Question about X1600 Pro

[I'mAMac]

Does anyone if the how much the x1600 can be overclocked? The x1900's i hear can be oc'd quite a bit and i was wondering if this was the same thing.

[Lord Blackadder]

There are a number of overclocking sites you can Google and find a wealth of info...but be careful - overclocking an embedded card like the X1600 in the iMac is risky. Burn it up and it's new logic board time...:(

[I'mAMac]

Will it run games like Battlefield 2 and Call of Duty 2 ok?

[BlizzardBomb]

Will it run games like Battlefield 2 and Call of Duty 2 ok?

Yes. Should play nicely at medium settings. Oh and btw, the iMac doesn't have an X1600 Pro, just an X1600.

[milozauckerman]

An X1600 Mobility, actually.

[I'mAMac]

An X1600 Mobility, actually.
Is that worse?

[Chone]

Is that worse?

Of course.

Pretty lame for a desktop computer.

[I'mAMac]

Of course.

Pretty lame for a desktop computer.
Do you think it is worse than the x1300 pro?

[milozauckerman]

The x1600 mobility isn't terrible by Apple standards - I don't believe it's significantly less capable than the 7300GT that a Mac Pro comes with, for instance (matching RAM to RAM - 256MB x1600 vs. 256 7300GT).

It's a mid-grade laptop card (x1300-x1600-x1800 is the line, I believe) and a low-end desktop card.

[Chone]

The x1600 mobility isn't terrible by Apple standards - I don't believe it's significantly less capable than the 7300GT that a Mac Pro comes with, for instance (matching RAM to RAM - 256MB x1600 vs. 256 7300GT).

It's a mid-grade laptop card (x1300-x1600-x1800 is the line, I believe) and a low-end desktop card.

If you knew the least thing about graphics cards you would know VRAM means absolutely nothing, yeah sure you could compare a 512MB 6200 to a X1950XT 512MB if we go by that.

[Lord Blackadder]

If you knew the least thing about graphics cards you would know VRAM means absolutely nothing, yeah sure you could compare a 512MB 6200 to a X1950XT 512MB if we go by that.

Try behing helpful for a change instead of cutting other people down.

To address the question - the X1600 in the iMac is a Mobility chip, which (in a nutshel) means lower performance than the desktop-based X1600 series cards. Laptop cards usually have high heat tolerances but their clock and memory speeds are reduced to make the more efficient. You can overclock them to get additional performance but I can't recommend that, since damaging the card means a whole new logic board with the iMac.

However, it's still a pretty good card and will compare well with the Mac Pro's 7300GT in most circumstances. It's also better than an X1300. The Nvidia card that it competes directly with on the desktop is the 7600 series, which is superior, but that card is not available on the Mac.

Battlefield 2 and CoD 2 should run well.

[Spanky Deluxe]

The X1600 is *better* than the 7300GT. Its a mid end card compared to a low end card. The 7300GT can sometimes performa on a par as the X1600 due to having four processors clocked at 2.66Ghz to pick up the slack.

[IEatApples]

So...

My ATI Radeon X600 XT is basically crap then? :(

[Spanky Deluxe]

So...

My ATI Radeon X600 XT is basically crap then? :(

No! Its a perfectly decent card and probably performs better than the 7300GT. The X600 XT was a top end middle ranged card from the previous generation if that makes sense. Have a look over at Toms Hardware's VGA charts to see how cards compare. :)

[stapler]

Try behing helpful for a change instead of cutting other people down.
Spreading misinformation isn't exactly a great thing to be doing either.The GPU manufacturers have people well enough convinced that GPU RAM is the end-all answer for speed, we don't need anybody else spreading that crap.

[Egomaniac]

My wife has a 20" Intel iMac, and I have a Mac Pro with a 7300 (still waiting for my X1900 kit to ship...). We both play World of Warcraft, and I assure you that at least in WoW her cute little iMac annihilates my mighty Mac Pro in the graphics department. She has almost all of the graphics options turned up to max, whereas I had to turn off most of the eye candy and crank my resolution down just to get an acceptable framerate.

The X1600 certainly isn't top-of-the-line, but it's a decent card, and far better for gaming than the 7300.

[milozauckerman]

Who said VRAM was the end-all of performance? What I said was that you need to compare to already-similar cards in similar VRAM configurations.

If you can't read that, not my problem.

[stapler]

It isn't significantly less capable, but that has little to do with the RAM.

[thebeephaha]

The X1600 Pro Mobility has the same stock core clocks as the desktop version, the only difference in Apple's case is they undercock the cores to ease on power and heat issues.

My MacBook Pro is running about 310/290 but I can overclock it using ATI tool in windows to about 400/400, anything higher and the frame rates actually drop. The thing is, the card is rated from ATI at 470/470 stock.

Soooo it really depends...

Lets put it this way, in windows I can run:
-Counter Strike Source / Half Life 2 / HL2 Episode One
-F.E.A.R.
-Oblivion

The list goes on...

In OSX I can run Quake 4, Halo, and yea thats all I've tried, but I've had no complaints to what the X1600 can do.

[IEatApples]

No! Its a perfectly decent card and probably performs better than the 7300GT. The X600 XT was a top end middle ranged card from the previous generation if that makes sense. Have a look over at Toms Hardware's VGA charts to see how cards compare. :)Thanks! I've had a look now, but from what I see, the X600 XT is even more crap than I thought!? Isn't it?
All I really want to know is CAN IT RUN HEROES V (http://www.freeverse.com/heroes5/) when it arrives for the Mac? ... Yes I understand that the game is still under development, but what do YOU think? Will it work :confused:

If it does: :) :D :cool:
If it doesn't: :eek: :( :mad:

[thebeephaha]

Uh... X1600 not X600 people...

[Lord Blackadder]

OK, I'll put this as simply as possible:

The X1600 cards in the Intel Macs will play games well.

They aren't the best cards for gaming but they get the job done for all but hardcore gamers - just like any mid-level card.

So don't worry. ;)

[I'mAMac]

ok good :) thx

[I'mAMac]

ok thx. I just wanted to make sure it was better than the x1300 pro i had in my last comp :)

[Chone]

Try behing helpful for a change instead of cutting other people down.

Heh, sorry all, I just been under a lot of stress lately, too much going on right now and I can get irritated easily not because of people not knowing stuff, the forums are here to know and help, but because I just need an outlet.

apologies :o

[I'mAMac]

Its ok. When i'm in a bad mood im mad at everyone too. Espceially when people are stupid. (like my cousin :confused: :confused: )

[waddmyster]

Hi, i am new to these forums and i have been reading through some of them and they are all up to date which encourages me to ask this question :D. I have an X1600 (stated in title) in Crossfire with another X1600 pro. I was hoping for some decent frame rates in games but they are pathetic!! My old comp had a ATI 9800XT and that was almost as good!! It is in crossfire mode because i checked on the Catalyst Control Centre, so i just dont know if i am doing something wrong, or weather its just that the X1600 is a pile of poo. For example i get 30Frames per second on BF2 in max graphics and 800by600 res, all while they are set in crossfire mode!! I cannot believe this because my old comp was able to do that with the 9800XT. Please if anyone can help i would really apreciate it. Btw, my pc is: AMD Athlon 4600+ X2, 2gb ram, ATI X1600 Pro 512mb Crossfire eedition, ATI X1600 Pro 512mb Crossfire Ready and a "Sapphire Pure Crossfire Advantage Radeon Xpress 200 PC-A9RD480ADv" Motherboard. So, if this is as good as the X1600 gets, then i would prefer just the one X1900XTX my self :D only £50 more than the X1600 crossfire setup.

[IEatApples]

Uh... X1600 not X600 people...Yes I know :o :D
Sorry for hijacking your thread :p ;)
I'm just getting mad about waiting for that game :)

[Lord Blackadder]

...I have an X1600 (stated in title) in Crossfire with another X1600 pro. I was hoping for some decent frame rates in games but they are pathetic!!...etc.

I don't own an SLI or Crossfire setup, but IMHO you should take the money spent on those two X1600s and buy one X1900 - singe video cards are less finicky. Maybe someone around here with more dual vid card experience can say more.

[storage]

Maybe I missed something in this thread, but why does Apple say the 7300GT in the 24" iMac performs better than the X1600 in the 20"? While people here say the iMac annihilates (etc) a Mac Pro with a 7300GT?

[Lord Blackadder]

I'll reserve judgement until we see some benchmarks from Barefeats, but on paper the X1600 should outperform the GeForce 7300.

[waddmyster]

Thankyou Lordblackadder, i'll take yr advice and save up 4 the X1900. :( (money,money,money)

[bradz_id]

The X1600 mobility and the 7300GT are very similar in performance. The reason for the change is that AMD now own ATi and Intel don't want Apple supporting them so Apple will transition over to Nvidia chips to suck up Intel's ass.

[Zwhaler]

Will it run games like Battlefield 2 and Call of Duty 2 ok?

I own Call of Duty 2 and I can run it with everthing on full. Full resolution, AntiAliasing at 4X, All 3 texture settings at "extra" (which is better than high) dynamic lights on high and everything else on high or full. And it gets great framerates.

Do you think it is worse than the x1300 pro?

My friend owns the X1300 Pro in his Dell (he also has a 20" screen) and it is horrible. I can run everything in Call of Duty 2 on full settings at native resolution (1680x1050) and his computer cant even handle native resolution with all the settings turned completely off... well it can but it gets 5-6 frames per second. Now that is sad...

X1600 is loads better.

[Erasmus]

The X1600 mobility and the 7300GT are very similar in performance. The reason for the change is that AMD now own ATi and Intel don't want Apple supporting them so Apple will transition over to Nvidia chips to suck up Intel's ass.

I'm sure Intel couldn't care less whether Apple uses ATI or nvidia graphics cards, because Intel doesn't make GPUs, and Apple uses Intel CPUs. If Intel dared put pressure on Apple to move to nvidia, which they never would because Intel hates nvidia just as much as it does AMD/ATI, Apple would just move to AMD, and the AMD CEO would be extremely happy.

ATI's graphics cards seem to be outstripping nvidia's. Yes, nvidia is the only company at the moment with a DX10 GPU, but everyone knows that ATI's R600 is going to own it, and will most likely defeat nvidia's mid generation upgrade as well. Add the fact that there are no DX10 games out yet, and we have everyone waiting for ATI's R600. This quite possibly includes Apple, as they wait for something to pair with dual Clovertowns in the new 8 core revision of the Mac Pro.

Apple will always use what it deems best for the user, and what it deems best for its profits, which are inevitably one and the same. If ATI's cards are the best, Apple will use them, as they always have, and vice versa.

The idea that Apple will only use nvidia's cards in the future to "suck up Intel's ass" is a stupid, ignorant, trollish comment.