How much faster is a HD 2400 XT 128MB vs 950 GMA?

I'm trading with someone as long as it goes through so I have a better video card but lose my portability.

How big of a performance increase would I get?

the processors are almost identical.

 

Better, but for what? The 2400XT is still pretty weak for games.

I like video cards since they make the rest of the computer faster since video is handled by the GPU instead of the CPU and system ram.

So, better perdformance overall... still not a game killer.

Percentage? I dunno, 10% or something? Nothing earth shattering.

 

Far more than 10%. Integrated vs discrete is night vs day.

 

Yes as I noted, the CPU does offload some processinig but the CPU is the same, but... the video card alone is not going make such a huge difference in an awful lot of tasks.

Also, factor in the 7200rpm desktop drive v. the 5400rpm laptop drive.

The video card and the hard drive will make it a snappier system, but, you'd get used to either system in just a few days.

 

A stand alone video card will give a huge performance boost.

Are the ones apple uses really that crappy? Do they underclock the heck out of them or something?

 

I'm guessing your talking about the 9600. Their not crappy, their just underclocked a bit. They don't want to go through the same problem with the 8--- series with the 9600GT.

 

No. the Intel 950 GMA and ATI HD 2400 XT.

 

Hah! Totally got off subject and forgot about the what cards we were talking about! Wow at me. Sorry!

 

2400XT = cr_ploads better than the 950

2400XT = at least able to barely play newer games.
950 = don't even dream 'bout playing games on it. might as well as crush your computer.

Here is an example: if I wanted to run Crysis on the 2400xt, the game would be kind of bleah, at about say 20fps, lowest settings, resolution.
On the other hand, the 950 would simply refuse to run Crysis.