how much will GeForce 9400M will get me?

[RCBH928]

hello there,

I just want an approximate idea of how far my GeForce 9400M graphics card is capable?
can i get an approximate year where the card will run the game very well?
for example games released up to 2007 or 2006?

[isiolia]

Not super far, unfortunately. It's probably in the ballpark for a good midrange/bang for the buck card from around 2003. So you should be pretty set for most games from the mid-2000s and earlier - somewhat situational for stuff past that, though from the looks a lot of stuff should still run on low settings.

Obviously, this is only a big deal for more intensive 3D games. Lighter fair, 2D stuff, and so on should run without a problem.

Here is a pretty comprehensive overview of it (good place to look for laptop video card capability in general).

Tom's Hardware also includes a rough comparison chart at the end of their monthly "Best Graphics Cards for the Money" articles. Useful if you're familiar with the performance of a few cards, have been out of the loop for a bit, etc. Not so much otherwise.

[RCBH928]

thanx for the reply
i am not familiar with what fps is considered good
i understand i ahould be lookig for 60fps?

mostly am i safe to play games that were on the original xbox and ported to the pc?
am looking at that era aprox.

[isiolia]

Playable fps may depend some on taste. It's not uncommon for console games to run in the 25-30 fps range. It's playable. Consider, theatrical movies are 24fps, NTSC TV is ~30fps, etc. It's not completely buttery smooth, but it's not terribly jerky either.

60fps is preferable, and is noticeably smoother, but it's not the bare minimum by any stretch. Now, if you're playing fps games competitively, that might be another story...but for single player/etc, you're fine with a lot less.


You should be fine running XBox level stuff. The only real catch might be that console games run at relatively low resolutions. Even current titles primarily run at maybe 1280x720, if not lower (a compiled list). On a PC, you're often trying to run things at the native resolution of your panel, which requires a fair bit more horsepower. Running at lower resolutions, with some of the graphical bells and whistles off, is usually on par with the actual console version...so...by that standard you should be fine. Probably even with some 360 ports.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Not super far, unfortunately. It's probably in the ballpark for a good midrange/bang for the buck card from around 2003.

Totally wrong. I had a MacBook Pro with a 9400m in it and it played most titles up to around 2008 at 1280x800 just fine.

This is of course with medium-low settings, no AA, and 2x AF though. So it's not the best, it got the job done just fine though.

The best way to decide kingmohd is to download demos of games you're interested in to see if they play well. Steam has a lot of demos and you can find more at places like fileplanet.com.

[isiolia]

Not super far, unfortunately. It's probably in the ballpark for a good midrange/bang for the buck card from around 2003.

Totally wrong. I had a MacBook Pro with a 9400m in it and it played most titles up to around 2008 at 1280x800 just fine.

A 9400M is a similar class card, performance-wise, to a Geforce 5900 or Radeon 9800 series, which where common mid/upper midrange desktop cards released in 2003. That wouldn't imply that they couldn't run games past that point, just that you're looking at the general performance that gamers were putting in their systems around 8 years ago.

[JordanPlayer]

When talking about what fps you should be looking for just make sure that the card can sustain over 30 fps at the worst slowdowns. I used to play FPS competitively for a while on PC and can tell the difference between 60 and 30 (mainly just the response/smoothness). You can definitely start telling a difference if your FPS drops more than 30, will start appearing choppy or even seem like a slide show 60+ most of the time would be golden, staying over 30 constantly ideal.

[RCBH928]

i am guessing i am safe for the most part then
i really thought i would have difficulty with original xbox games

all of u said that i can run games in 720, which is HD which is good for me, more than i expected!
but the card kind of sux for a 2008 laptop
u know, at least a 2006 card, not a 2003!!
oh well....

****
out of topic
****
speaking of resolution i saw the e3 xbox conference on gamespot
it said 270p!
what the heck is 270p?
and it looked pretty good !

[isiolia]

i am guessing i am safe for the most part then
i really thought i would have difficulty with original xbox games

all of u said that i can run games in 720, which is HD which is good for me, more than i expected!
but the card kind of sux for a 2008 laptop
u know, at least a 2006 card, not a 2003!!
oh well....

****
out of topic
****
speaking of resolution i saw the e3 xbox conference on gamespot
it said 270p!
what the heck is 270p?
and it looked pretty good !

Kind of the reason that laptops tend not to be favored for gaming. The hardware in them tends to be focused more on what can fit in the case, not use a lot of power, and not produce too much heat rather than performance. Plus the GPUs are only rarely upgradeable, and when they are, options are very limited and very expensive.

My guess is that 270p is a typo of 720p.

[RCBH928]

i am pretty sure its 270 p
it has
270 p, 360p, 540p , and 720P as options!
http://e3.gamespot.com/press-conference ... e3%3Bpress