Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by acearchie, Jan 12, 2008.
Any chance on the 8800 GTX?
The Mobility Radeon 3800 Series might be cool enough to slip into a 1" laptop.(55nm and power saving modes)
I know that the 8800M has been found in 1.5" thick PC laptops.
Is this any good?
Cant seem to find it on google?
I'm rather fond of bit-tech.net for hardware news.
Sorry about that.
When you put the radeon in on the searches you get nothing (atleast that I can see useful!)
From the links above, it sounds like there wouldn't be much, if any increase in power, maybe just a bit less power consumption. I'd rather just take base 256 and 512 vram 8600's.
I would like to see a 512MB Graphics card in the new MBP
More video RAM is nice but alongside that you need the power to push textures on screen at high resolutions.
I've seen very low end video cards tout 512 MB or 1 GB of RAM. Mind you it gets worse when it's DDR2.
So the outlooks gloomy...
The new 15" alienware has the 512mb 8800 GTX (atleast im pretty sure it does)
How does that cope?
It also has an option of a blu ray drive and 2 hard drive bays!
Must have super batteries!
The 8800M GTX is a very good mobile card but you're going to need a big laptop and fan to keep it cool.
The most videocard upgrade that you're going to see with the new MBP is a POSSIBLE bump to the 8600 GT having 256 on the base model, and 512 on the higher end model. Face it, if you're looking for a gaming videocard, you aren't going to find it here. Apple isn't really concerned about gamers.
I wonder what we'll see 8 months from now....
No but there concerened about graphics production.
If there is a upgrade on the gpu I would speculate it would the Mobility Radeon 3800. The only mobile Directx 10.1 card. Its using 55nm so its quite efficent for use in a mobile laptop.
I know its not intended as a gaming laptop but the ATI 3800 has direct x10.1 which from what Ive seen can even get modest computers to high frame rates in crysis! 60+ in atleast 1600x1200
Ill see if I can find the article anywhere... Ah here we go Crysis running in super HD!
NOTE... The article you post dates from 12 Jan 2007
The reality now crysis has hit the streets is that with specification listed on that site (core2duo and single 8800GTX) and at that resolution (2048x1536) he would be lucky to achieve 5 FPS at the most.
Crysis is a terrible hog and there is no way your going to be playing on 'anything' desktop or laptop with 60FPS at 1600x1200 or higher even with a decent SLI setup and a quad/octo core processor with settings on max period.
It has already been proven that DX9 version of crysis runs better on the same hardware than the vista DX10, even with the latest 1.1 patch.
My friend at school got a quad HP for christmas with the 8800 GTS and 3 GB ram and seems to run it pretty smoothly outside on high but in the caves its a little laggy.
Pretty smoothly is not 60FPS as you posted in that link.
I'm sure he is not running at 1600x1200 or 2048x1536 either.
Besides what is it with people wanting to blow huge $$$ on what is one single pretty but ultimately shallow, generic and bland FPS ? Crysis is certainly most overly hyped and under-delivered game of the last year.
I can agree with you there! The game in its self is rubbish and the controls are awful. Its also seems extremely hard!
But on the other hand the graphics are amazing. I am just hoping to get a graphics card that could play these sort of games and possibly others like it when they are released.
I may have to save up for a mac pro!