2600XT (mini thread)

wakerider017

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 20, 2006
1,792
0
US of A
Sorry guys I am not going to read 500 posts to answer my question...

Does the iMac actually have a 2600XT instead of a 2600PRO?

And news about the card can be posted here so users don't have to spend 12hours reading that long thread...
 

qtx43

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2007
658
16
Sorry guys I am not going to read 500 posts to answer my question...

Does the iMac actually have a 2600XT instead of a 2600PRO?

And news about the card can be posted here so users don't have to spend 12hours reading that long thread...
If you go to ati.amd.com you'll see that ati makes a desktop 2600XT and and 2600PRO, and a mobile 2600 and 2600XT.

That is: There is no mobile 2600PRO, and despite Apple's specs saying they probably are mobile cards, not desktop cards. If you go to ati's specs for Macs, they have not been updated for the 2600 cards.

It's some custom mobile thing made for Apple, in between a PRO and XT, but a mobile version, so performance is probably approximated by a desktop PRO, so that's what they called it. Or maybe a little better. You're just going to have to wait for people to go to the bother of benchmarking it more thoroughly. Or do it yourself.
 

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
As a condensed version of the long thread:

the chip identifies itself as a Mobility HD 2600XT.
the engine is underclocked by 100MHz from the Mobility XT.
the RAM is underclocked by 15MHz.
the 3dmark06 comes in at 3643 compared to the full Mobility XT of 4002.

the desktop Pro part comes in so many variants and flavours that its difficult to make a performance judgment on it.
 

wakerider017

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 20, 2006
1,792
0
US of A
As a condensed version of the long thread:

the chip identifies itself as a Mobility HD 2600XT.
the engine is underclocked by 100MHz from the Mobility XT.
the RAM is underclocked by 15MHz.
the 3dmark06 comes in at 3643 compared to the full Mobility XT of 4002.

the desktop Pro part comes in so many variants and flavours that its difficult to make a performance judgment on it.
Awesome!

Does anyone know what the 7300GT in the last gen iMac scored in 3DMark06?
 

superspiffy

macrumors 6502a
Feb 6, 2007
736
0
the 3dmark06 comes in at 3643 compared to the full Mobility XT of 4002.

the desktop Pro part comes in so many variants and flavours that its difficult to make a performance judgment on it.
but is there a 3dmark score for the 2600 PRO? I know it's probably with the GDDR2 anyway
 

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
but is there a 3dmark score for the 2600 PRO? I know it's probably with the GDDR2 anyway
Yes. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41786

It scores 3788 and has the following specs:

MSI RX2600Pro, 600MHz core, 256MB DDR3, 1400MHz memory

Nearly identical to the Mobility XT in the iMac.

Interestingly PROs with DDR2 seem to score in the mid to upper 2000's whereas XTs with DDR4 do not score much above XTs with DDR3, so there is an engine limit. 2400XTs with DDR2 seem to score in the low 2000's or upper 1000's so they may be memory limited. It looks like DDR3 is the sweet spot. All 2600s seem to be firmware limited to 867MHz max engine clock.
 

shakastange

macrumors member
Jan 24, 2007
55
0
Maybe you should've read the 500 post thread. You would've seen that the previous iMac handily beat the new one in 3D benchmarks and games. Considering you have already ordered the new machine that might be unnecessary. But do check out www.barefeats.com for more benchmarks.
 

rds

macrumors regular
Aug 9, 2007
148
0
Maybe you should've read the 500 post thread. You would've seen that the previous iMac handily beat the new one in 3D benchmarks and games. Considering you have already ordered the new machine that might be unnecessary. But do check out www.barefeats.com for more benchmarks.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
 

imacdaddy

macrumors 6502a
Feb 2, 2006
662
0
They say it's an underclocked XT. The thread was actually a good read. One of the better threads here on MR. ;)
 

wakerider017

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 20, 2006
1,792
0
US of A
Maybe you should've read the 500 post thread. You would've seen that the previous iMac handily beat the new one in 3D benchmarks and games. Considering you have already ordered the new machine that might be unnecessary. But do check out www.barefeats.com for more benchmarks.
Ya, but I am betting that was the 7600GT, not the 7300GT which I owned...

Not really fair people are comparing the 7600GT to the 2600PRO HD...

The 7600GT was a BTO option...
 

pcorajr

macrumors 6502
Jun 6, 2007
311
0
Ya, but I am betting that was the 7600GT, not the 7300GT which I owned...

Not really fair people are comparing the 7600GT to the 2600PRO HD...

The 7600GT was a BTO option...
Exactly, i think people need to understand that the problem is not they card they choose to put in the computer, but the fact that they did not offer any BTO like they did with the white iMac.

Maybe in the future they will offer a revised model with the BTO. It sucks if they do but thats how it is in the technology world.
 

SiliconDioxide

macrumors member
May 15, 2007
48
0
I will sum up the new imac. If you are a heavy gamer or a gamer that wants to play new games at max resolutions and max settings, the new imac is not for you. Unfortunately there is no apple made computer for you now. So either wait for apple to update the vid cards in the imac and mac pro, get a pc, or pick up an imac knowing that you might have to scale the resolutions and settings down a bit.
 

fblack

macrumors 6502a
May 16, 2006
528
1
USA
Ya, but I am betting that was the 7600GT, not the 7300GT which I owned...

Not really fair people are comparing the 7600GT to the 2600PRO HD...

The 7600GT was a BTO option...
Actually it should be unfair to the 7600GT a year and a half old card v.s. a newer 2600XT card. The 2600XT is an adequate card, but its OSX drivers need tweaking and wether that will happen any time soon is speculation and debatable.
 

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
Actually it should be unfair to the 7600GT a year and a half old card v.s. a newer 2600XT card. The 2600XT is an adequate card, but its OSX drivers need tweaking and wether that will happen any time soon is speculation and debatable.
Very true. Its not just the OSX drivers that need work. The other problem is that the 2600 series uses a completely different architecture from the older X1600s. While there may be little or no improvement in older games, new ones optimized to the cards architecture should run better, theoretically.
 

AlexisV

macrumors 68000
Mar 12, 2007
1,602
95
Manchester, UK
Maybe you should've read the 500 post thread. You would've seen that the previous iMac handily beat the new one in 3D benchmarks and games. Considering you have already ordered the new machine that might be unnecessary. But do check out www.barefeats.com for more benchmarks.
New Catalyst drivers came out a week or so after the iMac release but we can't get our hands on them until Apple updates Bootcamp or ATI releases them.

All the Windows benchmarks are under out of date drivers.
 

panzer06

macrumors 68040
Sep 23, 2006
3,016
72
Kilrath
New Catalyst drivers came out a week or so after the iMac release but we can't get our hands on them until Apple updates Bootcamp or ATI releases them.

All the Windows benchmarks are under out of date drivers.
Has anyone tried using the straight ATI drivers?

We use the ATI drivers on the X1900 on our MacPro under Vista.

I know the nVidia drivers do not work on my SR MBP 2.2 under XP.