Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2600xt?

ImAlwaysRight said:
No matter what graphic card is reported, proof is in the pudding.

MacWorld lab tests show the Nvidia GeForce 7300GT 128MB BEAT the ATI 2600 Pro 256MB in UT 2004 frame rate test. Sure, the results were close (less than 2fps), but I'd expect, after an entire stinkin' year of NO updates, for Apple to put in a graphics card that at least showed some improvement in 3D. No wonder we have no pretty charts showing the graphics on Apple's iMac website.

That would mean the optional Nvidia GeForce 7600GT 256MB in the previous iMac 24" would really kick some ATI 2600 Pro butt.

Sorry to pop all of y'all's bubbles. :(
Click to expand...

Well, since your post is redundant, you didn't pop my bubble, nor anyone else's thats been following this thread! ;)
 
As someone said earlier, the proofs will come in when more people who actually own the new machines provide some benchmark data on more than one game. I mean who actually cares in a 2fps difference on a 3 year old game anymore? - especially at the 80+ region

UT2004 is an old game by anyone's standard to be using as a benchmark anymore. Maybe it's ok as a reference alongside several newer ones to let old buffers like me get a handle on the new games scene, but hey. Let's not trash it without some real metrics.

We really need to see fps' at max max settings for the last versions available of Quake, Doom, RTCW, Silent Hunter, WoW, CoD, and so on. Basically any game that you're likely to have fancied playing recently as a result of Bootcamp taking away the non-mac-able game excuses.
 
ImAlwaysRight said:
No matter what graphic card is reported, proof is in the pudding.

MacWorld lab tests show the Nvidia GeForce 7300GT 128MB BEAT the ATI 2600 Pro 256MB in UT 2004 frame rate test. Sure, the results were close (less than 2fps), but I'd expect, after an entire stinkin' year of NO updates, for Apple to put in a graphics card that at least showed some improvement in 3D. No wonder we have no pretty charts showing the graphics on Apple's iMac website.

That would mean the optional Nvidia GeForce 7600GT 256MB in the previous iMac 24" would really kick some ATI 2600 Pro butt.

Sorry to pop all of y'all's bubbles. :(
Click to expand...

You're wrong, the driver's for the 2600's are still being improved on. The driver's for the 7300GT have been around for and have been improved on for over a year...
 
Sorry. I meant to do some tests on it, but been busy.

Well ive got Half Life running on it, which looks good and plays good. I ran the stress test and got an average of 115 fps!

When I have the chance I'll download 3D Mark and do those test.
 
adom said:
Sorry. I meant to do some tests on it, but been busy.

Well ive got Half Life running on it, which looks good and plays good. I ran the stress test and got an average of 115 fps!

When I have the chance I'll download 3D Mark and do those test.
Click to expand...
Frame rates mean nothing unless you post your resolution, what was on what was off in the game and your system specs.
 
Dont Hurt Me said:
Frame rates mean nothing unless you post your resolution, what was on what was off in the game and your system specs.
Click to expand...

sorry. my bad.

untitled2tq3.gif



untitledav6.gif


Like I posted at the beginning of this topic, I have the new 20" 2.4 standard setup. no extras.
 
Nice ^ :) We have not come to a definite conculsion yet but it looks like a mobility XT (to whoever asked in the post above.)
 
I went ahead and bought a 20" since I desperately needed a computer... I'm waiting on my Vista and extra gig of RAM to ship in the middle of next week sometime so there if there are no tests up by then I'll be able to tell you how it runs Oblivion, CoD2, BF2142, and Company of Heroes.
 
im still waiting for 3DMark to download. Its taking an age, my internet conn needs an upgrade thats for sure!
 
Have you guys ever thought it might be a HD 2600 XT underclocked by Apple and marketed as a desktop HD 2600 Pro?

Instead of theorizing so damn much, you should try to get the clocks under Windows with ATITool or winclk.

And last time I checked mobility parts didn't have clock speeds set in stone but manufacturers were free to do what they wish with them according to their target TDP.

This means we have a 2600 chip with 256MB of GDDR3, it doesn't matter if its an XT, a vanilla a pro, desktop, whatever. The clockspeeds are up in the air and until someone gets the actual clockspeeds (not benchmark games) then all we can assume is that the clockspeeds are near the HD 2600 Pro because that is what it is marketed as.
 
That's all well and good but according to AMD there is no such thing as a Mobility Pro. Only vanilla HD 2600 and HD 2600XT. The Pro is only for the desktop part. Clock speeds are indeed what we need now as we are fairly sure its a Mobility part.

PS I guess that's what you just said. :eek:
 
flopticalcube said:
Apple said its an HD 2600 Pro. Its a Mobility part. No such thing exists as far as AMD is concerned. But as Chone said, it could all be the same thing just clocked and memoried differently and sold as both desktop and laptop.
Click to expand...

Apple has never said it is a mobility part, as far as I know.
 
flopticalcube said:
Correct. But we know from the part number that it is. At least as far as the GPU firmware is concerned.
Click to expand...

But the part number is coming from the ASP which also says its a hd 2600 pro. Until someone comes up with a total rundown on this custom chip the only people that know are at Apple. The word from Apple was, first, that it is a HD 2600 pro with 256GDDR3, and more recently an Apple rep said that it is none of the above and custom built for Apple. So, IMO, we don't really know the part numberr unless someone is reading text off of the chip itself.
 
adom said:
Sorry. I meant to do some tests on it, but been busy.

Well ive got Half Life running on it, which looks good and plays good. I ran the stress test and got an average of 115 fps!

When I have the chance I'll download 3D Mark and do those test.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, on this review, a lower res test of the desktop 2600 Pro came in at 97 fps where as the XT came in at 132. Looks like the card is more XT than Pro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back