X4500HD vs NVIDIA Quadro NVS 160M

Hi,

Just joined today hoping for some advice about the graphic card options in a proposed Latitude E6400 purchase.

The two options in the E6400's I am considering are:

1. Intel X4500HD
2. NVIDIA Quadro NVS 160M 256mb DDR3

The NVIDIA is the more expensive card but I am wondering if I really need it. The laptop will be connected to an Eizo Flexiscan 22" flat panel most of the time and used for for a mix of home and business, mainly business.

The PC will not be used for gaming or any CAD/Photoshop work, the main use is for work with large excel spreadsheets and ms access databases plus internet and other general use.

The two PC's I am looking at are approximately the same price but with slightly different specs:


1. Intel X4500HD, T9400 2.56ghz CPU (6mb cache), 250gb HDD (7200rpm FFS), 14.1" 1440x900 LED screen.

2. NVIDIA Quadro, P8600 2.4ghz CPU (3mb cache), 160gb HDD (7200rpm FFS), 14.1" 1280x800 LED screen


Option 1 above is £10 (approx $15) more expensive and considering my usage I am leaning towards that option.

Any feedback greatly appreciated.


Thx & Rgds
The Snaffer

 

You get more battery with the X4500 as well as less risk of running into any heat issues. The X4500 is capable of running anything outside of gaming and cad. It runs Aero fine and plays HD movies smoothly.

I'd go for option 1 too.

 

For what you are describing, the X4500 will definitely suffice.

 

I would also vote for the X4500. It's what I bought and I don't regret it. The 1440 x 900 internal display also gives you some extra screen space for when you are not connected to the big monitor.

There are a few reports of heating problems with the 160M. Read this, for example.

John

 

I'd also go for the X4500. Aside from less heat, you'll also likely experience less problems with the Intel card.

 

Agreed with all of the above. Choice #1 = best config.

 

Sounds like the OP is interested if the nv160M justifies the cost premium and lower battery life if looking it as an option primarily to render the OS interface. At 22" the Vista/Win7 Aero 3D interface may become slow with the X4500.

So could users post their Aero Desktop scores so a comparison can be made? X4500 values ideally in the faster dual-channel memory configuration.

Easiest way to do this if run Win7/Vista/XP is run 'winsat dwm' noting the resolution and color depth it was ran under. Eg: 1280x800@32-bit. The standlone winsat here from Vista Upgrade Advisor giving a FPS value, which is 10x the Aero Desktop score. Same winsat useful for XP users to check their Aero Desktop score, if XP ran Aero that is.

Note this and followup response highlighting the difference between FPS values between XP (XPDM), Vista (WDDM 1.0) and W7 (WDDM 1.1) underlying DirectX stacks affecting the Aero Desktop value.

 

sounds like option is best suited for your need. better processor, more hard drive space, and a higher resolution LED screen. The X4500 should be able to handle an external monitor and Windows Aero well.

 

Note that the 250 GB 7200 PM HD will probably be more noisy than the 160 GB 7200 RPM HD because most 250GB 7200 RPM HD:s have two platters while the 160GB ones usually have one platter.