDR2	512 MB LPDDR2
NAND	16GB or 32GB integrated	4 GB NAND, 32 GB microSD class 4 preinstalled	8 GB NAND, 16 GB microSD class 4 preinstalled	8 GB NAND, 8 GB microSD class 4 preinstalled
Camera	5MP with LED Flash + Front Facing Camera	8 MP with AF/Dual LED flash, 720p30 video recording, 1.3 MP front facing	8 MP with AF/LED Flash, 720p24 video recording	8 MP with AF/LED Flash, 720p30 video recording
Screen	3.5" 640 x 960 LED backlit LCD	4.3” 800 x 480 LCD-TFT	4.3" 854 x 480 LCD-TFT	4.3" 960 x 540 RGBW LCD
Battery	Integrated 5.254 Whr	Removable 5.18 Whr	Removable 5.65 Whr	Removable 5.65 Whr

There’s so much that’s similar between the X and X2 that it’s easier to just call out what all is different. First off, the X2 of course is built around a 1 GHz NVIDIA Tegra 2 AP20H SoC, which consists of two Cortex-A9 processors alongside a ULP GeForce GPU. There’s still 512 MB of LPDDR2 present. We’ll talk about the SoC and performance more in a bit. The second huge change is a that the X2 includes a qHD (960 x 540) LCD display with an RGBW PenTile subpixel layout. That’s up from the FWVGA (854 x 480) display on the Droid X. Again, we’ll talk about what all RGBW means in the display section, but this is similar to the display which Motorola shipped in the Atrix. Third, the X2 has an improved camera, which at first glance looks the same on paper (both are 8 MP with AF and dual LED flash), but as we will show later, produces much higher quality images.

The product launched online with minimal fanfare, and then quietly showed up in stores later - it just didn’t excite the Verizon Android fanbase as much as the original X launch did. Moreover, I find the X2 refresh a bit too safe, with no major outward physical differences to distinguish the X2 from its predecessor other than a subtle color change and a line of red text. No, that excitement seems to be building up to a fever pitch for the Bionic.

Lack of excitement aside, the X2 does however play an important role in Verizon’s smartphone lineup. Namely, it’s a device for customers who don’t want 4G LTE connectivity and the (admittedly) poor battery life (and current $50-$100 price premium) that comes with it. If you aren’t in an area slated to get LTE this year, waiting for the Bionic (which boils down to essentially being an X2 with larger display, newer motoblur, and LTE) doesn’t really make all that much sense, and in that circumstance the X2 seems like a better purchase. Likewise, if you’re an X owner and already have a dock, case, extra battery, and are looking for much faster hardware to upgrade to (or perhaps have recently broken a Droid X), the X2 is an easy shoe-in. I guess it all boils down to each individual situation.

Source : http://www.anandtech.com/show/4483/motorola-droid-x2-review-a-droid-x-with-tegra-2/