PDA

View Full Version : Macbook [Pro] Ati Mobility x1600 ?!?




fre:k
Jan 17, 2006, 06:08 AM
I think you should really stop the screaming. We all know the old Powerbook tried to be the state of the art in perfromance - used by designers, architects, photographers, etc etc - it allways failed the last years. I personally own a G4 1.25 PB and I know how slow it is - !! I only wanna discuss the hardware !!! I love mac !!!

The fact that apple builds in a x1600 in a imac is one thing - still sad because there x1600XT models out there... (apple sticks for Ati bigtime now as it seems) - so thats a first ripoff! They bring out a midranged model without using the best ingredients :mad:

Now to the MACBOOK PRO :o - it will ship in February - in a month i guess from now - its equipped with a Ati Mobility x1600 a card which isn't usable for heavy graphics. The mobility is slower then the imac one dont forget that!

I do really want that apple opens his eyes and realises that they should finally give customers good products to fair prices!

There should be the possibility to get a real PRO macbook - upgrade for REALLY SMALL money to a better graphic card as soon as they handle the heat issue! UPGRADE PRICES of apple are idiotic !!! we get ripped off nonstop :mad:

WiSh: :D

A 15.4 or 17 model with the Powerbook screen - who need the isight - its A WORKIN MACHINE GOD'S SAKE - FW800 and all the rest they forgot ON PURPOSE - !!! with a Ati Mobility X800 with 256 bit-interface and decent bus and chipclockspeeds!!! with the dual 2GHZ form the imac - SINCE WHEN ARE IMACS SUPPOSED TO BE FASTER THEN POWERBOOK or MACBOOK PRO ?

A Ati Mobility X800 is out there - its the PRO CARD!!! so put it in ur MACBOOK [PRO] or rename it to MACBOOK !!!!! yes you read right i dont talk bout a mobility x1800 its the " old " mobility x800. If u know how to read specs - you know that this card burns the x1600 in pieces! ITS BETTER AT EVERYTHING - rather "old" then slow !!! CARE MORE BOUT UR PRODUCTS APPLE - specially now Lmao


just one link - ull find more http://www.ati.com/products/MobilityRadeonx800/index.html

if apple starts thinking - why not use this maybe lol http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28311

the real Ati Mobility X1800 - the pure power - but the X800 would do for the start............



edesignuk
Jan 17, 2006, 06:13 AM
It's **** like this that has kept me mostly away from these forums since MWSF :rolleyes:

BTW, good of you to make a whole new thread for your rant (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2056386&postcount=31), thanks so much.

mercuryjones
Jan 17, 2006, 06:17 AM
Okay, I'll bite.

Exactly why do you need an X800 card in a WORKING machine, as you put it? Not that it wouldn't be nice for it to be a gaming machine as well, but from the way you state everything, you would be using it for WORK, not play.

As for the FW800, it would definately be a nice addition, but taking away the iSight camera would be a bad decision, in my opinion. I'm sure there are people out there that use this to collaborate on projects, via the camera. I know I would, since a face to face meeting is more important to some people, versus simple instant messaging.

I think that the current MBP is a kickass Mac at this point, and I can see Apple offering upgrades down the line, once they get all the quirks hammered out.

fre:k
Jan 17, 2006, 06:33 AM
I do some research bout whats comin out - thats all - if i have got enough info to state a fact - why shouldnt I share it - its not bout whats the best graphic cards this time - read my post closer please!

As a fact you know that the old imac used the nvidia 5200 chip first - a chip which cost bout 60 $ that time - a chip for nothing. then they put the 9600 into it and it boosted the whole system up - they ran huge campaign to show HOW good there new imac is now.... etc etc

A fast system is a balanced system - all i say that if i have a dualcore cpu & fast clocked ram (hope it is good one hehe) etc - which is awesome i need a decent graphic card too - because it will increase the performance massiv - not in ripping itunes of course - but in all graphic related stuff - dont use mac for gamin ...

i dont get one thing - why are people happy with whatever mac does - if its not good enough when you start comparing IT SHOULD be mentioned :cool: - "we still got OS X - thats enough" - isnt enough to me

BakedBeans
Jan 17, 2006, 06:37 AM
Personally im pissed that the macbook pro hasnt got a gforce 4500 in it

homerjward
Jan 17, 2006, 06:49 AM
Personally im pissed that the macbook pro hasnt got a gforce 4500 in it
do they even make a quadro go 4500? (or is there a geforce 4500 im not aware of?)

dell's first core duo machine has a 7800, an amazing video card, but it's the size of a brick. you can't expect to cram everything you want into a 1" form factor, and the X1600 is, i guess, a good balance of heat/power and performance.

BornAgainMac
Jan 17, 2006, 06:53 AM
I am not very knowledgable about video card performance. The vendor sites make even the lowest entry card sound fast. Many websites focus on graphic cards using Windows. I don't know if I can translate the performance to a Mac since they may be optimized for DirectX or something.

I am sure speed isn't the only criteria. It is cost, watt usage, and availability. Also I wonder what the difference would be with a MacBook Pro with 128 MB of video memory vs 256 MB of video memory when using a 30 inch display. I have the display but how much faster the game will perform. I use my Mac for games but I don't know if it is worth the extra money.

BakedBeans
Jan 17, 2006, 06:55 AM
do they even make a quadro go 4500? (or is there a geforce 4500 im not aware of?)

dell's first core duo machine has a 7800, an amazing video card, but it's the size of a brick. you can't expect to cram everything you want into a 1" form factor, and the X1600 is, i guess, a good balance of heat/power and performance.

it was sarcasm :)

4500 in the powermac is really expensive - im just sick of all the complaining...

apple release something great and these ....... complain about it.

fre:k
Jan 17, 2006, 07:05 AM
do they even make a quadro go 4500? (or is there a geforce 4500 im not aware of?)

dell's first core duo machine has a 7800, an amazing video card, but it's the size of a brick. you can't expect to cram everything you want into a 1" form factor, and the X1600 is, i guess, a good balance of heat/power and performance.

baked beans is a bit sarcastic - missing the point tough :cool:

there ain't quadro go - cause that really would be too much - would be like wanting a mobility X1900 XT crossfired.... 1000 $ cards in a laptop -:o

yeah... the heat issue and noise etc - are all big - and i agree the mobility X1600 is a decent card to start off. A possible faster card in Rev.B and 17 inch Macbook Pro would be nice -- thats all -- 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 months ? enough time i guess - if you read testarticles on the X1600 you will see that tester&xperts do think it's not good enough for it's price - Ati made it cheaper - they will speed it up to 1600XT - and relaunch it as X1700, which should finally be the right performance for the right money at the right time...

PS: 128 vs 256 depends on few facts ! if the clockspeeds and the RAM used are the same - i would go for the larger one... if clockspeed are lower and RAM is slower .. take 128 - since Ati is direct producing for apple i cant beleive that they put more but slower RAM onto the card - 256!

jacobj
Jan 17, 2006, 07:10 AM
The cards you are talking about require some serious power and cooling. The X1600 is the perfect partner to the Duo processors.

I have mentioned similar points before, but here are my thoughts amalgamated:

1. A Pro notebook is not a gaming machine and it is not a desktop.
2. A Pro wants power/cost value, i.e. a great CPU but not the latest and greatest because the performance gain just doesn't justify the cost. The same holds true of a graphics card.
3. Genuine mobility. A pro user will be taking their notebook almost everywhere. Therefore an XPS type brick just doesn't hold any sway.
4. Battery Life.

Now let's look at the MBP.

1. It has the top mid-range CPU. Good value for money there.
2. It has the mobility X1600. A low powered speedy GPU. A better GPU would eat battery and require more cooling which would in turn require a larger form factor and more weight.


A simple argument really: the GPUs that are being discussed here are for gamers that don't mind lugging a beast of a laptop around because they need the fastest greatest machine they can afford. A pro on the other hand would think, what the hell does this big beast give me that justifies my compressed spine.

nomad01
Jan 17, 2006, 07:16 AM
1. A Pro notebook is not a gaming machine and it is not a desktop.


Amen.

My old 1.33 12" Powerbook beat the pants off my 1.5GHz pentium 4 machine in every aspect (apart from gaming as I don't run games on either machine). I was in awe of the performance.

Now the new Intel MacBooks are faster, dual core and with a better graphics card. I'm wetting my pants with excitement! I seriously don't see what there is to complain about.

mercuryjones
Jan 17, 2006, 08:00 AM
I do some research bout whats comin out - thats all - if i have got enough info to state a fact - why shouldnt I share it - its not bout whats the best graphic cards this time - read my post closer please!

As a fact you know that the old imac used the nvidia 5200 chip first - a chip which cost bout 60 $ that time - a chip for nothing. then they put the 9600 into it and it boosted the whole system up - they ran huge campaign to show HOW good there new imac is now.... etc etc

A fast system is a balanced system - all i say that if i have a dualcore cpu & fast clocked ram (hope it is good one hehe) etc - which is awesome i need a decent graphic card too - because it will increase the performance massiv - not in ripping itunes of course - but in all graphic related stuff - dont use mac for gamin ...

i dont get one thing - why are people happy with whatever mac does - if its not good enough when you start comparing IT SHOULD be mentioned :cool: - "we still got OS X - thats enough" - isnt enough to me

First off, just how old are you? I mean, you type like an excited (or is that Xcited) 13 year old. If you aren't, I apologize. Learn to type in a clear concise format when posting a message. I can understand the quick typing when instant messaging, but in a forum, you could do better.

Okay, grammar rant out of the way, like evevryone is saying, Apple had to make some concessions in order to get all that hardware goodness in a 1" format. So, the video card isn't top of the line? Big deal, it's still a great card for getting stuff done. Dell can include the top of the line card in their top of the line systems, because they build huge freaking beasts of machines that are designed to fry your future kiddies ;) If you're okay with sterilization, then go for it.

Oh, and a fast system is not a balanced system. A fast system is a fast system. I can tell you right now, that not everyone wants or needs a 7800 or 1800 card in a laptop. Just because you do, doesn't mean everyone else does.

fre:k
Jan 17, 2006, 11:25 AM
first i'm not a native english speaking person :p

second - a fast system is a fast system if the ingredients are balanced!!! - I still don't think you understand what i am saying - macbook pro is pretty balanced anyway - fast is fast = true bigtime... nvm

someone seen a Photoshop CS2 Bench ... i really do wonder if the new ones are really that much faster - since its not a "universal" software - -

to make my question clearer - how much performance goes lost when the software isn't universal...:confused: is maybe the new one only a tiny bit faster then the old one ... I saw Steves face when he opened Photoshop - he was annoyed hehe

Airforce
Jan 17, 2006, 11:36 AM
Also I wonder what the difference would be with a MacBook Pro with 128 MB of video memory vs 256 MB of video memory when using a 30 inch display. I have the display but how much faster the game will perform. I use my Mac for games but I don't know if it is worth the extra money.

Gaming on a 30 inch display with an x1600? heh....

Anyways, at normal resolutions (1024x768, 1280x1024), You won't notice a difference....It will be a few FPS, IF THAT....Gaming at anything higher than 1280x1024 is out of the question anyways, well....unless you are talking about WoW or something not too intense.

jacobj
Jan 17, 2006, 12:32 PM
Gaming on a 30 inch display with an x1600? heh....

Anyways, at normal resolutions (1024x768, 1280x1024), You won't notice a difference....It will be a few FPS, IF THAT....Gaming at anything higher than 1280x1024 is out of the question anyways, well....unless you are talking about WoW or something not too intense.

I went to the 1.83 MBP because it had the 256MB of RAM. I then realised that I didn't have a clue as to whether or not it made that much difference. :eek:

Do we have any experts here that can tell me when I'll notice the advantage of 256MB over 128MB?

Airforce
Jan 17, 2006, 12:47 PM
Do we have any experts here that can tell me when I'll notice the advantage of 256MB over 128MB?

You won't. I've followed PC graphics for an insane amount of time. If I'm not an expert, then I'd like to know what qualifies as one ;)

jacobj
Jan 17, 2006, 12:48 PM
You won't. I've followed PC graphics for an insane amount of time. If I'm not an expert, then I'd like to know what qualifies as one ;)

So why the difference? Why am I not getting the 1.6GHz model instead.. have I wasted £400

Edit: I have just configured a MacBook 1.67GHz and added to 1GB 1 DIMM and the HD to 100GB and the difference is £140.. add the extra processing speed and the 256MB RAM on the GPU is not really costing me that much I suppose

1nsanity
Jan 17, 2006, 09:37 PM
This guy get'S it right imho. Maybe not everything but its a good read.

Comparing the new macbooks to new intel dual core setups:

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2725

carlos700
Jan 17, 2006, 10:02 PM
One other aspect is the NVIDIA GeForce Go7800 GTX would make the MacBook Pro extremely thicker AND more expensive. On many websites, upgrading to the NVIDIA GeForce Go7800 GTX from a standard Go6800 is almost $450! :eek: I would take an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 over that any day.

Daedalus256
Jan 17, 2006, 10:07 PM
I was under the impression that the X1xxx line of Radeons were much faster and had more support for newer shaders than the x(number) series. The X1xxx line was built to compete against the Geforce 7 series so I'd imagine they're faster.

Overally I think that a Mobility X1600 is PLENTY of graphics power for a laptop. No one is probably going to be running something SUPER intensive on a laptop to begin with.

Airforce
Jan 17, 2006, 10:11 PM
The X1xxx line was built to compete against the Geforce 7 series so I'd imagine they're faster.

The ATI x1800 xl and xt were built to compete with the GeForce 7800GT/GTX

The ATI x1900 was built to compete with the Geforce 7900

The x1600 doesn't involve these as it's a midrange card. ( same with the x1300 which is a budget card)

It was made to compete with cards such as the GeForce 6600GT.

Daedalus256
Jan 17, 2006, 10:18 PM
Well in that case, most PC laptops are shipping with (At VERY high end) GF 6600s in them. Most still run Radeon 9700 128MB. So the x1600 is still definitely fit to run at the high-end laptop range.

Airforce
Jan 17, 2006, 10:21 PM
Well in that case, most PC laptops are shipping with (At VERY high end) GF 6600s in them. Most still run Radeon 9700 128MB. So the x1600 is still definitely fit to run at the high-end laptop range.

Now this depends on what kind of laptop we are talking. As a lightweight option, it is fine in the high end range. Heat and battery life come into consideration, so sacrifices on the performance end are made.

As a DTR(desktop replacement), it wouldn't be.

The x1600 is fine for the Macbook. It isn't a gaming laptop. :)

nightdweller25
Jan 17, 2006, 10:42 PM
loser.

Catfish_Man
Jan 18, 2006, 01:06 AM
Uh, last I heard the X1600 mobility was ATI's best in its category (and very competitive with nVidia's stuff). Is the OP just complaining that it's not a power sucking desktop-replacement 7800/x1800 or something?

NeuronBasher
Jan 18, 2006, 08:33 AM
Uh, last I heard the X1600 mobility was ATI's best in its category (and very competitive with nVidia's stuff). Is the OP just complaining that it's not a power sucking desktop-replacement 7800/x1800 or something?

That's pretty much what I got out of it, yes. Personally, I'm thrilled with the choice of the X1600. The X1600 is a great choice for the size of the 15" MBP. You're not going to get a 7800/7900/x1800 in a 1" thick machine.

jofarmer
Jan 18, 2006, 11:17 AM
Folks.

I am new to this forum, but let me share my 2cents. I ordered the 1,67GHz MacBook right after it was announced, and was not very shure, if that was the smart thing to do, since I knew little to nothing about hardware and performance. But I am now. Why?

Well, what do I expect from this laptop? The best thing I could dream of was that

a) the CPU and GPU have silent cooling (check)
b) it can work with everything i could dream to throw at it within the next three years at least (lets be honest, anyone who can afford a new mac more often ist quite a lucky bastard) (check?)

The most demanding time-critical task I could imagine nedding my laptop for would be watching 1080p HD H.264 movies on it. Whatever video standarts there are coming, this is top of line. And wow, the macBoook does exactly this. And quite impressing might I say. (check!)

When you remember that Apple stated system requirement like a dual 2GHz G5 for that, you should be impressed with the macBook's performance. I don't think, the slight increase of frontside bus speed compared to the G5 will make up for the less processor speed.

So obviously Apple is using the H.264 hardware decoding capabilities of the ATI GPU. Much rejoicing on my side. What more do you want? I mean seriously, even for gaming, this card has rolls-royce-like "sufficient" power. IF you must buy a mac for gaming.

Just my 2cents.

Lord Blackadder
Jan 18, 2006, 11:53 AM
The two biggest reasons that Apple has not installed a Radeon X800/X1800 mobility card is power consumption and heat. Apple is not in the business of building "desktop replacement" laptops; Apple requires true mobility - small size, low power consumption and cool running - from all its portables.

An X800/X1800 mobility might require active cooling and would certainly kill battery life. PC fanboys sneer about the X1600 but most PC fanboys have to plug their DTR laptop into the wall to run it and can't put it safely on their laps.

Laptops will never have the same performance as desktops, and trying to make them too close will sacrifice the things that make them useful - small size and long battery life.

if Apple puts a better GPU in the (possibly) upcoming 17" MacBook then it will be because they can do it without big losses in mobility.

starstreak
Jan 25, 2006, 12:06 PM
"Apple is not in the business of building "desktop replacement" laptops; Apple requires true mobility - small size, low power consumption and cool running - from all its portables."

While they wont say its a desktop replacement, that term has only been used alot within the last two years. Since Apple is normaly behind pcs on product ""naming" I would consider this as a desktop replacement. Maybe the 17in is closer, but give it a few months and that too will be a dual core. Once Apple threw down the gauntlet by saying its up to 4x faster they are now butting it in the same league as the fastest powerbooks.

As far as "Apple requires true mobility - small size, low power consumption and cool running - from all its portables."
Hahahahah!!!!!!!!!!! You havent owned a 12in powerbook.