So looking at all of this leaves me with one question. Is there a difference between the 2600PRO and 2600XT besides the core and memory speeds.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2600xt?
- Thread starter I'mAMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I did a little research, as far as I can tell it would appear that the main difference is the ability of the XT models to handle higher clock speeds (core and memory).
The important thing is that the mobility 2600 XT (ox9583) in the new imacs is the top of the line mobile graphics solution from AMD/ATI at this time. The only real downside is that the settings are underclocked, though this can be adjusted by the user. I find this far more acceptable then if they had included lesser hardware - it would seem the new imacs are perfectly capable with their included hardware of running with native mobility 2600 XT speeds.
I'm interested to see what Bare Feats has to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R600
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units
The important thing is that the mobility 2600 XT (ox9583) in the new imacs is the top of the line mobile graphics solution from AMD/ATI at this time. The only real downside is that the settings are underclocked, though this can be adjusted by the user. I find this far more acceptable then if they had included lesser hardware - it would seem the new imacs are perfectly capable with their included hardware of running with native mobility 2600 XT speeds.
I'm interested to see what Bare Feats has to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R600
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units
Just because the ID number is showing that it is a 2600XT doesn't mean its a 2600XT. Why would Apple call it a 2600PRO, if its not? There is a mobile version of the 2600PRO. What I am thinking is that its an OC 2600PRO, which I know would be odd since Apple under clocks everything. I just can't see apple calling the GPU in its new imac the name of a crappy card, when it is not that card. Thats one hell of a blunder.
But if it turns out that it is indeed the 2600XT card, then I am off to the apple store to pick one up.
No, there isn't. There is a vanilla Mobility HD 2600 and then the Mobility HD 2600XT. Pro only exists in desktop form, as far as ATI is concerned.
You are right I misread the webpage.
Well maybe now there is a mobile 2600PRO and its in the imac right now. That is why the clock speeds are lower than the 2600XT and higher than the 2600.
Well more than likely it is a 2600XT that has had its core and memory speeds reduced.
Still unlikely. Why would they make the 2600 pro desktop slower than the 2600 pro mobility? Unless apple overclocked it a lot for some reason. I guess then there may be an error in what the computer thinks. But i still think its a UC mobility XT. We need benchmarks!
If anyone uses graphic inttensive programs on a NEW imac please try to post them. If not...barefeats.My vote goes to an under clocked XT. There could also be other changes to the board that we just won't know until someone tests and takes a physical look see at. Apple loves to customize systems to assure reliability.
Although I find this investigation / discussion interesting, it really doesn't matter for me since I've already ordered the 24" 2.8GHz model. For what I will be doing, Photoshop Elements (amateur photography) and iMovie or maybe FCE and Aperture, this video card will work great.
I'm probably going to stuff 4GB RAM in it and add an external 750GB HD for backups.
Although I find this investigation / discussion interesting, it really doesn't matter for me since I've already ordered the 24" 2.8GHz model. For what I will be doing, Photoshop Elements (amateur photography) and iMovie or maybe FCE and Aperture, this video card will work great.
I'm probably going to stuff 4GB RAM in it and add an external 750GB HD for backups.
why do ATI clock down the cores??!!??!! is it because of heat, or cauz of smething else??? i dont really see it as a disadvantages, just a hassle. there are many tools that allow people to change the clocks.
the macs run hot already,
and the imac is not all that bigger than the mactops!!!! farout ahve you seen them?? have you read the reviews of what temps they are running at??
the macs run hot already,
and the imac is not all that bigger than the mactops!!!! farout ahve you seen them?? have you read the reviews of what temps they are running at??
Been following this very engaging thread for a while. Is it a 2600 Pro or is it a 2600 XT? That's the million-dollar-question! And we're all holding out for barefeats to make the final call. Regardless of its chip ID, core or memory speeds... What really matters is can it hack those games?!
Well its ID is of the Mobility chip but Apple touts it as the desktop Pro.
It's more then likely just an underclocked Mobility HD2600 XT.
The most convincing evidence we have that it's a 2600 XT is the chip ID. We cannot use the core and mem speed data to support the above claim because the data numbers fall between the 2600 Pro and 2600 XT ranges, neither confirming nor denying the above premise.
On the other hand, the most convincing evidence we have that the chip's a 2600 Pro, is Apple said it themselves. Which brings the question, why would they intentionally mislabel the chip if it was the case that the chip is indeed a 2600 XT?
We have two conflicting evidence so we still can't say anything for certain.
On the other hand, the most convincing evidence we have that the chip's a 2600 Pro, is Apple said it themselves. Which brings the question, why would they intentionally mislabel the chip if it was the case that the chip is indeed a 2600 XT?
We have two conflicting evidence so we still can't say anything for certain.
Just throwin this out there. Custom 2600 pro? Maybe apple wanted the XT ATI said no they custom made this version of the pro. Maybe not custom MADE but tweaked it and left the same card number. As you can see, this came straight from my a$$ You never know though
You never know thoughBut if they're going to go so far as to change that bit of the model name for the sake of marketing, why not just get rid of the whole "2600" altogether? After all that name is already tainted from disappointing graphics test results. They won't be winning anybody with the "2600 Pro" name if they were indeed interested in the whole idea of changing the name to meet marketing needs.
Most people who are buying the iMac don't care about the graphics. They are buying what sounds good and 2600 Pro sounds good. They aren't researching how good or bad the GPU is.
That's exactly my point. Average Joe don't know the difference between a "2600 Pro" or a "2600 XT." He won't even know what the hell the "2600" means. Therefore, in the interest of pure marketing, why didn't they just drop the ATI-given name altogether and go with something like "HD SuperXtremeProGFX" or something not so stupid sounding. To Average Joe's mind: "oooh well SuperXtremeProGFX sounds more powerful than 2600 Pro!"
The point is that I don't believe Apple purposely misnamed their gfx card especially if the name they're giving it already exist for a much inferior product. And also, I don't believe it would've mattered to the customers even if they had stuck with the XT name. Like you said, "people who are buying the iMac don't care about the graphics." An iMac buying consumer wouldn't have known that there was a Pro version at all if Apple had released the XT variant across the line. So the argument that "they are buying what sounds good" is irrelevant in such a case.
LOL, the 2400XT is REAL crap. Apple offers the X2600XT, a bit underclocked, so it matches about a Desktop-X2600Pro with GDDR3-RAM, which is WAY better than a crappy X1400XT.
Shader Model 3.0??
The only thing, I really wonder: This card should have shader model 4.0, not 3.0 - why is it reported as 3.0??? Is this a restriction of the mobility version, or what is going on here?
Can anyone tell me?
The only thing, I really wonder: This card should have shader model 4.0, not 3.0 - why is it reported as 3.0??? Is this a restriction of the mobility version, or what is going on here?
Can anyone tell me?