Nvidia GF 4 440 Go

[mboeller]

It seems Nvidia is not able to produce an 3D-chip for notebooks.

The GF4 440Go is an highend 3D-chip and as fast as an MX440 so from the
performance side this chip is ok.

But in heavens sake why has this chip an higher power consumption
than the new R300 (based on the postings from mufu) even in 2D !

Using 45watts in 2D is rediculous!
Even an highend CPU (for notebooks) uses less power than this 3D-chip
in 2D. No one will use this chip, cause the battery life goes down dramatically
with such an high power consumption.


Source : http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1642



[edit:]

There is no question that the GeForce4 Go series release has left ATI a bit unsettled. Not only do the GeForce4 Go chips contain power saving features that do make a real world difference, ....

I find this statement quite amusing, really. The power saving features really _do_ make
an difference. They reduce the performance down to GF2 MX400 levels, but the power
consumption goes only down a few percent.
So THAT's really an achievement!

 

[Snyder]

I find the whole article quite amusing and somewhat biased... Anand doesn't do themselves a favor with such kind of reviews. (Don't want to bash, but read for yourselves.)

e.g.:

Obviously, the benefits of PowerMizer are not fully realized in a 2D environment. This is because on top of the user selectable PowerMizer modes, the chip is already doing all it can in a static 2D environment to conserve battery, including clock gating. So, although battery life is slightly increased with PowerMizer enabled in 2D, its benefits are not as pronounced.
[..]
So we see that while the performance savings offered by PowerMizer are not mind blowing, they are in fact fairly impressive. The GeForce4 440 Go gives you the ability to play 3D games with PowerMizer set to maximum performance and realize a longer system run time.

 

[PVR_Extremist]

Well if the GF2GO )in my Satellite 2800 is anything to go by then battery life will be pants. I barely get 75 mins out of mine at full power. That's complete trash. I was recently embarrassed in a meeting demonstrating Wireless networking when I had to run out and grab my power adaptor about 90 mins into my presentation. That was on lower power settings..

Last time I have an nV chipset in a laptop......

 

[Mintmaster]

It seems Nvidia is not able to produce an 3D-chip for notebooks.

The GF4 440Go is an highend 3D-chip and as fast as an MX440 so from the
performance side this chip is ok.

But in heavens sake why has this chip an higher power consumption
than the new R300 (based on the postings from mufu) even in 2D !

Using 45watts in 2D is rediculous!
Even an highend CPU (for notebooks) uses less power than this 3D-chip
in 2D. No one will use this chip, cause the battery life goes down dramatically
with such an high power consumption.


Source : http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1642



[edit:]

There is no question that the GeForce4 Go series release has left ATI a bit unsettled. Not only do the GeForce4 Go chips contain power saving features that do make a real world difference, ....

I find this statement quite amusing, really. The power saving features really _do_ make
an difference. They reduce the performance down to GF2 MX400 levels, but the power
consumption goes only down a few percent.
So THAT's really an achievement!

The power consumption they give is total system power, as that's the only thing they can measure. That includes CPU, GPU, and most importantly, the display. The GPU only consumes a fraction of that.

Snyder: I do agree that the article seems biased. The chip hardly outperforms the 7500 (quite an old chip compared to the MX440), and yet Anand is acting like it stomps all over the 7500. I also seem to recall the 7500 doing significantly better in power savings on other websites, but he only compared the Geforce4 Go with itself in that respect.

 

[Randell]

& only compared the GF4toGo with itself on JKII and surmised it would outperform the mobility Radeon

 

[mboeller]

The power consumption they give is total system power, as that's the only thing they can measure. That includes CPU, GPU, and most importantly, the display. The GPU only consumes a fraction of that.

Ahh I see. I overlooked this. Sorry about my mistake then

 

[Sabastian]

Yeah, you may also notice that the GF4 Go system has more memory then the Radeon 7500 mobility system. The GF4 Go system has 512MB DDR2100 266MHz where the Radoen 7500 has only half as much 256MB DDR2100 266MHz. This is not fair at all. But what else can you expect from AnandTech. com. If the two systems were on equal footing then you certainly wouldn't see such a disparity between these cards performance wise. In fact you would likely see the Radeon 7500 outperform the GF4 Go. Of course the GF4 Go is supposed to be nvidias latest offering in the mobile arena. ATIs next mobile part will definitly beat the GF4 Go .

Sabastian

 

[jandar]

using older drivers, unequal machines = biased review

 

[cellarboy]

Really bad. No comparison on the impact of battery life of both chipsets, no comparison of performance of 'both' chipsets at different power levels.

For all we know, the Radeon could have been set to maximum power savings and still got those scores.....

 

[LittlePenny]

Ok I joined in on the bandwagon with the HardOCP thing, but I refuse to call Anand bias. His reviews may be short-sighted due to lack of understanding, but I really don't think any of the webmasters including our favorite Kyle Bennet sit and plan out ways to give bias.