Nvidia GeForce 8600 vs. ATI X1600

[cohenben]

With the recent concerns of the Nvidia chipset in the previous gen MBPs, can someone fill me on the performance of the

ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 256MB of GDDR3 memory

There are a number of MBPs available on the refurb page in the apple store with the ATI card. All previous discussions I found don't take into account Nvidia's announcement about the faulty cards... any new opinions out there?

Thanks!

 

[Luftwaffles]

I have the 2.33Ghz MBP with the X1600. It's a great GPU, runs things like SecondLife and WoW at upwards of 60FPS.

However, which GPU you'd benefit from most depends on what applications you intend to use. Care to fill us in?

 

[infernohellion]

I'm using the "FIRST GEN" MBP with that graphics card. I can live with the card but if you do play games, its not worth getting this card. It's not bad, its just outdated.

 

[cohenben]

I have the 2.33Ghz MBP with the X1600. It's a great GPU, runs things like SecondLife and WoW at upwards of 60FPS.

However, which GPU you'd benefit from most depends on what applications you intend to use. Care to fill us in?

I would mostly push my GPU to it's limit when I'm using Final Cut Studio software...

a) I'm a little concerned about the faulty 8600 cards out there.
b) Will I notice a >20% speed increase in render/export times in Compressor or within FCP with a better graphics card (the 9600), or vice-versa - comparing the 8600 to the older ATI x1600?, -----is rendering/exporting in FCS more dependent on RAM or GPU power?

I'd gladly spend the extra coin and learn to deal with the glossy screen if the 9600 unibody will give me noticeably faster render times in FCP? I don't know if that uses the same processing power as gaming benchmarks. Advice?

 

[Luftwaffles]

I would mostly push my GPU to it's limit when I'm using Final Cut Studio software...

a) I'm a little concerned about the faulty 8600 cards out there.
b) Will I notice a >20% speed increase in render/export times in Compressor or within FCP with a better graphics card (the 9600), or vice-versa - comparing the 8600 to the older ATI x1600?, -----is rendering/exporting in FCS more dependent on RAM or GPU power?

I'd gladly spend the extra coin and learn to deal with the glossy screen if the 9600 unibody will give me noticeably faster render times in FCP? I don't know if that uses the same processing power as gaming benchmarks. Advice?

Professional applications such as FCP don't usually follow the performance trends for 3D/Gaming-oriented cards. Most linear video editing suites don't need to cope with the incredible levels of dynamic rendering that video games require. (Hence, a GeForce might not always be the best rendering card, while the Quadro is a HORRIBLE gaming card!)

As you probably know, the 9600 is the next generation of the 8600, but marginally faster due to the newer technologies and fabrication processes... how quantifiable that is within an already-GPU/CPU/RAM-intensive app such as FCP, I'm not sure. There are probably hundreds of independent benchmarks on sites like Toms Hardware, AnandTech and so on. Google is your friend.

 

[eXan]

I would mostly push my GPU to it's limit when I'm using Final Cut Studio software...

a) I'm a little concerned about the faulty 8600 cards out there.
b) Will I notice a >20% speed increase in render/export times in Compressor or within FCP with a better graphics card (the 9600), or vice-versa - comparing the 8600 to the older ATI x1600?, -----is rendering/exporting in FCS more dependent on RAM or GPU power?

I'd gladly spend the extra coin and learn to deal with the glossy screen if the 9600 unibody will give me noticeably faster render times in FCP? I don't know if that uses the same processing power as gaming benchmarks. Advice?

FCP doesn't use graphics card for render/encode.

The only 2 apps from FCS that do are Motion and Color. For benchmarks, go to barefeats.com. The thing about ATI cards in OS X is that they usually perform better than their nVIDIA counterparts in Core Image, but slower in games.