Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by superspiffy, Mar 17, 2008.
Which is better? the 8600gt in the MBP or the HD 2600 pro in the iMacs?
It really depends on the task.
imac's 2600 is faster than the mbp's 8600mGT but not by a huge amount
What about for:
3D graphics work?
For Gaming it can depend specifically on the game;
Valve games: 2600
Most EA titles: 8600
Get your specific game(s) and see what it using (OpenGL/DirectX).
Almost any OpenGL based game will run better with the 2600.
I'd say over half current DX will run better with the 2600.
3D/Video the 2600 is faster.
Until you turn on antialiasing and anisotropic filtering. Then again that's the state of all AMD cards right now. Even my wonderful Radeon 3850.
If the 2600 is better than the 8600mgt all along, then why were so many people here bitchin about the iMac having the 2600 when it came out, and people were applauding when the MBP came out with the geforce 8600mgt?
well, when the iMac first came out, it was advertised as having the 2600 Pro. It wasn't until later that we figured it out it was an underclocked XT. The XT is a whole lot better than the Pro.
The AVIVO HD decoder on the 2600 is better than the Purevideo HD on the 8600GT, if you're looking to play HD movies and compile code at the same time.
It's not as simple as that ...
Because the MBP is a LAPTOP my friend. For a laptop the 8600 was a pretty good card and if I recall correctly there wasn't that much available at the time for a laptop that was faster.
But the iMac is supposed to be a DESKTOP computer and yet it's graphics card isn't that much faster than the MBP's when in fact there were loads of higher performance cards they could've put in it (subject to overheating issues of course).
Of course a lot of people say the iMacs are basically laptop components combined with a monitor so that further bends the line between the two...