Hey, I'm deciding whether to buy a CD MBP or C2D MBP...the main kicker is the GPU....does anyone know if its underclocked on the Merom MBPs like it is on the Yonahs?
Thanks
Thanks
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.
New MBP GPU underclocked?
- Thread starter bluetorch18
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Differences in ATI X1600 Clock speed in Macs vs PCs, Overclocking using ATITool in Win XP
Also see Tues 10/24/06 for fan speed tweaking software, that might allow for higher clock speeds if you want to risk it:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
Since the C2D MBP is pretty much a minor speed bump, with a few simple hardware additions 1st seen on the MBP17 intro; I doubt they've done anything to the x1600, what could they do?
Also see Tues 10/24/06 for fan speed tweaking software, that might allow for higher clock speeds if you want to risk it:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
Since the C2D MBP is pretty much a minor speed bump, with a few simple hardware additions 1st seen on the MBP17 intro; I doubt they've done anything to the x1600, what could they do?
If someone does test it, keep in mind that the clocks could be throttled, and go up when they need to as is the case with the 17" MBP.
Bump...sorry but I would really like to know this as soon as I can - its the only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger on a 2.33GHz model...
bluetorch18 said:
I'm making an educated guess that it is still underclocked.
As for as we know, the case hasn't changed which means they are still using the same motherboard with the same fans. Also, neither has the battery. It's counter productive to make the MBP faster and also eat up battery power faster. I think the heat and increased power consumption from Merom put an end to the 7200HD option and any possible hope of the GPU coming normally clocked from the factory, at least in this iteration of the MPB.
The X1600 on the MBP is terribly underclocked at about 300/300 (down from 470/470 reference which is what the iMacs have), for me it runs perfectly stable at 500/500 (and it doesn't get much hotter) and the performance difference is BRUTAL, so much in fact that with the settings I play at with 500/500 clocks, at 300/300 they are pathetically unplayable.
Of and if you want the clocks to stay on OSX you'll need to dump the BIOS (well EFI) of your card, modify the clocks and flash it back, any OC changes done in Windows through ATITool or other OC tools like are done in software and do not stick once the OS has shut down (hence why overclocking with these will NEVER EVER void your warranty as Apple/ATI/NVIDIA will have no way of knowing it was overclocked), heck even overclocking through bios/efi flashes is warranty-void proof, all you need to do is flash the original ROM back once you have to send it for warranty or anything.
Apple likes to downclock their cards, the 7300GT on the Mac Pro can do 500/480 perfectly fine and it defaults at 300/333.
My guess is probably they kept the clocks the same though its nothing that you can't fix yourself, over 400 for core and memory is a guarantee and if you are lucky you might even be able to hit 500/500 or more like I did.
Of and if you want the clocks to stay on OSX you'll need to dump the BIOS (well EFI) of your card, modify the clocks and flash it back, any OC changes done in Windows through ATITool or other OC tools like are done in software and do not stick once the OS has shut down (hence why overclocking with these will NEVER EVER void your warranty as Apple/ATI/NVIDIA will have no way of knowing it was overclocked), heck even overclocking through bios/efi flashes is warranty-void proof, all you need to do is flash the original ROM back once you have to send it for warranty or anything.
Apple likes to downclock their cards, the 7300GT on the Mac Pro can do 500/480 perfectly fine and it defaults at 300/333.
My guess is probably they kept the clocks the same though its nothing that you can't fix yourself, over 400 for core and memory is a guarantee and if you are lucky you might even be able to hit 500/500 or more like I did.
PeterC. said:
I could honestly see it being underclocked still, but still throttled, as they did with the 17"....so if anyone has a MBP, please run some tests pleaseeeeeee.
bcavanau said:
If you could do that really soon, that'd be awesome because I want to order my MBP tonight...thanks.
mac4evan said:
It would be if that's what it came with, but the 17 inch MBP still ships with a X1600 card.
if you want faster clock speeds go with the 17inch. It can throttle up to over 400 when its needed, while the 15 has a constant speed at 300. This should be the same for the new MBP's as well. If you really need confirmation, do what I did and go to your local apple store and run the ATITool on the 15 and 17 and see what you get.
sorry my fault
I had just finished reading up on the Mac Pro for awhile so i know it's the X1900 - I really do. (I know Macs)
Well I have read severl times that the gpu is clocked higher on the new and old MBPs and late PB G4 17 inchers
edit: ok after reading the above post... my notion has been corroborated
I had just finished reading up on the Mac Pro for awhile so i know it's the X1900 - I really do. (I know Macs)
Well I have read severl times that the gpu is clocked higher on the new and old MBPs and late PB G4 17 inchers
edit: ok after reading the above post... my notion has been corroborated
For what it's worth, it's not like Apple underclocks the GPU just to screw with people. Running at stock speeds all the time probably would be problematic (but it's probably fine to just run occasionally when gaming, etc.).
Also, I think it's worth noting that Apple isn't the only company that underclocks the X1600..... I've definitely read of other PC manufacturers like Acer and Asus that will underclock the X1600 (not necessarily to the same degree as the MBP, but still somewhat).
I think this ties into the hope some people had about a GPU upgrade for the MBP as well; it's not like Apple can stick a 7900GS in the MBP chassis. As it is, the X1600 is about a powerful card as you're going to get in the current chassis, and even that is with underclocking. Even if Apple somehow could manage to get a better card in there, it would also probably have to be overclocked a lot too.
-Zadillo
Also, I think it's worth noting that Apple isn't the only company that underclocks the X1600..... I've definitely read of other PC manufacturers like Acer and Asus that will underclock the X1600 (not necessarily to the same degree as the MBP, but still somewhat).
I think this ties into the hope some people had about a GPU upgrade for the MBP as well; it's not like Apple can stick a 7900GS in the MBP chassis. As it is, the X1600 is about a powerful card as you're going to get in the current chassis, and even that is with underclocking. Even if Apple somehow could manage to get a better card in there, it would also probably have to be overclocked a lot too.
-Zadillo
Zadillo said:
Well yes, the 470/470 clocks on the X1600 can be changed depending on the thermal needs of the computer but still a 170 decrease is a little extreme. Now the GPU upgrade want is valid, the X1600 is a crap midrange card, plain and simple, its a generation ahead of the 6600GT and the 6600GT outperforms it... so I say what the MBP needs is a 7600 Go (knowing Apple they would use a 7300).
This whole overclocking deal is trivial though, 300/300 are great clockspeeds for general use (they are actually something like 100/100 on battery power) and anyone serious about gaming will be able to fire up WinClk and momentarily pump up the clockspeeds for better FPS (and in my case personally, the X1600 runs rock solid at 500/500), those casual gamers will find the power of the underclocked X1600 just fine...
The only thing that would be real nice is having a good card in there but I guess the X1600 was not that bad of a choice, great feature set just lacking a little in the speed package, I guess we could have been stuck with some lowly crap like a X1300...