Radeon 9700 Mobility. How fast?

Discussion in 'Games' started by invaLPsion, Apr 21, 2004.

  1. invaLPsion macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #1
    Does anybody know how fast the 9700 is in the new powerbooks? Is it the 390MHz version or the 450MHz? (I hope it's the fast one)

    Either way, I can't wait to play games like Warcraft 3, UT2K4, and Call of Duty on my new mobile gaming rig. (See specs below) :D
     
  2. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #2
    Here's a decent review on the card:

    http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/mr9700/

    The review says that the card is equilvent to a dekstop Radeon 9600 XT, and as a owner of a desktop Radeon 9600 XT, I can say that most every game play great at 1280x1024.
     
  3. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #3

    It's Normal 9600 Pro really.. speedwise... It will run most games well.
     
  4. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #4

    It's not like there really is much difference between a 9600 pro and 9600 XT anyways.

    The Radeon Mobile 9700 is limited by only having 4 pipelines, unlike the 9700 desktop version which has 8 pipelines.
     
  5. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #5
    According to the developer notes published today, the GPU is clocked at 392MHz and the Ram is 202 MHz DDR (effectively 404 MHz). The memory interface to the GPU is 128 bit.

    This is excellent. It is in 9600 Pro territory here. The 9600 XT is clocked at 500MHz I believe.

    Combined with the 1.5 GHz G4 this should be very peppy. In UT2004 terms, you should see 30-35 fps in native resolution bot matches in medium/high detail.

    Ths CPU is still the bottleneck though.

    :(

    With a G5, this laptop would own every single portable the wintel world has to offer. Even those flouro-green plastic alienware rigs.
     
  6. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #6

    My Radeon 9600 XT is stock at 500Mhz GPU, and 600Mhz Memory.
    Of course I have it overclocked to 560Mhz GPU and 660Mhz Memory :D

    I am surprised that the Mobile Radeon 9700 specs are so low.
    I wonder if Apple down clocked it some??
     
  7. invaLPsion thread starter macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #7
    They did, the GPU can run at 450MHz. :(

    The 9700 should be enough to get 40-60 FPS or more on UT2K4 on regular matches with no bots, which is what I would play.

    Should still be one kickass gaming machine.... :)
     
  8. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #8
    Hmm... isn't Ati 9800Pro only like 380Mhz?
    Probably totally different structure cuz it sure as hell beats 9700 and 9600 :)
     
  9. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #9
    Goodluck getting that in Onslaught games.
     
  10. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #10
    yes.

    it's a very different (but not totally different) structure. The 9800 and 9800 pro have 2x the pixel pipelines of the 9600 pro desktop and the 9700 mobile.
    They're on different levels completely.


    Putting a single, declocked G5 into a laptop would actually slow it down in relation to the 1.5 G4...in everything except 64-bit stuff (which is almost nothing).
    You've clearly never played a heavy game on a newer mobile PC. the athlon 64 notebooks, or the new dell Inspiron XPS just KILL.

    i mean, really:

    Inspiron XPS
    Intel Pentium 4 3.4-GHz processor
    ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 with 128MB DDR Memory
    1GB DDR 400-MHz dual-channel memory
    60GB 7,200-rpm hard drive
    Swappable DVD+RW optical drive
    15.4-inch WUXGA display (1920x1200) with 16:10 aspect ratio
    DVI output
    Integrated Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
    Gigabit Ethernet
    Subwoofer integrated into battery
    4-pin IEEE 1394

    that's quite a loaded mobile machine for $3,350

    from apple, a fully-loaded new 17" G4 powerbook:
    • 1.5GHz PowerPC G4 with 128MB Graphics Memory upgrade
    • 1GB DDR333 SDRAM - 2 SO-DIMMs
    • 80GB Ultra ATA drive @ 5400rpm (upgraded will only go to 5,400!)
    • SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
    • AirPort Extreme Card
    • Backlit Keyboard/
    • 17-inch TFT Display (1440x900)
    $3,200

    Compromises between the two:

    PC costs 150 dollars more, has 20 less GB of HDD standard (it can be upgraded, though), can't run OS X, has smaller (but higher resolution) screen, and only has 1 firewire 400 port

    Mac has a larger, but considerably slower,hard drive. cannot swap out CD drive with newer or different models as the dell can. Cannot display full HD video signal (as the dell can) for those who might need it, RAM is single-channel and only 333mhz, computer is just slow in a direct comparison
     
  11. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #11
    oh, and the dell apparently has 200 dollars instant rebate
     
  12. invaLPsion thread starter macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #12
    You forgot to mention that the XPS weighs like 12lbs and has heat vents on the side and back. It truly is a desktop replacement, because it is a desktop!
    :D
     
  13. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #13
    it weighs 8.9 pounds with the bigger battery installed.

    the PowerBook weighs 6.9 pounds


    You want to see a REAL machine?

    http://www.go-l.com/
     
  14. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #14

    Wow, I like how the extreme version costs $7800! :eek:
     
  15. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #15
    The G5 would offer better FSB and better/faster memory performance. A G5 is faster clock for clock.

    The Dell you list is kinda gross. That is not a laptop. You can get the eMachines A64 3000+ widescreen, smaller and lighter, plus a DVD writer and 9600 for $2200 CDN!!! If you are going to buy depreciating garbage like a Dell - why pay a premium?

    I review PC and Mac games on a variety of platforms. I keep a 3.2GHz P4 with 9800 Pro for games. I know plenty about performance.

    Considerably slower? Are you running Oracle on this thing? If it's fast enough to capture DV (it is) than it is fast enough for anything else. The Dell does not use the Intel 875P chipset, so it is also single channel.

    I think the G4 1.5 will compare nicely to a Centrino at the same speed with similar specs. Barefeats has some numbers from the new 1.33 GHz.
     
  16. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #16
    I like how that site totally ripped off apple's site design.
    That laptop starts at 4k and I wouldn't trust them with that kinda money.

    Having said that, yes PCs are still ahead. Fastest Intel still is faster than DUAL G5 in MOST apps. And laptops don't even compare.
    Anyone who thinks here that 17" pbook can compare to Dell XPS laptop speedwise, needs a reality check.
    Now having said that, I'd still take Pbook cuz it's slick, runs GOOD OS and still has plenty of power that I'd need. Buying a laptop for games is kinda dumb anyways.
     
  17. legion macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    #17
    Some things:

    Barefeats did a comparison of the near lowest Centrino (1.3Ghz Pentium M) verses the previous top-o-line G4 PB and the Centrino outperformed the PB handily. The small speed-bumped new PB isn't going to compare much more favourably to the same 1.3 Centrino much less the currently shipping (for about 6 months now) 1.7 Centrino. Beginning of May is the shipping debut of the Dothan Centrinos starting at 1.8 (smaller fab(90nm), more power efficient, larger cache(2x), better vector unit) and the current, newly-released PBs are nowhere near them in performance. Heck, a 1.6Ghz Pentium M performs at near the same-level of a single 2Ghz G5 (actually better than) [personal comparisons from having a dual 2Ghz G5 and a 1.6 P-M in Photoshop and ProAudio tests]

    Second, capturing DV has more to do with drive speed than processors. DV is just passing data from tape to hard drive (it's already compresseed 5:1 for DV25.) Working with DigiBeta and 1:1 (uncompressed) material puts a strain on processors and busses (and even more strain on hard drive sustainable rates) because it is actually digitizing as it goes. Using DV capturing as a benchmark for processor performance (or system board) is ridiculous.

    And finally, server database apps like Oracle put a strain on I/O. They don't put much of a strain on processors, but file handling, hard drives, and system busses.
     
  18. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #18
    Interesting point. I agree about DV capturing. But I'd like to see the stats where 1.6 Centrino is faster than 2Ghz Single G5.
     
  19. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #19
    Duh! It was a reference to a drive speed comment. Thanks for not reading the previous post and stating the obvious. You get a gold star.
     
  20. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #20
    In UT2003 botmatches the Centrino was about 75% of the performance of the dual 2GHz - with a slower video card that may have been fill rate limited. The Centrino laptop tested was almost a match for the dual 1.8GHz G5 and certainly for the single.

    Centrino is a fine CPU - you won't get an argument from me.

    The 1.5 GHz PB is not appreciably faster in some games than previous model: UT2003/4 in particular. Maybe its a system bus bottleneck??? There are some nice pickups in Halo - almost playable on a Mac notebook.

    If I could get a decent metal Centrino I would be tempted to get one.

    http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html
    http://www.barefeats.com/al15.html
    http://www.barefeats.com/p4game.html
     
  21. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #21
    You know the SP and DP systems are pretty equivalent in games, right? Only the sound processing in OS X is handed over to the 2nd processor in games, which makes about a 2-4 FPS difference in performance between a SP 1.8 and a DP 1.8. So if it's almost a match for the DP 1.8, that doesn't make it a match for the SP 1.8 :) There were tons of biased game reviews against the SP vs DP systems since the stock 2.0 GHz G5s were benched against the stock SP 1.8s... and a Radeon 9600 creams a GeForce NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra.

    Also... the Pentium-M is the CPU, not the Centrino :p
     
  22. kallaway1 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    #22
    So would a centrino laptop actually be better for gaming than a powerbook then? Assuming you could find one with a decent graphics card (which I've been unable to do)... I plan on buying a laptop around three months from now and I want it to be relatively thin and and nice looking, but also able to handle World of Warcraft oooh-so-smoothly. I've been looking at IBM's t-41 and also the powerbook so far but I'd love to hear any other recommendations (except dell, hp or compaq :mad: bad experiences with all three).
     
  23. invaLPsion thread starter macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #23
    A new powerbook with a 9700 will without a doubt handle WoW smoothly. I've seen reports from beta testers saying that they achieved 30FPS or more an a dual 500MHz G4 with Radeon 7000.

    WoW's requirements will be well under the 1.5GHz G4 that a powerbook has to offer and well under the 128 megs of VRAM. WoW will be very playable on a new powerbook. Blizzard has always done a great job of ensuring playability of their games for ALL systems.
     
  24. invaLPsion thread starter macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #24
    WoW Playability

    To further my previous post, the current required specs for the Mac WoW beta are a 1GHz G4 and 64 megs of video ram. However, Blizzard announced that these system requirements will drop considerably, likely to 800MHz and 32 megs of VRAM.

    Don't you worry about playing WoW on a new powerbook... :) I'm not.
     
  25. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #25
    Compaq has a nice cheap one
    http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pr...2&sku_id=0665000FS10035092&catid=&newdeptid=1
    -this one uses the 9200 (essentially a RADEON 8500). UT2004 would play fine on this at medium settings at the native LCD resolution.

    but this one really stands out:
    http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pr...4&sku_id=0665000FS10039898&catid=&newdeptid=1
    Athlon64 with Radeon 9600

    Prices are CDN (sorry) take off about 30% for USD price.
     

Share This Page