Recommendations and Conclusion

So now that we have the nitty-gritty out of the way, how do we break things down? If you're looking strictly at pure 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.

First, Intel has the best dedicated video encoding hardware on the market. AMD and 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.

Update: Intel's engineers took umbrage with our suggestion that Intel's integrated graphics driver quality is still poor, and they were right to do so. While older graphics architectures may still be a bit fraught, Sandy Bridge is an overwhelming improvement. This guide has been updated to reflect that fact.

NVIDIA GeForce 500M Graphics
Comments Locked

85 Comments

View All Comments

  • Imnotrichey - Wednesday, July 6, 2011 - link

    Thanks. Glad to know I can still play many of those steam games when at home without losing the mobility needed for work and school.
  • seapeople - Wednesday, July 6, 2011 - link

    In comparison desktops are as portable as a concrete brick that weighs 20 pounds, a non-folding chair, and 20 feet of rope that you must tie around the chair and brick and then connect the other end to a tree every time you want to use it.

    I think I'll take my 10 pound brick, thank you very much.
  • UMADBRO - Thursday, July 7, 2011 - link

    You seem awful full of yourself. Not everyone shares the same perspective as you, so stop acting like youre "opinion" is right and everyone else is wrong.

    And if 10 pounds is too damn heavy for you to move around, you have more serious problems to worry about then how much someone isomeone "should" spend on their system....
  • Iketh - Thursday, July 7, 2011 - link

    what's with you and 10 lbs??? that isn't shit you pathetic weakling
  • fb39ca4 - Wednesday, July 6, 2011 - link

    All of these chips (except for the gma in Atom netbooks) are faster than the quadro nvs 120m in mah laptop. ugh.
  • Seikent - Wednesday, July 6, 2011 - link

    A chart comparing the graphics cards in some games would have been great. I know it is not so easy, but it is relevant.
  • Drizzt321 - Wednesday, July 6, 2011 - link

    Where does the Quadro 1000m fit into here? I just bought the Lenovo w520 (still waiting to ship, arg!). I wasn't specifically looking for Quadro, however it had the rest I wanted (15", 1080p, Optimus, wide(er) gamut LCD, etc. Even a built-in color calibration sensor!) and it'd be interesting to see where it fits in here, give it's 96 cuda cores.
  • Belard - Wednesday, July 6, 2011 - link

    Hey, let us know how that W520 works... the screen quality.

    Mobile graphics chips are not as powerful as their desktops, there are ways to make them run a bit cooler... such as lower clock rates and other factors.
  • Drizzt321 - Thursday, July 7, 2011 - link

    Yea, I know, but since this was a, ya know, mobile graphics guide, I was figuring I'd ask for that since I'm not quite sure where it fits in performance-wise. But, didn't buy it for gaming, although I will probably do some, so it's not as big a deal to me.

    Well, supposedly it's pretty nice. From what I've read pretty good contrast ratio and good black/white levels. Plus 95% NTSC, at least according to specs, so I'm hopefully. Still a TN panel from what I understand, but at least it seems like a decent one. I'll try and remember to get back to the Anand forums on how it is. Hell, if Anand wants to give me some info on how to give all those wonderful graphs he has (I also have an X-Rite eyeOne USB colorimeter), I'd be more than happy to put together that info.
  • DaveSimmons - Wednesday, July 6, 2011 - link

    It always annoys me seeing a laptop advertised with a "560m" or "6850 mobile". I have to stop and remind myself that no, these offer nothing close to the performance of the desktop cards with those model numbers that I've read about in reviews. Its just nvidia and AMD trying to play me for a sucker by selling me a mislabeled 550 or 5770.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now