the mobility x1600 and the vanilla desktop x1600 are exactly the same chip at the same clocks, it's cheaper for ATI to mark them out the same than have two lines going just to make one comsume more power and have a sticker saying radeon x1600 rather than mobility radeon x1600, point is it's a pretty decent card which is a heck of allot better than the x600 and will play games at very decent framerates.
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.
Intel iMacs: X1600 GPU is a Mobility chip
- Thread starter HiRez
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if this is the same chip - its begs the question, why doesnt it support the 30inch like the macbook does?
i look forward to seeing the hack LOL
i look forward to seeing the hack LOL
weather a gpu supports dual link DVI out is to do with the chip it uses for DVI not the GPU core itself, the GPU core can do all types of resolutions it's the hardware that turns the gpu output to a DVI signal that counts, also the mini DVI port on the imac only has the single link DVI pins on it.
Who would buy a car with a 2L in it?BakedBeans said:
I was hoping the iMac would have the XT version of the X1600 but I'm sure Apple would have showed that on the order page or the hardware section if they did. You would think after being able to put a G5 in the same case and moving to an Intel chip that isn't as hot they would be able to put a graphics card in there that would put off a little more heat. Unless of course the Intel Duo's aren't cooler than the G5 was. Does anyone know how they compare?
Hector said:
actually they are not the same chip, and do not have the same clocks.
mobility 1600
12 Pixel Pipes
5 Vertex Pipes
4 Texture Units
4 Render Back-Ends
128 Max. Threads
Core clock: 470
Memory clock: 470
x1600 desktop
12 Pixel Pipes
core clock 500
memory clock 780
Well hopefully the new iMacs have the desktop version then. I was hoping the core clock would be a little higher than that but any improvement is better than none.Zman5225 said:
Josh396 said:
The main improvement of the X1600 are the extra pipelines. Zman5225 says that both X1600s have 15 pixel pipelines, X600XT had just 4. Also, X1600 has 5 vertex pipelines vs. 2 of the X600XT.
At the end of the day this chip is considerably faster and better than the one in the last iMac and its being sold at the same price. Who cares if its a desktop or laptop chip?? They're real-world performance is incredibly similar anyway.
I don't know why people are so surprised anyway, its an ultra compact computer so using low-voltage, space saving laptop parts is kind of expected. The Intel chip itself is a mobile chip!!
Spanky
I don't know why people are so surprised anyway, its an ultra compact computer so using low-voltage, space saving laptop parts is kind of expected. The Intel chip itself is a mobile chip!!
Spanky
I don't really find it at all surprising I am just curious as to which model they use. As you say, it's an upgrade to the X600 so it's better not matter what, just how much better we don't know yet.Spanky Deluxe said:
And this catches people as sneaky on Apples part, come on they have done similar things in the past.
The only reason why I see them using the mobility GPU in the iMac, due to running the unit cooler with the fans spinning a lot less. I do not know why they would not mentioned the mobility factor in the specs. Then again this is Apple and it never fails to surprise me a bit.
The only reason why I see them using the mobility GPU in the iMac, due to running the unit cooler with the fans spinning a lot less. I do not know why they would not mentioned the mobility factor in the specs. Then again this is Apple and it never fails to surprise me a bit.
Well then again the iMac version could be running at a higher speed than its stock one. We've seen slower chips get clocked up since they're relabeled as slower chips.
I have seen a hardware review site that did a comparison between the X1600 desktop and the X1600 Mobility. Unfortunately I cannot remember which site it was. It was testing all PC games on PCs, of course, but the desktop version was consistently about 15%-20% faster (higher frame rates). You ask who cares, well I care. For the vast majority of people, you're right, they won't know and won't care, but this is the kind of place where geeks like me who do care discuss such things so lay off!Spanky Deluxe said:
This is from an AnandTech article written in december:
"The Mobility Radeon X1600 is essentially the same as its desktop counterpart with the exception that it is clocked slightly lower."
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2632&p=1
We can hope that the X1600 in the Intel iMac isn't clocked lower (can't you overclock the ATI card with software in some of the "older" Mac's?).
Would be great if someone who received their iMac could check what the specs on their X1600 are.
"The Mobility Radeon X1600 is essentially the same as its desktop counterpart with the exception that it is clocked slightly lower."
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2632&p=1
We can hope that the X1600 in the Intel iMac isn't clocked lower (can't you overclock the ATI card with software in some of the "older" Mac's?).
Would be great if someone who received their iMac could check what the specs on their X1600 are.
HiRez said:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-x1600-mobility.html
There it is.
It's not a great card, but not bad for minimal gaming. No one is buying an iMac or Macbook for a good gaming machine, so it's all good, right?
thats compareing it to the XT, which is the high end desktop version of the card, their is a desktop version sans XT which is identical to the mobility part, apple just chose the lower power part, it has no effect on performence compared to the desktop vanilla x1600.
i dont get what your complaing about, apple could have just kept the x600 which suck in comparison to the x1600 which is a kick ass card for an aio.
i dont get what your complaing about, apple could have just kept the x600 which suck in comparison to the x1600 which is a kick ass card for an aio.
howesey said:
actually it uses laptop ram
its a pretty fast laptop if it is as fast as the dual core 2.3 g5 powermac
which it pretty much seems to be
howesey said:
Perhaps so, but it has a 20" screen, is very fast, and has a dual-core.
The 3D graphics are quick for this thing, and actually I AM buying this to play games on and do some 3D graphics (Modo 201 when it comes out and Zbrush). I am saving cash by not going with a bigger PowerMac (or the Intel equivalent when they come out), but I'm not really giving up a huge about.
No, it won't be as fast as my AMD X2 4200+ dual-core with a 7800GT on it, but the AMD certainly isn't twice as fast. Why am I switching? OSX. Plain and simple. I want OSX. I've been wanting it for years and I'm going to get it. The new iMac fits my needs perfectly. I do a TON of Photoshop and Painter work, am interested in Aperture (when they fix it) and things like that. The iMac fits the bill perfectly for me. If I was doing a ton of 3D rendering, then yeah I may go for the PowerMacs....maybe. But from everything I've seen, the new iMac is perfect for me.
90% of everything I do during the day is Photoshop/Painter, surfing the web, writing, listening to music and watching movies and other media. Once in a while I'll live chat and then I'll play World of Warcraft once in a while. Now tell me that the iMac isn't perfect for all that AND still have room for more if I need it. I'm tired of trying to keep up on computing power when in fact it's wasted on me for the most part. It's nice to have the fastest, most powerful, cutting edge stuff....but again, after evaluation, I don't use it. Perhaps I'm getting old.
Spanky Deluxe said:
Thank You. People are always complaining about Apple being behind in video cards, so when Apple upgrades to a new card that is miles ahead better than the last one, you still get complaints. Can people stop complaining and just enjoy it and be happy? Stop complaining and whining so much. Complain complain complain! Nothing is ever enough.
Hector said:
Exactly. It's more powerful in nearly every respect, the model it's replacing (well kind of replacing if they didn't still sell them
)Do you think there's much difference perfomance wise between the duocore 2ghz and 1.83 peeps?