sorry but you are flat out wrong claiming that a gt 540m and especially a gt 335 would be faster than an 8800gt. they are slower in every respect possible. an 8800gt has more sp, tmus, rops and memory bandwidth. and a 9800gtx+/gts250 would be much faster than your gt 540m. the gt 540m is pretty close to an 8800gt though which I mentioned earlier by saying it was barely below requirements.
Thanks. I didn't know the specifics. I was just told that the 335M was "about equal to an 8800GT but a bit better due to having 1GB" about a year and a half ago and told that the 540M was incrementally better than the 335M. From what I was told, it sounded like 540M>335M>8800GT, though only slightly, like the incremental differences between GTS250>9800GTX+>9800GTX>9800GT>8800GT. Because you never stated what the minimum requirements were, I assumed you were assuming and pointed out what I was told. Thanks for the particulars. I'm not going to remember them but at least I know that 335M is not > 8800GT, no matter how slight.
No, it isn't. GT 540M is slower than even the 8800 GTS 320mb. That GPU is almost 5 years old...
GTS250 has 128 SPs @ 738mhz:
47.2 GTexels/sec Texture Fill rate
70.4 GB/sec memory bandwidth
vs.
GT 540M has 96 SPs @ 672mhz:
10.8 GTexels/sec Texture Fill rate
28.8 GB/sec memory bandwidth
Thanks for the info. I was simply going by what I was told about the 8800GT vs GT 335M almost two years ago and the 540M vs. 335M more recently without looking up the particulars. I was never comparing it to an 8800GTS though, which has always been faster than an 8800GT. Basically, when the M11x came available, people incorrectly said that the GPU was "equivalent" to the 8800GT derivatives that were all slightly faster than an 8800GT. I trusted that and assumed that the specs would back it up because you guys didn't show up and correct that info way back then.
Not only that, but you asked us to compare a GTX280 to a GT 540M.
I made it clear that I knew they weren't comparable in the way you insist on comparing them. I was saying that even if the GTX280 could do many times more FPS at the same (NOT MAX!) settings, as long as the 540M could do 25-30FPS with a DX11 effect or two, I wouldn't mind playing it there and was curious to see it (considering that I can't view the effects on the GTX280).
Listen, it sounds like you think GT 540M is adequate enough. So why even ask us for advice if you keep insisting it's good enough to run the game at 720P? Go ahead and buy the Alienware laptop -- it sure sounds like you made up your mind already anyway. However, it isn't going to be as fast as an 8800GT/GTS250/9800GTX+ and esp. not the GTX280.
You seem to think I'm making purchasing decisions. I bought the Alienware laptop a year and a half ago and the r3 with 540M is a warranty replacement. I've owned the GTX280 machine far longer. ALL I was doing was asking
out of curiosity if it was worth playing on the notebook due to it having DX11. I was curious because I was repeatedly told it was a console port stuck at DX9 and ran better than the original Crysis on the same hardware, which would imply that an 8800GT-class notebook was more than enough. I didn't play it on either system to know if the developers had met their stated goal of "having lower system requirements but still exceeding the original graphically." Also, you still seem to think I'm comparing "speed," when I am talking about feature sets. If I could run it at 25FPS with console-like settings + DX11 tesselation, I would, even if it ran 409FPS on the GTX280. I just want to see the tesselation. Got it? The only thing the speed is relevant to is whether or not it can be playable with DX11 features at all, which I'm being told it can't. Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.
The fact that you think a gt335 or a gt540m could top an 8800gts suggests that you don't know the first thing about gpus.
The fact that you don't know the first thing about gpus suggest that you are at least partially conscious that you don't know the first thing about gpus, unless you're some sort of cartoon character.
So why are you arguing about gpus with someone who's been here 10 years?
The last post of his I had replied to with thanks and agreement, so who's arguing? He stated it in such a way that it sounded like an assumption so I replied with what I had been told. I *NEVER* compared it to an 8800GTS, which surpassed the 8800GT when they released the G92-based version with 512/1024MB.
Oh, and did you forget to look at my join date?