Those are comparisons between the desktop X1600 and desktop 7600GS. This isn't relevant to the Mobility X1600 or the GeForce Go 7600.
-Zadillo
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.
How much graphical performance does the new MBP have over the old one?
- Thread starter Animalk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those are comparisons between the desktop X1600 and desktop 7600GS. This isn't relevant to the Mobility X1600 or the GeForce Go 7600.
-Zadillo
I was never talking about the 7600, but regardless, the parts are the same aside from both being clocked slower. The 7600GT (what I *WAS* talking about) has roughly double the performance of the x1600Pro, from what I remember.
Yes, of course they are. Though again, no one ever mentioned the 7600 (though most likely it's still quite a bit better, unless severely underclocked).
This whole discussion started off when you claimed that the Mobility X1600 in the MBP was a low-end card.
My point was that it was a mid-range card, along with the GeForce Go 7600, which it is almost identical in performance to.
The performance of the GeForce Go 7600 is not "quite a bit better" than the Mobility X1600; all benchmarks that have been performed show them to be on par.
For laptop cards, the Mobility X1600 always filled the role of a "performance card", not a low-end card, and it's performance was always put right aside the GeForce Go 7600.
-Zadillo
Actually the T61 wasn't purchased for WOW, mostly Visual Studio development. But since I saw the new MBP I thought that maybe I could use it for both (bootcamp or parallels for Visual Studio development).
Both the t61 and mbp are awesome machines I just can't decide on one
Jeff
From my previous experience, the Mobility x1600 is similar to the Go 7600.
So looking at that, I think that may give us hints as to the difference in processing power between the Mobility x1600 and the Go 8600...which happens to be the topic of this thread...
So looking at that, I think that may give us hints as to the difference in processing power between the Mobility x1600 and the Go 8600...which happens to be the topic of this thread...
Which it is.
The Geforce 7600GT is, or at least was, a mid range card last year. It destoys the x1600 line, aside from the exception previously mentioned.
A low end card is a low end card. It dosen't matter what type of computer it's in. If you want to say it used to be "mid range for a laptop card", I suppose that would have been accurate, but that's really splitting hairs.
What does a discussion about the 7600GT and X1600 Pro have to do with the MacBook Pro and the available GPU's for it though? They are desktop cards.
Regardless of the performance of the desktop versions, the performance of the Mobility X1600 and the GeForce Go 7600 are practically identical, which is my whole point. And they were always seen as performance cards, about the highest-end possible cards available in 15" laptops.
My whole point is that Apple did not have a low-end inferior card in the 15" MBP. It had a card that was on par with other 15" notebooks with X1600's or GeForce 7600's as well, and there were no higher-end GPU's available in 15" notebooks. Even when the Mobility X1700 and GeForce Go 7700 came along, they only offered modest performance gains over the Mobility X1600 and GeForce Go 7600.
I understand, on the desktop, the GeForce 7600GT is a superior card to the X1600 Pro. I'm not disputing that.
My point is that, on the laptop side, the Mobility X1600 has always been seen as a mid-range or performance card, and is practically identical in performance to the GeForce Go 7600. And they both offered the highest performance possible in a 15" laptop.
Calling it a low-end card on the mobile side just doesn't make much sense, since it isn't "low-end". Low-end mobile parts were the X1300 and X1400 and GeForce 7400.
I don't think its splitting hairs to acknowledge that there is a difference between low-end, mid-range and high-end on the mobile side and on the desktop side.
I mean, by this logic, a "high-end" GeForce Go 7950gtx would only be called a "mid-range" card, which doesn't make any sense.
-Zadillo
They're also laptop cards, and that's irrelevant.
The x1600 was a LOW END CARD LAST YEAR. The 8600GT is a MID RANGE CARD THIS YEAR. Ero, it's a big upgrade.
You may have seen them as performance upgrades, but people who want powerful GPUs wouldn't. I think the 7600GT was available in 15" notebooks, but even if it wasn't, that's why we steer people towards 17" notebooks if they need a good GPU.
It was fine for general use, but it was a low end card. They could have used the 7600GT, and certainly the 17" model should have had something better.
And just to clarify, I think we might have lost sight of what this argument was about.
The original point I think you were making was that "finally" Apple was putting a high-end GPU in a MBP, which was a change from the past. But this implies that by using the X1600, Apple was somehow "behind the times", or that they could have put in a much more powerful card. But when the MBP debuted, the Mobility X1600 was the most powerful GPU you could put in a 15" notebook. And prior to the 8M series, the only things more powerful were the Mobility X1700 and GeForce Go 7700, neither of which were radically more powerful.
My whole point here is that Apple did not put a "low end" card in the original MBP. They put the most powerful GPU available for a 15" notebook in it.
The logic being used to say the Mobility X1600 was "low-end" could be applied of course to the 8600M as well. If you want to look at desktop parts, the performance of the desktop version of the 8600 actually isn't very good either.
But of course, that isn't relevant. The 8600M GT is just about the most powerful GPU that can be put in a 15" notebook. And the Mobility X1600 was about the most powerful GPU that could be put in a 15" notebook before.
So I strongly disagree with the idea that Apple hadn't previously put the best card possible in the MBP.
The original point I think you were making was that "finally" Apple was putting a high-end GPU in a MBP, which was a change from the past. But this implies that by using the X1600, Apple was somehow "behind the times", or that they could have put in a much more powerful card. But when the MBP debuted, the Mobility X1600 was the most powerful GPU you could put in a 15" notebook. And prior to the 8M series, the only things more powerful were the Mobility X1700 and GeForce Go 7700, neither of which were radically more powerful.
My whole point here is that Apple did not put a "low end" card in the original MBP. They put the most powerful GPU available for a 15" notebook in it.
The logic being used to say the Mobility X1600 was "low-end" could be applied of course to the 8600M as well. If you want to look at desktop parts, the performance of the desktop version of the 8600 actually isn't very good either.
But of course, that isn't relevant. The 8600M GT is just about the most powerful GPU that can be put in a 15" notebook. And the Mobility X1600 was about the most powerful GPU that could be put in a 15" notebook before.
So I strongly disagree with the idea that Apple hadn't previously put the best card possible in the MBP.
......
OK, again, this is really getting ridiculous. What difference are you saying that using the GeForce Go 7600 would have made? All benchmarks show that the GeForce Go 7600 that Apple could have used is practically identical.
You are making it sound like if they had put a GeForce Go 7600 in the MBP instead of a Mobility X1600, it would have performed better, and it wouldn't have, really.
Hell, even the newer version of it, the GeForce Go 7700, is only slightly more powerful in terms of real-life performance.
I'll say it one more time; the Mobility X1600 and the GeForce Go 7600 were both almost identical in performance, and it would not have made much practical difference.
The Mobility X1600 then served the same role as a mid-range performance card that the 8600M GT serves now.
The Mobility X1600 and GeForce Go 7600 both represented the pinnacle of what performance could be crammed into a 15" notebook, and even with the advent of the updated Mobility X1700 and GeForce Go 7700, the performance levels of all of these cards was pretty much identical.
-Zadillo
From my previous experience, the Mobility x1600 is similar to the Go 7600.
So looking at that, I think that may give us hints as to the difference in processing power between the Mobility x1600 and the Go 8600...which happens to be the topic of this thread...
The mobile line is a little bit different than the desktop line. The 8600 is much much faster than the 7600 it replaces. That isn't quite the case on the desktop side. But for the ultimate in performance you still have to go with the 7950GTX or the 7950GTX SLI.
No, it was that they were finally putting a MID RANGE GPU in a Macbook Pro. Someone was asking if this would be a large upgrade, which it would.
No, it wasn't. As I said, the 7600GT was available, and the 7950GTX could have been used in a 17" model.
First, yes they did put a low end card in the original MBP. Second, even if the x1600 was the best they could have used-which it wasn't-it would still have been low end.
Actually, yes, the 8600GT is a perfectly solid part, that beats out the 7600GT across the board. The catch with it is that it's sometimes outperformed by former high-end parts that are now selling for mid-range prices, but it's still a solid, if somewhat boring upgrade to the previous generation.
7600GT. 7600GT.
And like I said, the situation was even worse if you looked at the 17" model. Apple was using a low end GPU, while several competitors were selling models with a high end GPU, and in many cases, for less money.
http://barefeats.com/santarosa.html
Remember that the 24" iMac has a desktop 7600 GT on a MXM board.
Remember that the 24" iMac has a desktop 7600 GT on a MXM board.
http://barefeats.com/santarosa.html
Remember that the 24" iMac has a desktop 7600 GT on a MXM board.
ooooh, quick can anyone find any other MXM boards??? They are replaceable!!!!
EDIT: Why are they only using Doom Engine 3 games? Kinda old.
I know they're replaceable but it appears that you need to contact your laptop's manufacturer for new modules.
The GeForce Go 7600GT is certainly better than the regular GeForce Go 7600, I will acknowledge that...... but in actual gaming performance, the difference was not that noticeable... a few more fps here and there, but nothing major. The GeForce Go 7600GT does not blow away the GeForce 7600 or the Mobility X1600.
Again, you are making a claim that Apple put in a low-end GPU, and NO-ONE else regards the Mobility X1600 as low-end. It's always been classed as a performance/enthusiast part.
If Apple had put in a GeForce Go 7600GT, it would have offered slightly better performance, but hardly anything earth-shatteringly different.
Regarding the 17" model, that is a fair point, although I think Apple might have had trouble with higher-end parts due to how thin their laptop is.... the kinds of 17" laptops with better GPU's (even the Go 7900GS) are usually considerably thicker than 1".
-Zadillo
Honest Question: if the x1600 is performance/enthusiast what does that make the x1800/x1900?
If twice as good isn't noticeable, than whatever.
Not by anyone knowledgeable. It's always been classified as a low end part by the enthusiast community.
True, but then that's an issue with Apple in general, pushing form over function in many cases.
Usually cards like the Mobility X1600, GeForce 7600, etc. fit into the "Performance/Enthusiast" category, and cards like the X1800, GeForce 7900GS, etc. fit into the "high-end video cards" area.
A typical example of this breakdown:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568
and here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=70254
(note that the 7600 and x1600 and x1700 are all classed as "mid-range".)
The GeForce Go 7600GT isn't twice as powerful as the the Mobility X1600/GeForce 7600. Neither is the GeForce 7700 Go for that matter.
And these parts have always been classified as mid-range in the notebook community. The enthusiast community might look at the desktop parts differently, but we're talking about laptop parts:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=70254
Also, see here for performance comparisons of machines with the GeForce 7600 and X1600:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=99051
3860 in 3DMark05 for the MBP with an X1600, 4247 for the Asus G1 with a GeForce Go 7700......... a difference, but not a major one.
No machines with the GeForce Go 7600GT (it was never a very popular card..... I don't think many companies adopted it), but I believe it falls in the middle..... hardly "twice as good" as the Mobility X1600.
Ah, but the 7600GT is mid-high end. I see where Wolfpup is comming from (sorta). He is of the ilk that if it isn't mid-high end or greater then it is pretty much low end.
I don't know who's making up these distinctions, but "enthusiast" or "performance" is usually a synonym for a high end card, by companies at any rate (I think most people would just call it a high-end card). Maybe this site you're visiting is using somewhat non-standard language to describe them.