X1600 out of date???

[Zadillo]

I really don't understand these kinds of threads.

The X1600 is, to date, still one of the most capable cards found in 15" laptops from ANY manufacturer. The only things better in 15" laptops (most of which are still well over 1" thick) are the X1700 and GeForce 7700; but check any benchmarks, and you'll see that while they are somewhat better than the X1600 (or the GeForce 7600), they aren't massively better.

One of the early posts in this thread chided Apple for not offering the much more powerful GPU's that are available, but those are generally only available in 17" notebooks that are usually around 2" thick and are considerably heavier.

The only way for Apple to use these GPU's would be for them to make a larger, heavier and thicker notebook, and the only people they'd be competing with would be other gaming laptop manufacturers, and I have a hard time seeing Apple ever being the choice there no matter what they do.

As things stand right now, the X1600 is still a perfectly capable chip, and for 15" laptops especially, the performance of it is on par with other 15" laptops, including ones like the Asus G1 which uses a GeForce 7700.

It is a safe bet that the next revision of MBP's will feature newer GPU's though.

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 ;]

Well, in terms of length and width, of course they are going to be a similar size (a laptop with a 17" screen can only be made so small). But the 17" MBP is absolutely much thinner than the E1705 or the AGN-x90.

 

[THX2008]

The X1600 is a great card. Normally, I would worry about the X1600 going out of date but it suits my needs. The thing is, if gaming is really important for you, a laptop is never really a good idea since needed upgrades to play the latest games are non-existant or expensive and difficult.

The most graphically intense programs I run are several design programs provided by my university and Half-Life 2. The X1600, even in its underclocked state, is able to run all my programs without a hitch. I borrowed my friends copy of Elder Scrolls: Oblivion just to test out the X1600 and I was able to run it on most settings at medium to high. I don't have the game installed but I'd imagine subsequent patches have improved performance.

Luckily, I've lost interest in gaming so having a high end graphics card is not a concern.

My worry is having a 32 bit Core Duo. I'd like this laptop to last several years and I hope this shift into 64 bit processors won't leave me in the dust.

 

[Zadillo]

The X1600 is a great card. Normally, I would worry about the X1600 going out of date but it suits my needs. The thing is, if gaming is really important for you, a laptop is never really a good idea since needed upgrades to play the latest games are non-existant or expensive and difficult.

The most graphically intense programs I run are several design programs provided by my university and Half-Life 2. The X1600, even in its underclocked state, is able to run all my programs without a hitch. I borrowed my friends copy of Elder Scrolls: Oblivion just to test out the X1600 and I was able to run it on most settings at medium to high. I don't have the game installed but I'd imagine subsequent patches have improved performance.

Luckily, I've lost interest in gaming so the X1600 is not an issue for me.

My worry is having a 32 bit Core Duo. I'd like this laptop to last several years and I hope this shift into 64 bit processors won't leave me in the dust.

I honestly think that by the time you would notice any problems from having a 32-bit CPU, your laptop would be pretty out of date anyway.

 

[skinnylegs]

I'm waiting for a DX10 compatible card comes out for my MacPro

I don't think there are even any DX10 games out yet?

 

[SMM]

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.

ShapeShifter? Did not take your trollsuit long to be uncovered.

 

[Zadillo]

I don't think there are even any DX10 games out yet?

Not yet, but for people who want the most longevity out of their laptops, a DX10 capable GPU would be nice. NVidia has said that their GeForce 8 series DX10 mobile GPU's will be out in the Spring in time for the Santa Rosa platform. It seems very likely that when Apple releases their Santa Rosa-based MBP's, it's going to be paired with some form of GeForce (I suspect Apple isn't going to use ATI chips in the next revision). If they do go with ATI though, their DX10 mobile GPU's (I think the X2600 would be most likely) are due around a similar timeframe.

 

[iW00t]

I don't think there are even any DX10 games out yet?

I think when DX10 games do come out you will be forced to run it with Vista, which opens a different can of worms.

Do you run it through Bootcamp or through Parallels? Will running it from the Bootcamp partition through Parallels trip the WGA anti piracy code and lock up your computer?

It boogles the mind.

I prefer Mac ports for games anyway if I can help it, at least it doesn't involve Windows.

 

[cgc]

Having a DX10 capable card does not mean I have to use it to run DX10 apps (games) or run it using Windows Vista. What it does mean is that I have the option to if I need to. Either way, it'd be faster than the X1900 which is my only real option.

 

[Fearless Leader]

why do you care about DX10? It's opengl we use.

Ohh and one of Moore's lesser known laws, the second you buy it, it's instantly out of date.

 

[Hydra]

Yes it's out of date, there are quite alot of other new chipsets out there.
Even the nVidia 7600 is alot faster than X1600 even though they boast almost identical specs.

 

[eXan]

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?

How heavy, thick is that Dell? How long is the battery life?

I bet its ugly too, as most Dells are

 

[Abstract]

It is massive. Try carrying it around in your hands. It is huge.

It really isn't so bad, and I'm not just comparing it to other 17" laptops.

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.

Agree 100%.

Unless you game, you're not looking at the X1600 as a disappointment. It would certainly be a great card for what I do, so how can I complain? Putting a more powerful card in the MBP would give me 0% improvement for what I do. A better card wouldn't improve Photoshop, DVD watching, and other such things. The card can even handle games.

Gamers want the MBP to be a great gaming machine, and Apple isn't catering to this crowd. Oh well, there are other companies.

Also notice how Apple sticks with S-IPS LCD panels for their Cinema Displays when they're clearly not the best for gaming (slow refresh rate) or for other uses like DVD watching? However, they're the most colour accurate, suffer from only minor colour shift, and provide better shadow details. That's great for people who do print work and photography, editing, etc. Again, they're not catering to the gaming market, and never really have. It's too bad for gamers, but again, there are other companies you can turn to.

 

[Zadillo]

Yes it's out of date, there are quite alot of other new chipsets out there.
Even the nVidia 7600 is alot faster than X1600 even though they boast almost identical specs.

What exactly do you base this on? What do you mean by "alot faster"? Most bencharks (3dmark and actual game performance) I've seen in reviews indicate the X1600 and GeForce 7600 are pretty much on par with each other performance wise; and that they aren't that far from the GeForce 7700 or X1700 either.

I think when DX10 games do come out you will be forced to run it with Vista, which opens a different can of worms.

Do you run it through Bootcamp or through Parallels? Will running it from the Bootcamp partition through Parallels trip the WGA anti piracy code and lock up your computer?

It boogles the mind.

I prefer Mac ports for games anyway if I can help it, at least it doesn't involve Windows.

From what I've read, most of the near-term DX10 games at least will still work with DirectX 9, they just won't give you access to some of the fancier graphics effects, etc. I am pretty sure Crysis won't require DX10, for example, although it wouldn't look nearly as good without it.

The only game I think I've heard of that will specifically require Vista is the PC port of Halo 2, and that has more to do with marketing I think than any technical requirements. No game dev in their right mind is ready yet to put out a game that only people with Vista installed can play.

why do you care about DX10? It's opengl we use.

Ohh and one of Moore's lesser known laws, the second you buy it, it's instantly out of date.

I think the interest in DX10 capable cards is because people know they would also be more modern and probably have better performance.

It isn't so much DX10 itself as much as it is just having better performing GPU's (which will help with OpenGL too).

-Zadillo

 

[cgc]

I think the interest in DX10 capable cards is because people know they would also be more modern and probably have better performance.

It isn't so much DX10 itself as much as it is just having better performing GPU's (which will help with OpenGL too).

Exactly. Plus the specs on the first DX10 cards are impressive.

 

[iW00t]

Yeap, Apple has been using the same video card in the Macbook Pros for close to 18 months. I don't care who they are targeted towards, but 18 months in the computer industry is like an era!

 

[whateverandever]

Heat. Matters.

Dedicated GPUs are progressing like CPUs were prior to ~2003/4. Higher clock frequencies, more power, and hotter running chips.

You're not going to see huge top-of-the-line video chipsets running in slim notebooks until the GPU industry takes a gander at the Core architecture and starts moving in that direction.

If they stick with ATI, they have to wait for a mobile version of the r600 line to be released. They can't just move up to the X1700 because... well, it's hotter. If they they side-step to Nvidia, they're still stuck with a card around the 7600 line (which similar notebooks do use, I know the slim VAIOs have built-in graphics and a switch to move to the 7600 -- great feature in my opinion). The 8000 series mobile chipset isn't out yet, and it'll probably start at the higher end portable 8800 for Dell/Alienware monstrosities... so realistically, you've got AT LEAST 6 months before a new mobile GPU for the MBP line unless they find a way to cut the heat. Chances are you'll see some kind of "refresh" to the line-up before then.

 

[e12a]

All i can say is that it's pretty darn amazing and capable.

Running Rainbow Six Vegas at 800x600 with HDR and motion blur on and i can play it easy. Not overclocked.


i know 800x600 is really low, but when your computer's spouting out graphics that good who cares.

 

[Zadillo]

Heat. Matters.

Dedicated GPUs are progressing like CPUs were prior to ~2003/4. Higher clock frequencies, more power, and hotter running chips.

You're not going to see huge top-of-the-line video chipsets running in slim notebooks until the GPU industry takes a gander at the Core architecture and starts moving in that direction.

If they stick with ATI, they have to wait for a mobile version of the r600 line to be released. They can't just move up to the X1700 because... well, it's hotter. If they they side-step to Nvidia, they're still stuck with a card around the 7600 line (which similar notebooks do use, I know the slim VAIOs have built-in graphics and a switch to move to the 7600 -- great feature in my opinion). The 8000 series mobile chipset isn't out yet, and it'll probably start at the higher end portable 8800 for Dell/Alienware monstrosities... so realistically, you've got AT LEAST 6 months before a new mobile GPU for the MBP line unless they find a way to cut the heat. Chances are you'll see some kind of "refresh" to the line-up before then.

Actually, those slim Vaios you speak of, the SZ series, have a switch to move from integrated graphics to a GeForce 7400; a decent GPU, but considerably slower than the X1600/X1700 or GeForce 7600/7700.

 

[Zadillo]

Yeap, Apple has been using the same video card in the Macbook Pros for close to 18 months. I don't care who they are targeted towards, but 18 months in the computer industry is like an era!

Yeah, but again, it's not just Apple. Most other manufacturers are using the same basic chips too (not to even mention that some big companies like Dell don't even offer anything close to as powerful in their 15" line). The latest laptops from HP and Sony are still using GeForce 7600's...... and HP and Sony are only using 7600's in their larger 17" notebooks. The best GPU you can get in a 15" HP, for example, is a GeForce 7400.

I wish people wouldn't act like Apple is alone here; the GPU side of things on laptops has stagnated across the board. Even the people who are using the newer parts, like Asus with the GeForce 7700 in the $1899 15" G1 laptop, are still using a GPU that isn't radically better than the X1600 or GeForce 7600.

-Zadillo

 

[iW00t]

Yeah, but again, it's not just Apple. Most other manufacturers are using the same basic chips too (not to even mention that some big companies like Dell don't even offer anything close to as powerful in their 15" line). The latest laptops from HP and Sony are still using GeForce 7600's...... and HP and Sony are only using 7600's in their larger 17" notebooks. The best GPU you can get in a 15" HP, for example, is a GeForce 7400.

I wish people wouldn't act like Apple is alone here; the GPU side of things on laptops has stagnated across the board. Even the people who are using the newer parts, like Asus with the GeForce 7700 in the $1899 15" G1 laptop, are still using a GPU that isn't radically better than the X1600 or GeForce 7600.

-Zadillo

Hmm, indeed you are right.

Guess I have been checking Apple.com so often that I neglected to check how the PC counterparts are doing, I just always have the impression that they are doing better hardware wise

 

[whateverandever]

Actually, those slim Vaios you speak of, the SZ series, have a switch to move from integrated graphics to a GeForce 7400; a decent GPU, but considerably slower than the X1600/X1700 or GeForce 7600/7700.

Ah, thanks for the correction. It's been quite a long while since I've seen them. I'd like to get benchmarks though, as the MBP X1600 is underclocked, so a normally clocked Geforce 7400 may be comparable.

Anyone have an SZ series Vaio? :]

 

[erikamsterdam]

Yeap, Apple has been using the same video card in the Macbook Pros for close to 18 months. I don't care who they are targeted towards, but 18 months in the computer industry is like an era!

The Macbook Pro was released just over a year ago. What *are* you talking about, 18 months?

 

[thegrandmaster]

Hang on a minute guys.

I thought that only the CD MBP had its X1600 underclocked, and that the C2D had been set to normal speed, though I don't think its been confirmed, its been posted on Appledefects and other forums methinks.

Feel free to correct me, just passing on what I've read.

 

[eXan]

Hang on a minute guys.

I thought that only the CD MBP had its X1600 underclocked, and that the C2D had been set to normal speed, though I don't think its been confirmed, its been posted on Appledefects and other forums methinks.

Feel free to correct me, just passing on what I've read.

That is correct. Only CD MBPs had underclocked GPUs and the 17" model automatically clocled it to normal speeds when under heavy load.

 

[4np]

I thought that only the CD MBP had its X1600 underclocked, and that the C2D had been set to normal speed

I think you're almost right. The CD was a lot underclocked and I read in some other threads that the C2D was a little bit underclocked. So you're better off with the C2D.