Does anyone if the how much the x1600 can be overclocked? The x1900's i hear can be oc'd quite a bit and i was wondering if this was the same thing.
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.
Question about X1600 Pro
- Thread starter I'mAMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are a number of overclocking sites you can Google and find a wealth of info...but be careful - overclocking an embedded card like the X1600 in the iMac is risky. Burn it up and it's new logic board time...
I'mAMac said:
Yes. Should play nicely at medium settings. Oh and btw, the iMac doesn't have an X1600 Pro, just an X1600.
The x1600 mobility isn't terrible by Apple standards - I don't believe it's significantly less capable than the 7300GT that a Mac Pro comes with, for instance (matching RAM to RAM - 256MB x1600 vs. 256 7300GT).
It's a mid-grade laptop card (x1300-x1600-x1800 is the line, I believe) and a low-end desktop card.
It's a mid-grade laptop card (x1300-x1600-x1800 is the line, I believe) and a low-end desktop card.
Chone said:
Try behing helpful for a change instead of cutting other people down.
To address the question - the X1600 in the iMac is a Mobility chip, which (in a nutshel) means lower performance than the desktop-based X1600 series cards. Laptop cards usually have high heat tolerances but their clock and memory speeds are reduced to make the more efficient. You can overclock them to get additional performance but I can't recommend that, since damaging the card means a whole new logic board with the iMac.
However, it's still a pretty good card and will compare well with the Mac Pro's 7300GT in most circumstances. It's also better than an X1300. The Nvidia card that it competes directly with on the desktop is the 7600 series, which is superior, but that card is not available on the Mac.
Battlefield 2 and CoD 2 should run well.
The X1600 is *better* than the 7300GT. Its a mid end card compared to a low end card. The 7300GT can sometimes performa on a par as the X1600 due to having four processors clocked at 2.66Ghz to pick up the slack.
IEatApples said:So...
My ATI Radeon X600 XT is basically crap then?
No! Its a perfectly decent card and probably performs better than the 7300GT. The X600 XT was a top end middle ranged card from the previous generation if that makes sense. Have a look over at Toms Hardware's VGA charts to see how cards compare.
My wife has a 20" Intel iMac, and I have a Mac Pro with a 7300 (still waiting for my X1900 kit to ship...). We both play World of Warcraft, and I assure you that at least in WoW her cute little iMac annihilates my mighty Mac Pro in the graphics department. She has almost all of the graphics options turned up to max, whereas I had to turn off most of the eye candy and crank my resolution down just to get an acceptable framerate.
The X1600 certainly isn't top-of-the-line, but it's a decent card, and far better for gaming than the 7300.
The X1600 certainly isn't top-of-the-line, but it's a decent card, and far better for gaming than the 7300.
Who said VRAM was the end-all of performance? What I said was that you need to compare to already-similar cards in similar VRAM configurations.
If you can't read that, not my problem.
If you can't read that, not my problem.
The X1600 Pro Mobility has the same stock core clocks as the desktop version, the only difference in Apple's case is they undercock the cores to ease on power and heat issues.
My MacBook Pro is running about 310/290 but I can overclock it using ATI tool in windows to about 400/400, anything higher and the frame rates actually drop. The thing is, the card is rated from ATI at 470/470 stock.
Soooo it really depends...
Lets put it this way, in windows I can run:
-Counter Strike Source / Half Life 2 / HL2 Episode One
-F.E.A.R.
-Oblivion
The list goes on...
In OSX I can run Quake 4, Halo, and yea thats all I've tried, but I've had no complaints to what the X1600 can do.
My MacBook Pro is running about 310/290 but I can overclock it using ATI tool in windows to about 400/400, anything higher and the frame rates actually drop. The thing is, the card is rated from ATI at 470/470 stock.
Soooo it really depends...
Lets put it this way, in windows I can run:
-Counter Strike Source / Half Life 2 / HL2 Episode One
-F.E.A.R.
-Oblivion
The list goes on...
In OSX I can run Quake 4, Halo, and yea thats all I've tried, but I've had no complaints to what the X1600 can do.
Thanks! I've had a look now, but from what I see, the X600 XT is even more crap than I thought!? Isn't it?Spanky Deluxe said:No! Its a perfectly decent card and probably performs better than the 7300GT. The X600 XT was a top end middle ranged card from the previous generation if that makes sense. Have a look over at Toms Hardware's VGA charts to see how cards compare.
All I really want to know is CAN IT RUN HEROES V when it arrives for the Mac? ... Yes I understand that the game is still under development, but what do YOU think? Will it work
If it does:
If it doesn't:
OK, I'll put this as simply as possible:
The X1600 cards in the Intel Macs will play games well.
They aren't the best cards for gaming but they get the job done for all but hardcore gamers - just like any mid-level card.
So don't worry.
The X1600 cards in the Intel Macs will play games well.
They aren't the best cards for gaming but they get the job done for all but hardcore gamers - just like any mid-level card.
So don't worry.
Lord Blackadder said:
Heh, sorry all, I just been under a lot of stress lately, too much going on right now and I can get irritated easily not because of people not knowing stuff, the forums are here to know and help, but because I just need an outlet.
apologies