How much graphical performance does the new MBP have over the old one?

[Zadillo]

I don't know who's making up these distinctions, but "enthusiast" or "performance" is usually a synonym for a high end card, by companies at any rate (I think most people would just call it a high-end card). Maybe this site you're visiting is using somewhat non-standard language to describe them.

Not really............ notebookreview.com is probably the leading community now for notebook-related discussions.

On the notebook side at least, a distinction is made between "performance" cards and "high-end cards".

Usually that's because there's a difference in what is high-end in something that is still reasonably a "laptop", and those crazy 12 pound "laptops" with SLI 7950GTX Go setups and such.

-Zadillo

 

[Wolfpup]

Ah, but the 7600GT is mid-high end. I see where Wolfpup is comming from (sorta). He is of the ilk that if it isn't mid-high end or greater then it is pretty much low end.

I just go by the general consensus on tech sites. Mid-range is something that typically costs $100-200, and can run modern games at medium to high settings.

Granted, there's a lot of variation in low end parts. Obviously an x1600 is much better than Intel's 950, but at a certain point it kind of becomes irrelevant. You're not going to buy a low end card if you need 3D performance, whether it's just 1/16th the speed of a high end part, or 1/100.

 

[mopppish]

SHUT UP!
This new card looks to be about a 50-60% jump over the X1600.
Seems like it was a reasonable direction. Too bad that my C2D MBP has an X1600, but I'm sure that Apple would have many other issues (software, hardware, financial) if they upgraded the video cards every time there was an incremental advance.

 

[Zadillo]

Ah, but the 7600GT is mid-high end. I see where Wolfpup is comming from (sorta). He is of the ilk that if it isn't mid-high end or greater then it is pretty much low end.

Yeah. The point I disagree with him on is the idea that the Mobility X1600 is a low-end card, because it isn't classed that way by anyone in the notebook industry.

And in terms of real-world performance, as shown in the notebook performance charts I pasted above, the actual performance difference between a "mid-range X1600" and a machine with a GeForce Go 7700 is not so significant (about 400 3Dmarks in 3DMark05, for example).

 

[Zadillo]

I just go by the general consensus on tech sites. Mid-range is something that typically costs $100-200, and can run modern games at medium to high settings.

Granted, there's a lot of variation in low end parts. Obviously an x1600 is much better than Intel's 950, but at a certain point it kind of becomes irrelevant. You're not going to buy a low end card if you need 3D performance, whether it's just 1/16th the speed of a high end part, or 1/100.

Right, I fully understand.

I think the point I've been trying to make though is that, in terms of real-world performance, the gaming you can do on a machine with a Mobility X1600 and what you can do with a machine with a GeForce Go 7600GT or GeForce Go 7700 is not that difference. In real-world use, notebooks with those parts will play games pretty much the same; some will get a few more FPS on the X1600 and some will get a few more FPS on the GeForce Go 7600GT or 7700, but they aren't that big a difference.

In pretty much all notebook benchmarks, the X1600 and GeForce Go 7600 performed almost identically, and the X1700 and GeForce Go 7700 performed almost identically (in the latter case, they both get about 4200 in 3DMark05, for example).

For better or worse, these were the best cards available for gaming in a 15" machine. Someone who bought an Asus G1 for a GeForce Go 7700 did not got amazingly different performance than someone with a MacBook Pro with an X1600. That's the only point I've been trying to make.

 

[Animalk]

http://barefeats.com/santarosa.html



Remember that the 24" iMac has a desktop 7600 GT on a MXM board.

Wow, an approximate 30% increase in fps from the 2.33 C2D + X1600 to the 2.4 C2D(SR) +8600.

Thats quite significant.

 

[diamond.g]

Wow, an approximate 30% increase in fps from the 2.33 C2D + X1600 to the 2.4 C2D(SR) +8600.

Thats quite significant.

That is to be expected, you go from having a part that has only 12 PS and 5 VS (nevermind ROPS and TMU's) to a part that has 32. From my understanding Apple is writing the drivers for the cards, if nVidia wrote them you could see a doubling of speed over the old parts (which is really only useful at over 1920x1200 rez). Or at least that is what happened when the 8800GTX first came out, it was literally twice as fast as the 7900GTX and usually 20-30% faster than the 7950GX2 (SLI on one card).

 

[RojoLeo]

Those are comparisons between the desktop X1600 and desktop 7600GS. This isn't relevant to the Mobility X1600 or the GeForce Go 7600.

-Zadillo

Right on. Thanks for the correction.

 

[aliquis-]

The x1600's price was in the same league as the 7600GT, but not it's performance. Anandtech rated it as unacceptable over a year ago for game use.

No, it wasn't. ATi just tried to pass it off as that. They finally did release a massively beefed up x1600 variant for desktops that was competitive, but they basically had to double the hardware in it to do that, and it was basically a year late (and it was the only "x1600" series card that was any good).

AFAIK the go 7600 GT wasn't at all as fast as a real 7600 GT, thereas X1600 mobility isn't much slower than a real one. So, not a huge difference probably.

 

[aliquis-]

The idea that the X1600 is only on par with the geForce 6600 is laughable. Seriously, where are you getting your info?

I think his knowledge, or lack thereof, comes from the graphics cards for normal PCs, where indeed the 7600GT is better than X1600.

 

[aliquis-]

I believe these are the correct models:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=737&model2=717&chart=318

Except you don't use desktop gpus in laptops for obvious reasons... Where would you stick that dubble slot fan to begin with? ..

And yes, GS is simplier than GT, (locked down pipelines/shaders and lower clock I think), and Pro is better than a normal X1600 I also belive (higher clock?). But that doesn't mean **** since they are desktop variants.

ATI leads (well, one could argue that Intel does..) notebook graphics for a reason.

 

[aliquis-]

"The GeForce Go 7600 sports 8 pixel processors, 5 vertex processors, 8 raster operation units (ROPs), 8 texture mapping units (TMUs) and sport a 128-bit memory controller according to a spec sheet provided by Nvidia Corp. The new chip is produced using 90nm process technology. Notebook manufacturers are allowed to clock the GeForce Go 7600 at up to 450MHz for chip and up to 1000MHz for memory."

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20060111120545.html (Thought doesn't mention GT..)

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/geforce-7600s/index.x?pg=1

7600 GT = 12 pixel shaders, 5 vertex shaders, 12 texture units, ROPs, 560MHz core, 1400MHz memory.

So it has 50% more pixel shaders, 50% more texture units, same amount of vertex shaders and raster units and is clocked at 24% faster core and 40% faster memory.

Shall we guess 60-70% better performance in desktop version? (Still: This might/is not the 7600 go GT.)

http://ati.amd.com/products/mobilityradeonx1600/specs.html

Says X1600 mobility got 12 pixel shaders and 5 vertex shaders, that is the same as 7600 GT, so if 7600 go isn't much higher clocked it will probably be as good or slower.

Anyway, let this thread be for benchmarks of the new graphics, not this old stuff ;/

 

[aliquis-]

The x1600 was a LOW END CARD LAST YEAR. The 8600GT is a MID RANGE CARD THIS YEAR. Ero, it's a big upgrade.

BUT WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT WHAT THEY WAS IN DESKTOP MACHINES!?! MACBOOK PRO IS A LAPTOP.

But sure, argue that X1600 was a low-end card, in desktop and in laptops. In that case Nvidia go 7600 was a low-end card aswell (which it was..). Fine, what is the problem?

It's not like we can have a 8800 Ultra with 768MB ram in a laptop, not atm atleast.

So what is the current highest-end laptop gpu? The ATI X2600 HD XT probably.
Atleast it has 120 stream processors compared to 32 in the Nvidia M8600 GT mobile.

 

[crap freakboy]

this is like watching a John McEnroe vs Ilya Nastasi match.

 

[aliquis-]

Usually cards like the Mobility X1600, GeForce 7600, etc. fit into the "Performance/Enthusiast" category, and cards like the X1800, GeForce 7900GS, etc. fit into the "high-end video cards" area.

A typical example of this breakdown:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568

and here:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=70254

(note that the 7600 and x1600 and x1700 are all classed as "mid-range".)

Uhm, I'm pretty sure it's low-end, mid-/high-end/multimedia, performance/entusiast... Or?

 

[Zadillo]

Uhm, I'm pretty sure it's low-end, mid-/high-end/multimedia, performance/entusiast... Or?

It depends on who is doing the breakdown I guess. The simplest clearly is low-end/mid-range/high-end/ultra-high-end (although in Meaker's charts there, he simplified this to low end/mid range/high mid range/high end).

Performance/enthusiast are seemingly vaguer terms and probably aren't beneficial because they mean different things to different people. But it does seem like people have applied these terms to everything from mid-range cards to ultra high-end cards.

 

[Wolfpup]

ATI leads (well, one could argue that Intel does..) notebook graphics for a reason.

If they do, it's because of inertia, and people being stupid. It took YEARS for Nvidia to pass ATi on the desktop, despite making vastly better products for years.

Says X1600 mobility got 12 pixel shaders and 5 vertex shaders, that is the same as 7600 GT, so if 7600 go isn't much higher clocked it will probably be as good or slower.

The x1600 only has 4 ROPS, which is why it gets beat by the 7600GS, and isn't much different from the old 6600GT.

...ATI X2600 HD XT probably.
Atleast it has 120 stream processors compared to 32 in the Nvidia M8600 GT mobile.

It may or may not end up a better part when it finally launches, but you can't compare processors like that. They aren't equivalent. Nvidia's processors are a lot more advanced than ATi, which is why their part with 128 processors beats out ATi's with 320ish (all while using less power).

 

[diamond.g]

If they do, it's because of inertia, and people being stupid. It took YEARS for Nvidia to pass ATi on the desktop, despite making vastly better products for years.

Hmm, The only time I know (or remember) of ATI being better than Nvidia was the Geforce 5x00 series. Nvidia got caught with thier pants down, and the Radeon 9x00 series screwed them. Since the Geforce 6x00 series Nvidia has been laying the smackdown on ATI.

 

[odinsride]

Internet. Serious Business, etc.

Not to get back on topic or anything, but does anyone else have personal experiences with the new 8600gt they'd like to share? (Especially with WoW)

 

[Sulky Smooth]

I am not much of a pc gamer except for Blizzard games. Not really into WoW either, more of a Warcraft 3 / Stracraft guy personally. With the new cards will I able to play Starcraft 2 when it comes out?

 

[odinsride]

I am not much of a pc gamer except for Blizzard games. Not really into WoW either, more of a Warcraft 3 / Stracraft guy personally. With the new cards will I able to play Starcraft 2 when it comes out?

I would say so. It's just WC3 with a new skin right?

/ducks for cover

 

[Wolfpup]

Hmm, The only time I know (or remember) of ATI being better than Nvidia was the Geforce 5x00 series. Nvidia got caught with thier pants down, and the Radeon 9x00 series screwed them. Since the Geforce 6x00 series Nvidia has been laying the smackdown on ATI.

Yeah, and even then I'm not sure the blame should be placed on Nvidia entirely. The 5xx0 line was in some ways more programmable, and was set up to do things the way OpenGL did things. Microsoft ended up using 24-bit precision for stuff, and conveniently worked with ATi, but not Nvidia. I really think it's because of the whole X-Box thing, where basically Microsoft takes Nvidia to court, because they don't want to pay Nvidia what the contract *they signed* says they have to pay. Then in the GPU generation right after that, they conveniently design SM 2.0 to work with ATi's hardware or vice versa, and shut Nvidia out. Cute.

I am not much of a pc gamer except for Blizzard games. Not really into WoW either, more of a Warcraft 3 / Stracraft guy personally. With the new cards will I able to play Starcraft 2 when it comes out?

I'd be shocked if it didn't. My understanding is it's only going to use I think SM 2.0 (or the OpenGL equivalent in this case), and Blizzard's always really good about making their games run well on a wide range of hardware. My guess is any mid-range card purchased in the this year or last will run it fine.

 

[Sulky Smooth]

I would say so. It's just WC3 with a new skin right?

/ducks for cover

haha, well honestly i hope its that and more . right now im a pc user, been one all my life. dabbled in linux, loved it, and heard that os x is somewhat like polished linux. vista is garbage, but i may need it or xp for a few programs. i am an incoming freshman at penn state and in the business college. so i will mostly be working in office and using vista/xp when needed through boot camp for a select few applications. these new upgraded mbp's, especially with the new vid cards and processors, might have just pushed me over the edge and i might go get one.

as long as i can play starcraft 2 flawlessly and gulp.... diablo 3 if it ever comes out i'll be happy, as I expect this mbp to last me the next 4 years.

 

[odinsride]

haha, well honestly i hope its that and more . right now im a pc user, been one all my life. dabbled in linux, loved it, and heard that os x is somewhat like polished linux. vista is garbage, but i may need it or xp for a few programs. i am an incoming freshman at penn state and in the business college. so i will mostly be working in office and using vista/xp when needed through boot camp for a select few applications. these new upgraded mbp's, especially with the new vid cards and processors, might have just pushed me over the edge and i might go get one.

as long as i can play starcraft 2 flawlessly and gulp.... diablo 3 if it ever comes out i'll be happy, as I expect this mbp to last me the next 4 years.

I think you're wise in considering one of the new MBP's. Vista is indeed garbage, and one of the reasons I switched to Macs a few months ago - and now I'm already awaiting my second Mac, I just love them that much If you're familiar with linux, you're right at home on OSX, open up a terminal window and go to town I am using Parallels to run Windows for one app that doesn't have a Mac alternative - Tabit (guitar tablature program). Other than that I haven't found anything I used to use in windows that doesn't have some sort of Mac alternative.

Good luck with your decision

 

[Wolfpup]

I'm not sure there's any laptop out at the moment that will last you four years of gaming with medium to high settings. The best card available right now is a Geforce 7950GTX, which is obviously a far cry from an 8800GTX. The 8600GT is a big step back from the 7950GTX, so... just be aware that some games will only be able to run on low settings within a few years.

OS X is pretty awesome for it's Unix-ness. After using it for a while, Windows feels kind of limited in some ways, just since I've found so much open source software you can compile on multiple OSes like OS X and Linux, but not Windows.