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.
X1600 out of date???
- Thread starter BigJohno
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are much newer, more advanced, more powerful graphics chipsets in laptops now and have been for a while.
None of them are available in the current Apple portable line.
None of them are available in the current Apple portable line.
That is because Apple is waiting for the newer more powerful cards to celebrate their 1 year anniversary, which is like 65 in PC years.
I dunno...it's probably not possible to get bulk supplies of newer chips without paying more...
And we all know Apple doesn't like paying more.
However after that year the fab production is usually stable and mature enough that Apple won't drive prices insane when they place their bulk orders.
Especially since their orders are concentrated in a couple GPUs instead of across a wide range.
Reading this forum, things are 'out of date' before they are released. 
I suppose the diversity of how Macs are used accounts for this. Gamers seem to want more, more more..... They also want it now, now, now.... On the opposite end of the performance group, people seem to be more interested in consumer products, applications, compatibility issues etc.
Many of the Mac Mini users would love to have the 1600 as an option to the Intel 950 graphics. The same might apply to the MacBook folk. So, to answer your question, the 1600 would be gladly accepted by many users, who would not find it 'out of date'. The gamers would certainly gag and wretch at the prospect.
I suppose the diversity of how Macs are used accounts for this. Gamers seem to want more, more more..... They also want it now, now, now.... On the opposite end of the performance group, people seem to be more interested in consumer products, applications, compatibility issues etc.
Many of the Mac Mini users would love to have the 1600 as an option to the Intel 950 graphics. The same might apply to the MacBook folk. So, to answer your question, the 1600 would be gladly accepted by many users, who would not find it 'out of date'. The gamers would certainly gag and wretch at the prospect.
I wana play Microsoft Flight Sim X on the MBP but are unsure of how it will perform. Anyone know?
Despite what you might think, the Mobility X1600 isn't too bad. Although I don't have one myself, I have been doing a bit of research, and asking a few friends.
The Mobility X1600 256 MB version is very capable. Clearly it is no competition to the DX10 cards, being the GF8800 and X2800, but it can still pull playable frame rates with the newest games on reasonable graphics settings. The 256 version apparently has no problems playing Doom 3 or Quake 4, which although aren't exactly brand new, you have to admit they have very high hardware requirements.
If you look, today's games, and even games that haven't been released yet, like Command and Conquer 3, reccommend you use 256 MB of VRAM. Not minimum specs, but reccommended specs. Clearly the X1600 will not be able to run Crysis (as an example) on full quality, but it might on one of its lower graphics quality settings.
Yes, the X1600 is not a fast graphics card, but it's not really yet out of date. Any faster cards would decrease the battery life of the MBP, and make it run even hotter than it does now. The X1600 is a good card in the sense that it enables Apple to maintain the thinness, lightness, coolness and battery life of the MBP, while still providing it with enough power to make it an impressively fast machine. I should think that when ATI/AMD or nvidia release a new GPU with similar power requirements as the Mobility X1600, for a price around what the X1600 was when Apple started making MBP's a year ago, Apple will include it in the next MBP revision. Maybe it will be a Mobility X2600, but whatever it is, it won't be coming for a while, and I don't think any other more power hungry GPU will find its way into a stock MBP.
So no, in my opinion, no. The X1600 is not outdated, and will not be outdated until it is replaced by ATI.
The Mobility X1600 256 MB version is very capable. Clearly it is no competition to the DX10 cards, being the GF8800 and X2800, but it can still pull playable frame rates with the newest games on reasonable graphics settings. The 256 version apparently has no problems playing Doom 3 or Quake 4, which although aren't exactly brand new, you have to admit they have very high hardware requirements.
If you look, today's games, and even games that haven't been released yet, like Command and Conquer 3, reccommend you use 256 MB of VRAM. Not minimum specs, but reccommended specs. Clearly the X1600 will not be able to run Crysis (as an example) on full quality, but it might on one of its lower graphics quality settings.
Yes, the X1600 is not a fast graphics card, but it's not really yet out of date. Any faster cards would decrease the battery life of the MBP, and make it run even hotter than it does now. The X1600 is a good card in the sense that it enables Apple to maintain the thinness, lightness, coolness and battery life of the MBP, while still providing it with enough power to make it an impressively fast machine. I should think that when ATI/AMD or nvidia release a new GPU with similar power requirements as the Mobility X1600, for a price around what the X1600 was when Apple started making MBP's a year ago, Apple will include it in the next MBP revision. Maybe it will be a Mobility X2600, but whatever it is, it won't be coming for a while, and I don't think any other more power hungry GPU will find its way into a stock MBP.
So no, in my opinion, no. The X1600 is not outdated, and will not be outdated until it is replaced by ATI.
I wouldn't call it necessarily out-of-date, but it certainly never was a "pro" level card. The ATI X1600 series is mid-range consumer level at best. A "pro" computer should not be able to be outdone by a video card that can be found at Wal-Mart for well under a hundred bucks. For a "pro" machine I would expect nothing less than an ATI X1900 256MB on the low end and possibly an ATI X1950XTX 512MB as an upgrade. Hopefully now that Apple have realized that their CPUs have been lagging for nearly half a decade, they'll wake up to the fact that their "pro" machines need more graphics performance than can be gotten from a mid-range, white box, local PC shop.
See, here is the thing...
If you are an OS X user who wants a laptop then the X1600 is technically THE MOST AWESOME CARD AVAILABLE TO DATE! It beats the pants off every other OS X laptop! You simply cannot buy better!
And erm...it's been that way for about a year now...and shows no signs of changing until erm...maybe next Tuesday?
If you are an OS X user who wants a laptop then the X1600 is technically THE MOST AWESOME CARD AVAILABLE TO DATE! It beats the pants off every other OS X laptop! You simply cannot buy better!
And erm...it's been that way for about a year now...and shows no signs of changing until erm...maybe next Tuesday?
I would like to see them bump the GPU up to 512megs. At least get on par with the other companies on their pro machine.
Last I checked, Apple didn't make or support that particular Dell laptop for use with OS X.
Wow, how did you do that bud?
Note the "E1705" in the upper left corner. It's a massive, ugly, Dell laptop.
And everyone's missing the point, again, on the graphics card issue.
The X1600 currently in the MBP is UNDERCLOCKED.
Why would they put a MORE POWERFUL (and hotter) solution into the MBP when they aren't even running their CURRENT solution at its full potential?
It's all about heat.
you are comparing apple to potato..
i mean, you are going back and forth between "pro" level card and "pro" level computer... and "pro" level computer being outdone by a video card that's found at wal-mart for under a hundred bucks ... last time i checked, walmart B&M store doesn't sell graphic card, let along graphic cards for laptop... and on their website, the only graphic card that's under a hundred bucks is a screaming Diamond Stealth ATI Radeon 7000 AGP 32 MB Graphics Card... which is, of course, much much more powerful than the ATI X1600
oh, just in case you still dont get it, i'm saying you don't make sense at all. sorry pal.
are you even running OS X on your dell? or is it just one of those skins
i mean, the color of the window just doesn't look right.
i don't game so my requirements for a GPU are low.
however extras like H.264 acceleration and core image are important.
how is the X1600 there?
does it decode H.264 and is this supported by OSX?
however extras like H.264 acceleration and core image are important.
how is the X1600 there?
does it decode H.264 and is this supported by OSX?
While I have not played Quake 4 or Doom 3 on the MBP yet, I did try Civilization IV and god it is unbearably slow towards late game, and that is on the lowest graphics settings with all shadows and funny shaders turned off.
I really hope APPLE will put in more capable video chips into their line during the next refresh, starting to get really hooked on Civ
Pfft!
Apple is all about thinking differently. Why should Apple's engineers be wusses like every other manufacturer's engineers and actually have to make their laptops bigger and fatter to accomodate hotter components?
What I foresee is they will come up with a way to do "cold fussion" in a device that is 1mm thick, which they will then coat the insides of the MBP casing with so it will absorb all that waste heat and reconvert it back into energy at 100% efficiency! A laptop with absolutely no vents to mar its beautiful and clean exterior, yet stays ice cool to the touch, just imagine!
Too bad they won't be able to capture the light energy shining out of the LCD or the radio wave signals emitted out of the antennas, else it will be the first innovative(tm) Apple branded laptop to hit the shelfs since the birth of mankind that runs perpetually on a single charge, but no worries on that, just wait for Rev B of that product.
I really hope APPLE will put in more capable video chips into their line during the next refresh, starting to get really hooked on Civ
Pfft!
Apple is all about thinking differently. Why should Apple's engineers be wusses like every other manufacturer's engineers and actually have to make their laptops bigger and fatter to accomodate hotter components?
What I foresee is they will come up with a way to do "cold fussion" in a device that is 1mm thick, which they will then coat the insides of the MBP casing with so it will absorb all that waste heat and reconvert it back into energy at 100% efficiency! A laptop with absolutely no vents to mar its beautiful and clean exterior, yet stays ice cool to the touch, just imagine!
Too bad they won't be able to capture the light energy shining out of the LCD or the radio wave signals emitted out of the antennas, else it will be the first innovative(tm) Apple branded laptop to hit the shelfs since the birth of mankind that runs perpetually on a single charge, but no worries on that, just wait for Rev B of that product.
Yes, it is a massive and ugly 17" Dell laptop. Any 17" laptop is quite massive, so its just ugly.
You also forget to mention its way more cheaper and powerful than any MBP. Oh and it fully supports OS X. I must say OS X looks quite beautiful on a 1920x1200 resolution laptop LCD.
Did I mention I can easily upgrade my CPU, or even upgrade to NVIDIA Go 7900 GS or 7900 GTX with just dropping the card in?
Anyway, it looks like its definitely worth having an underpowered, overpriced, overhyped, pretty machine.
It is a ShapeShifter skin.
Yes, it is a massive and ugly 17" Dell laptop. Any 17" laptop is quite massive, so its just ugly.
You also forget to mention its way more cheaper and powerful than any MBP. Oh and it fully supports OS X. I must say OS X looks quite beautiful on a 1920x1200 resolution laptop LCD.
Did I mention I can easily upgrade my CPU, or even upgrade to NVIDIA Go 7900 GS or 7900 GTX with just dropping the card in?
Anyway, it looks like its definitely worth having an underpowered, overpriced, overhyped, pretty machine.
The 17" MBP isn't ugly or massive.
I can stick a 1920x1200 display in my 15" MBP, as well.
It is cheaper, but not necessarily more "powerful" than a MBP. If you stick the Geforce 7900 in there, yes, but that's the only benefit. Upgrading your CPU is just unreasonable, as the price of OEM Merom processors isn't worth buying cheap and upgrading later (as is practical in desktops where there is a long line of same-socket processors).
It is massive. Try carrying it around in your hands. It is huge.
While I see people carrying their 15" MBPs bare around campus from time to time, the only person I know who owns a 17" carries it in one of those aluminium padded briefcases (like it is some disassembled rifle
)Cool, but you get the picture of the sheer size.
It is massive. Try carrying it around in your hands. It is huge.
While I see people carrying their 15" MBPs bare around campus from time to time, the only person I know who owns a 17" carries it in one of those aluminium padded briefcases (like it is some disassembled rifle
Cool, but you get the picture of the sheer size.
I don't think it's that "massive". I mean, compare it to the size of an E1705 or A Vaio AGN-x90 series (my previous laptop).
I don't think I'd carry it around without a case anyway... because I'm likely to drop it ;]