Will this graphics card run SL well enough for what I'm looking for

[SLtesterL2]

At the moment I have a GeForce GT 525M and was running SL and thought it was running...OKAY. I usually hit about 20 fps when theres a few people but when it comes to large crowds or even just a few people dancing within a semi-large area, those numbers drop to 4 FPS. I would like to keep a high and stable FPS without any jerkyness to it such as stated before (20 fps or even higher would be great) in those larger regions or with alot of people. So which graphics card number would be best for it? I believe I heard the number in the 10's place is the horse power and I'm guessing I'm not all that in that specific category. :( I just want to be able to visit popular places with other avatars on mid/high settings turned on.

 

Im looking at this GPU: NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 750M with 1GB GDDR5

 

Will this GPU get what I want done, or is there more to it?

 

THANK YOU! 

[Jean Horten]

That GPU might give you want you want on low to mid graphics settings, don't expect it to give you 20+ FPS on high or ultra in crowded areas.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html

 

Why do people always want  craptops laptops? They are  less performant,  more expensive and  harder to  maintain  than a desktop machine.

 

J.

[Nyll Bergbahn]

You can't just replace the Nvidia 525M with a new card as the 525M in Dell laptops is not a discrete graphics card with a card slot, it's a video chip soldered to the motherboard. Are you looking at a replacement laptop with Nvidia GT 750M graphics? If so, would be better to post details of the laptop for comments rather than just its graphics. Also, check out reviews online.

The first Nvidia number is the series, the second number is where the model lies in the series, higher being better. Remember that graphics in a laptop is usually about one model down in performance to its desktop equivalent so higher than a 750M would be preferable.

[SLtesterL2]

I am buying a new laptop in fact! :matte-motes-big-grin:

 

Here are the specs of the laptop I plan on purchasing:

 

OPERATING SYSTEM       Windows® 7 Home Premium 64-bit, English

HARD DRIVE       750GB SATA 3Gb/s (7,200 RPM)               

VIDEO CARD       NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 750M with 1GB GDDR5

PROCESSOR        4th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-4700MQ processor (6MB Cache, up to 3.4GHz) 

MEMORY             8GB Dual Channel DDR3L at 1600MHz

 

Also, if it helps, here's my info from Speedtest.net:

 

PING: 32ms

Download Speed: 11:08 Mps

Upload Speed: 1.43 mps

 

 

If ya need any more info just ask and I'll do mh best! Thanks!

[Suspiria Finucane]

As I've mentioned on the forum before, the 50 series (550, 650 etc) are crapola (low end)!  I can run 20-30 FPS on Ultra in high av areas NP with a Gigabyte Geforce 670 3xWindforce OC. Below is a comparison using the non OC version. For what you want to do, the 750 doesn't cut it.

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Aren't you comparing apples with, uhm grapes? If I'm not mistaken, the 750 in your comparison is a mobile card, the 670 a desktop card.

According to this site, the 750M and 670M (the mobile version) are pretty close if you compare them to the desktop GTX670. (benchmarks of 1667, 1909 and 5366) The only mobile gpu that comes close to the desktop 670, is the brand new 780M and you need really deep pockets for that card.

The cheapest laptop I can find after a really quick search is almost 2000 dollars and isn't on sale (just) yet.

[Suspiria Finucane]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

Aren't you comparing apples with, uhm grapes? If I'm not mistaken, the 750 in your comparison is a mobile card, the 670 a desktop card.

---

Ummm no I'm not.

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

As I've mentioned on the forum before, the 50 series (550, 650 etc) are crapola (low end)!  I can run 20-30 FPS on Ultra in high av areas NP with a Gigabyte Geforce 670 3xWindforce OC. Below is a comparison using the non OC version.

For what you want to do, the 750 doesn't cut it.

---

...and

 

---

SLtesterL2 wrote:

I would like to keep a high and stable FPS without any jerkyness to it such as stated before (20 fps or even higher would be great) in those larger regions or with alot of people. So which graphics card number would be best for it?

---

 I merely showed him what scale of card is required to get the performance specs he was asking for and 750M isn't it.

 

 

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

 

According to

this site

, the 750M and 670M (the mobile version) are pretty close if you compare them to the desktop GTX670. (benchmarks of 1667, 1909 and 5366) The only mobile gpu that comes close to the desktop 670, is the brand new 780M and you need really deep pockets for that card.

The

cheapest laptop I can find after a really quick search

is almost 2000 dollars and isn't on sale (just) yet.

---

Close considering the 670 is better despite being an earlier version which was one other point I made about the 50 series.

 

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Ah ok, I misunderstood your comparison then. Still you really do not need a video card that fast, especially if you consider the costs of the 780M. I don't get very high framerates on a full sim with my GTX670. The laggier the place is, the less my video card does, according to my gpu monitor. Temperature, gpu load, memory use, it all drops. I get around 25 fps in a laggy sim, on ultra settings, lowering the graphics to med-high will increase the fps to around 30-35 if I remember correctly. That tells me the graphics card isn't really the bottleneck in a full sim. I figure it's the rate at which data reaches your computer, which depends on the connection to and the internals of the LL servers.

The question was if the 750M would get around 20 fps on med-high settings. My guess is it probably will, but it's just a guess.

 

[Qie Niangao]

If one were absolutely forced to use a laptop to run SL, that 750M is going to be a huge, night-and-day improvement over a 525M. It will not, however, be everything one could want in a SL experience.

And this:

---

Jean Horten wrote:

[...]Why do people always want 

craptops

laptops? They are  less performant,  more expensive and  harder to  maintain  than a desktop machine.

---

I understand why some folks still need to use notebooks, but for the price of a notebook one can get a desktop with better performance and a cheap, essentially disposable Android tablet. For my money, that's a heck of a lot better deal especially if one looks at the investment a few years into the future. During such interval, at least one complete laptop replacement would be required to stay reasonably current in graphics performance, whereas the desktop could get a relatively cheap video card replacement and keep chugging along. Yeah, the disposable tablet would be replaced a time or two, but that's a lot less painful than replacing a notebook.

[Suspiria Finucane]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

 

The question was if the 750M would get around 20 fps on med-high settings. My guess is it probably will, but it's just a guess.

 

---

A statement was " I just want to be able to visit popular places with other avatars on mid/high settings turned on".

 

And I would agree for mid to possibly high settings, the card should perform to these specifications.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

 

The question was if the 750M would get around 20 fps on med-high settings. My guess is it probably will, but it's just a guess.

 

---

A statement was " I just want to be able to visit popular places with other avatars on mid/high settings turned on".

 

And I would agree for mid to possibly high settings, the card should perform to these specifications.

 

---

This raises the interesting question as to why you said the exact opposite higher up the thread then.

[Suspiria Finucane]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

 

The question was if the 750M would get around 20 fps on med-high settings. My guess is it probably will, but it's just a guess.

 

---

A statement was " I just want to be able to visit popular places with other avatars on mid/high settings turned on".

 

And I would agree for mid to possibly high settings, the card should perform to these specifications.

 

---

This raises the interesting question as to why you said the exact opposite higher up the thread then.

---

Actually I didn’t say the opposite so it raises no question at all.  I’ll explain why.

 

The OP listed 2 different scenarios. (one being a question, the other a statement)

 

1. “I would like to keep a high and stable FPS without any jerkyness to it such as stated before (20 fps or even higher would be great) in those larger regions or with   alot of people.” So which graphics card number would be best for it?

 

           2. “I just want to be able to visit popular places with other avatars on mid/high settings turned on.”

 

 

My replies were an opinion on each different scenario. Had I given two opinions on each scenario it would have been possible to give opposite answers. Since I did not give two opinions on each scenario a contradiction therefore is impossible.

 

I understand the motive behind your post but I’m not a noob subservient to your rank. While I do appreciate a challenge, perhaps next time it will be substantive.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Why would you say there's a motive behind Theresa's post and why would you make these forums a challenge?

As far as I'm concerned, these forums are here so people can help eachother out with advice. Saying the 750M doesn't cut it just isn't the best advice, it should allow the OP to visit those places with a framerate of 20, which is what was asked. If there's a sim where the 750M doesn't give those framerates at med-high levels, neither will the 670, or a titan or 780, simply because the gpu won't be the bottleneck. No need to confuse eachother or make a big deal out of anything. Let's leave it at that.

[Suspiria Finucane]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

Why would you say there's a motive behind Theresa's post and why would you make these forums a challenge?

As far as I'm concerned, these forums are here so people can help eachother out with advice. Saying the 750M doesn't cut it just isn't the best advice, it should allow the OP to visit those places with a framerate of 20, which is what was asked. If there's a sim where the 750M doesn't give those framerates at med-high levels, neither will the 670, or a titan or 780, simply because the gpu won't be the bottleneck. No need to confuse eachother or make a big deal out of anything. Let's leave it at that.

---

Saying the 750M will cut it is only your opinion (advice) and not the best opinion (advice) as far as my opinion(advice). I provided evidence to support my opinion(advice) while you provided rhetoric.

 

---

SLtesterL2 wrote:

 I would like to keep a high and stable FPS without any jerkyness to it such as stated before (20 fps or even higher would be great) in those larger regions or with alot of people. So which graphics card number would be best for it?

---

If anyone can provide an accredited video of the 750M performing to the above specifications, I'll reverse my position. You continually state a falsehood as to "the" question. There was more than one question. Why can't you be specific?  I've been specific in each of my replies which should be of more help than someone generalizing.

Claiming to help and actually being of help are two different things entirely. Differing opinions are good. Unfortunately, you seem to think only your opinion is the "best" one. How sad for the community if only advisors can post their opinions(advice) . I don't see you attempting to discredit Jean in the same way who stated pretty much the same as I have.

 

---

Jean Horten wrote:

That GPU might give you want you want on low to mid graphics settings, don't expect it to give you 20+ FPS on high or ultra in crowded areas.

---

I can see the guise quite clearly. I'm not sure why you state "why would you make these forums a challenge". I said nothing about making the forums a challenge. Once again that is your incorrect interpretation (opinion/advice). The challenge I referred to was something entirely different and if I wanted to make the forums a challenge, I would have stated it specifically.

In ending, if you didn't want to make a big deal out of nothing you wouldn't have replied in defense of your fellow advisor. Instead you would have stuck to the issue being debated.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

 

I understand the motive behind your post but I’m not a noob subservient to your rank. While I do appreciate a challenge, perhaps next time it will be substantive.

---

Oh, I'm well aware that you're no noob - the value of your contributions to this forum are a matter of public record.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

I'll bite....

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

Saying the 750M will cut it is only your opinion (advice) and not the best opinion (advice) as far as my opinion(advice). I provided evidence to support my opinion(advice) while you provided rhetoric.

---

Whether a 750M will cut it is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, whether it's true or not. If I say a yard is as long as a foot, that's not an opinion, that's a false fact, unless we are talking about a clown. Opinion would be if the 750M would give you "good" performance, which is very subjective. The 750M giving 20 fps in a typical club on med-high settings is not subjective, apart from what is considered a "typical club". The only evidence you offered is that the desktop GTX670 performs better than the laptop 750M. That's (pretty obvious and) pretty useless information, afterall, the OP is looking for a new laptop.

---

If anyone can provide an accredited video of the 750M performing to the above specifications, I'll reverse my position. You continually state a falsehood as to "the" question. There was more than one question. Why can't you be specific?  I've been specific in each of my replies which should be of more help than someone generalizing.

---

So you take a position of the 750M not "cutting it" on the basis that a 670 performs a lot better? I at least said I suspect it will meet the OP's demands, you bluntly say it doesn't. Then you say the 750M WILL meet the OP's demands, then again you don't? And you get offended because someone points that out.

What did you initially post again?: For what you want to do, the 750 doesn't cut it.

I really don't see where you read the second question. The comment at the end of the post is a part of the question, which obviously was and still is: "Will I be able to get 20 fps on med-high settings in a club with a 750M?" If for some reason you think those framerates aren't acceptable, which can very well be the case, that's your opinion. Maybe you need to be more specific about what "cutting it" actually means.

---

Claiming to help and actually being of help are two different things entirely. Differing opinions are good. Unfortunately, you seem to think only your opinion is the "best" one. How sad for the community if only advisors can post their opinions(advice) . I don't see you attempting to discredit Jean in the same way who stated pretty much the same as I have.

---

Of course different opinions are good, but I haven't given my opinion on anything, I have made an educated guess on whether the 750M will get 20fps under the circumstances described by the OP. Who ever said only advisors can give advice? I haven't applied for it, there are just some forum statistics that will determine your "rank", apparantly I ticked the right boxes for advisor. My advice isn't worth any more or less than that of a member, moderator, helper or whatever just because I have a purple puppet next to my name.

I am not trying to discredit anyone, I have no reason to. Jean said the 750M won't give very good results on ultra settings. She doesn't like laptops, that doesn't change the fact she said on med-high settings the 750M might perform good enough for the OP.

---

I can see the guise quite clearly. I'm not sure why you state "why would you make these forums a challenge". I said nothing about making

the forums

a challenge. Once again that is your incorrect interpretation (opinion/advice). The challenge I referred to was something entirely different and if I wanted to make the forums a challenge, I would have stated it specifically.

---

Then you might want to be specific about what challenge you mean, because I don't get it. An interpretation isn't the same as an opinion or advice btw. If that's not what you ment, you might want to specify that too. I think the biggest challenge for you is to admit you made a mistake. I do it all the time, it's really not that big a deal. That is making mistakes and accepting them.

---

In ending, if you didn't want to make a big deal out of nothing you wouldn't have replied in defense of your fellow advisor. Instead you would have stuck to the issue being debated.

---

Theresa made a valid point and a correct one at that. She doesn't need any defence. If you were an advisor and she was a member, I wouldn't have posted anything else than what I did. What's your obsession with those ranks anyway? If you desperately want to become an advisor, just answer a couple of questions in the "answers" section, give some advice here and there in different forums that get you kudo's and before you know it you'll be part of our superduper advisor club.
It's not a big deal, it's trivial at the most.

[Rahkis Andel]

Just to give my 2 cents -- I agree that that card would not be good enough to do what they wanted. My suggestion would be to invest in a desktop solution instead or if it must be a laptop, give serious thought as to how important running SL smoothly is to you.

They will need better than a middle of the road mobile graphics card if they really want good performance all the time at high settings. Compared to a similar desktop solution, it has lower memory bus width, fewer processor cores and a lower core speed.

Considering that SL can be a challenge for gaming desktops under certain situations (like the club dancing situation they described), that's not a good sign.

[SLtesterL2]

Sorry if I seemed I was stating two questions but I didn't intend to do so. I just want to know if that specific graphics card will run at least mid settings at places (such as clubs for example) with 20 people. That's all. If you need more info, I'll gladly try to find and give it

[Orca Flotta]

Let's get over with the infights and let's just agree on this: BETTER IS BETTER!

In case of nVidia it's easy to see what will be better: the letters in front and the middle number in the name says it all.

- GTX xxx is better than GT xxx

- 790 is better than 410

- desktop cards are better than laptop chips, so a 650 is better than a 650M

- steroids don't mess with the system. A plain GTX 660 is still better than a GTX650ti 

 

 

 

[Rahkis Andel]

I don't know what kind of rig you run at home, but last I checked, better is worse.

All I need is a laptop from 10 years ago to barely run SL on the lowest settings with no one around me. You kids nowadays, I mean to tell ya.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Orca Flotta wrote:

Let's get over with the infights and let's just agree on this:

BETTER IS BETTER!

---

Sorry, I'll try and stay civil

Of course better is better and everything you posted about the versions and subversions is true. However, better is also more expensive and more importantly, a better graphics card doesn't neccesarily mean better SL performance, so that extra money could very well be money down the drain.

I just fired up my old computer, running linux on an amd 6000+ cpu from 2007, with an underclocked 9600GT 512MB from 2008 @1920x1080 (this card is very close to the 525M actually) , wireless (and pretty poor I have to say). I went to three clubs with 15, 20 and 40 people. I got 20, 15 and 10 fps on med-high. Not exactly scientific, but a good indicator nonetheless. Even that old card wasn't pushed to its max, far from actually. Unfortunately I haven't found any good monitoring tools for Linux (yet), but the temperature was a good 10 C less than when the card is pushed, exactly between full load and idle temperature.

The one year old computer with a 3770K (no OC), GTX670 @ 1680x1050, win 7 Pro and wired connection gives me 55, 45 and 40 fps on med-high settings. (45, 40 and 35 on ultra). The load on the gpu is around 40%.

Wouldn't the 40% gpu load mean the bottleneck is not the graphics card? Doesn't the framerate on my old computer (almost reaching the OP's desired results) mean you don't need a very powerful graphics card? The 9600GT (that's not even my underclocked one) has a benchmark of 755, against the more than double 1685 for the 750M.

Is it strange to assume a card that much better, in combination with a faster CPU and memory, on a lower resolution (1366 x 768 for the Alienware laptop in question) would be plenty to grab those extra 5 fps?

[SLtesterL2]

PROCESSOR	4th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-4700MQ processor (6MB Cache, up to 3.4GHz)
MEMORY	8GB Dual Channel DDR3L at 1600MHz

HARD DRIVE	750GB SATA 3Gb/s (7,200 RPM)
VIDEO CARD	NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 750M with 1GB GDDR5

 

These are the specs I plan on getting if that helps

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

I saw them higher up the thread, it has to be the new Alienware 14

As I said in the other posts, I am pretty sure it will get you 20fps on med-high settings in a club with 20 people. To be absolutely sure, someone with a similair Alienware computer (or other similair laptop) will have to share their experience. I'm sorry I can't give you the definitive answer, but that's just the way it is.

I'm also not entirely sure about how the video memory is managed, maybe someone who does can shed some light on that. I showed the results with my old card with only 512 MB and it was close to what you want, but on my 2GB 670 I sometimes see video memory use slightly over 1GB. (in the three clubs I visited I saw around 900MB btw). If you can spare the 200 bucks you could get the Alienware 17 instead, which has a 765M with 2GB of memory. I just don't think the difference (if there is any) in SL performance will justify the difference in price. If you want to play other games which make more use of your graphics card it might be worth it though.

To make a comparison:

benchmark GT525M (743)

benchmark GT750M (2543)

benchmark GTX765M (4116)

To make it even more confusing, the 750M in the bench has more but slower memory than the one you want.