Go 7700 vs X1700, OCZ vs Corsair vs Crucial

I was wondering if anyone has numbers for A8Js and A8Jp overclocked using the various different ram brands that are availible. I know I want to buy the A8J format of a notebook, but I want to know if the 7700 is worth the extra $150 to $200. Also, I have read OCZ is better for overclocking, but does anyone have first hand experience with these laptop ram modules?

 

Overclocking a laptop to the point where you are buying expensive RAM to do it is just dumb.

My housemate bought 2x1GB OCZ DDR2-800 for his Conroe desktop build, but they both tested bad in Prime95 so he returned them and got mushkin instead...

 

Just buy the cheapest PC-5300 DDR2 SODIMM ram u can find...i paid $90CAD for a 1gb stick of KingMAX and it works perfectly

u usually dont overclock laptops with regards to CPU and memory...

but you can overclock the GPU without a problem...just dont overdo it...although i dont recommend leaving your laptop running at overclocked GPU speeds while playing a game or benchmarking for too long........

 

Perhaps the most underrated memory out there: The Buffalo Firestix. They overclock very well. The Japanese just continue to amaze.

 

i'm not sure how much you're going to be able to o/c your processor as you're limited to the mobo and the locked BIOS. You'll see a significant increase in processor speed if you do a pin mod (pentium M's could o/c nicely) or purchase the t7600g core 2 duo. I don't think there's a pin mod for the C2Ds and the t7600g is pretty expensive.

It's usually best to buy cheap well known ram, like kingston select or corsair value select ram, as it's inexpensive and it probably won't arrive DOA like some of the cheaper brands (i hear centron is pretty bad).

the 7700 is around ~33% faster than the x1700. The $150-$200 price increase seems fair, but it's not a bargain to upgrade for that much either.

 

I don't think so. Maybe 10%, if that, in real world applications. Probably less.

Edit: Removed Incorrect Benchmarks

 

your source is incorrect

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

7700 3DMark06 - 2700
x1700 3DMark06 - 1850

 

my 3d mark o6 score over clocked is 3174

highest x 1600 is 2200

almost 1000 points higher.

20% of the test is cpu mind you so according to 3d mark 06 the 7700 is like way more than 150% the speed

now according to 3d mark 05 its like maybe 120% the speed.

it is apples to oranges ok nvidia and ati cards.

You can assume it is 150% the speed of the x1600. You know why? Its 150% the speed of the 7600 go. The 7600 go is the equivelent of the x1600 x1700. different but equivelent.
It is fair to say thats what it is.

 

oh ok you dont overclock notebook ram.


I happened to have bought ocz ram for my 2nd stick


it works in dual channel with the ram that was in there already.


Once you have 2 gb of 667 ram going in dual channel, you have reached the apex of performance you will reach. lol

dont pay much extra you are not buying extra performance only possibly better reliability with name brands


as for the a8js over the a8jp I think its worth about $150 personally to me, a real gamer.
The fps in a lot of games are way higher.
the x1700 is going to have trouble running some recent games in its 1440 x 900 screen.

I think the a8jp is a better deal though right now. I assume you can find the a8js for 1500 and the a8jp is 1300 I think the a8jp is a better deal.

 

Keep in mind that notebook manufacturers often clock their cards at different speeds.

 

ok well there are different versions of the x 1600

there are even 2 different versions of the x1700

Im only refering to the version in the a8jp because the one in the g2 seems to be faster.

But theres only one version of the 7700 go. The one in the a8js and the g1p are exactly the same

 

Hmm, I see what I did. Nevermind.

Would like one of the A8Jp people to post some scores for us though... Since there are multiple clock speeds of X1700s around.

I still do not believe that a 33% difference in 3DMark06 at all translates into a 33% speed difference in *any* practical application, though.

I have read enough video card reviews in the last 6 years to see that the new revision of 3DMark is always designed to exaggerate the difference between that years cards, to sell more high-end cards. In practice with current and in-development games the difference is much lower...

 

I was just commenting about that site listing the video cards with their scores. They are really just ball park figures. Thanks for the info though.

 

it's actually a 45% difference in scores, i went down a bit since 3dmark is kind of not a good indicator of real life preformance, but it's all we have to go on until someone adds more benchmarks to that awesome x1600 vs 7600 thread

 

Why do you always say that. You keep quoting these wrong numbers for the X1600 which make the Go 7700 look better than it is and I correct you everytime, but you never reply.

For what must be the third or forth time, an example of a high score for a X1600 in 3DMark06 is 2563.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3019543&postcount=2216

You say that 3DMark06 including CPU performance in its score will make the Go 7700's advantage even larger but I don't think that's true. Most of the X1600 scores available are done on Core Duos. The Core 2 Duo is actually quite a bit faster than a Core Duo because of particularly because of the improvements in SIMD and FP execution which the Core Duo architecture was weak in. This will have a very positive effect on X1600 scores which is why it's not possible to draw conclusions from Core Duo X1600 scores versus Go 7700 scores which are all Core 2 Duo.

Note that the 3DMark06 score I'm providing is from a MacBook Pro with a Core 2 Duo. Now this is just an example of a high X1600 score, I'm sure it's not the highest. This score itself was a very early one that just served to test whether the new MacBook Pros were still underclocked (which they are not) and to see how high they can overclock. I'm sure since the MBP's release this overclock and score have been exceeded and there's certainly been 2 or 3 driver revisions since that time too.

Now if a X1600 can get 2563 in 3DMark06, I'm sure a X1700 can do even better, especially if the new cooler, power-efficient process allows more overclocking room. So to say that the Go 7700 is more than 50% faster than the X1700 is completely ridiculus. In fact, it'd be lucky to be 15% faster in real world games. If people target 60fps as the ideal zone to configure their settings toward, you are fighting over less than 10 fps. It's hardly something to sweat over.

 

that score is with a different cpu

with the same cpu the high score is in the 2200s.

Im putting you on my ignore list as opposed to just not reading your stuff you have a problem with these subjects I dont have time to deal with.

When you look at the x1600 with a 2.0 ghz the score is almost 1000 higher. Its not something you can argue about, if you find yourself doing that youre full of um... youre wasting my time.

It is just not what Im spending my time here doing you need someone else to correspond with about your video card arguments.
People that are buying the hardware should have an idea of what the difference of the hardware is.

 

Just like to give my 2 cents cuz I'm bored at work XD

Reading 6times7's G1 review found here
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3403

Scroll further down and you'll find 3dmark 2005:
Asus G1J (Core 2 Duo, 2.0GHz, NVIDIA 7700) 4,247 3D Marks
Acer TravelMate 8204WLMi (2.0GHz Core Duo, ATI X1600 256MB) 4,236 3D Marks


I'm not quite sure if there's a big speed loss of x1600 in 3dmark 2006 cuz there's no reference to compare to, but judging scores of asus g1p geforce 7700 512mb and acer TravelMate 8204WLMi x1600 256mb on 3dmark 2005, the speed difference is nearly neglectable.

 

Ya the 05 scores are closer the 06 scores are not. It will confuse a lot of people using either to compare them.

Dont compare them using 3d mark scores it is a complete waste of time.
An ati card owner will not even show his 3dmark 06 scores usually because its so biased against his hardware.

What you want to do is compare the 7700 go scores to the 7600 go scores. that will give you a better idea.

Maybe its just me but i repeat this a lot. So often its getting me a little testy.

Dont compare ati and nvidia cards using the 3dmark scores. If youre doing that youre wasting your time.
If youre wasting your time thats fine too but then take the step and try not to waste a shoppers time as well.

If someone is presenting something here on the forum and it is comparing an ati card to an nvidia card and they are only showing you one of the two scores they are just presenting information in a slant.
and then someone is going to show the other score eventually in a slant. And it will go over and over until you get sick of it and learn to ignore it lol.

you are not going to get the information you need about gpu comparisons from comparing their 3dmark 05 scores. Not at all.

I read the 05 score, i post the 06 score and then um unmentionables start arguing because it entertains them. Im trying to explain what might even be a complicated subject in short sentences and trying to get them even shorter because i find myself repeating this a lot.

 

Maybe I'm pushing too hard on this so I'll apologize. I just feel that your numbers are off.

You're right that perhaps using a 2.33GHz MBP isn't such a good comparison. Still, mastha212 with his W3J got 2503 in 3DMark06.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=432453

Now he is at a distinct disadvantage with only a 1.83GHz Core Duo against a 2GHz Core 2 Duo in a A8Js or something similar in a A8Jp. And this is a several month old score so older drivers were used.

All I'm saying is that if comparing overclocking performance potential, the X1600/X1700 isn't as weak as it may first appear.

EDIT: After a bit more digging seems the 2503 in 3DMark06 was a onetime thing just for overclocking purposes. mastha212 did get 2304 in 3DMark06 previously with a more conventional overclock on his 1.83GHz Core Duo W3J so there definitely still is room to grow with faster Core 2 Duo processors and newer drivers.

 

I just installed 3DMark06 and ran it twice, and I got 2228-2229. My spec is shown in my sig. My 3DMark05 score is 4459. These scores are with stock setting and Cat 6.8.

 

I dont have the link that showed fps differences in games like nfs carbon quake 4 etc, with a a8js and an a8jp ( which had a t5500)

the differences were huge they were not a few fps they were much more.

Its somewhere here in the forum orignally in chinese.

Now that there is a a8jp in na hopefully a owner will do some sort of gaming test i can reproduce.

The thing is, I dont think the x1700 is going to be any different than the x1600 in the w3j

It would be a shame for someone to read that the 7700 and the x1700 have a similar 3d mark o5 score and then think that means the x1700 runs games almost as well with the same settings. The difference is going to be very large.

 

Idle speculation absent any figures whatsoever, and speculation which is framed in something that bears only a passing resemblance to English, is unhelpful, Stamar. If you cannot provide figures then there is little reason to comment.

Original poster: I get around 8200 in 3dMark03 with a W2P, which has an X1700, T7200 and 2 GB of 667 MHz RAM. I have not bothered to benchmark 05 and 06, but the result in 06 should follow 03; the X1700 generally appears to be, at best, around 70-80% as fast as a 7700.

/wishes someone would ban stamar and thereby improve the quality of nbr.com advice five-fold.

 

I can probably do a more accurate comparison since I have a W3j with a C2D 2.0 and 6.10 drivers. I'll run them tomorrow and display what I get.

But to be honest, real world comparison is probably more important. Keep in mind that certain games are optimized for either nvidia or ati, for example HL2 has an ATI bias, Quake4 and Doom3 have a Nvidia bias.

The overall difference shouldn't be very dramatic.

 

That's probably the best comment I've read so far.

 

Ok, I ran 3DMark06 twice on my laptop while it was on AC Power. No modification have been made, it is a Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz W3j with 1 gig of ram and the original 5400RPM 100gig hard drive.

The scores I received are... *drum rolls* 2209 and 2212. I restarted the computer after the first run and shut down all non-essential programs and the results are pretty consistent.

So based on Stamar's best scores and the best score I received. His unoverclocked 7700 is about 21% faster than the X1600. His overclocked speed is nearly 40% faster than the X1600.

Unless the purpose of buying a laptop is to run benchmarks all day, the differences shouldn't keep you from playing your favorite games on either laptops. =D

 

What's your 3DMark05 score? Just for comparison to mine...

My W3J has a T7600 C2D, 2GB 667 MHz RAM, and a 5400 rpm 160GB HDD.

 

Blah... I'll have to download and run it T.T;;

 

Sorry... OK, as I stated earlier, my 3DMark06 score is around 2228-2229, so the difference in processor (T7600 and T7200) does not make big difference in the scores.
At least now we know that W3J's 3DMark06 score is around 2200, and that is standard, not overclocked.

 

I'm downloading it right now, give me about 20 min to download and a few more minutes to run it and I will let you know.

 

Ok, I ran it once. My 3DMark05 score is 4357.

 

After reading all the posts I am really confused. I still don't know how big is the difference in terms of peformance, between the 7700 and X1700.

I'm really concerned about this issue because i'm planning to buy a laptop in 2 weeks, one is the G1 with the 7700, the other is the W1JC (not available in NA) with an X1700 (256dedicated, 256 shared), same specs, only differene is the video card.

The difference of performance between the two video cards will certainly lead me to take my final decision.

What's then this difference?

Thanx

 

Well, if you want absolutely the best performance, the G1 with the Go 7700 will be faster. It is a gaming system afterall.

That's not to say the W1Jc is based. Being a higher grade computer, the W1Jc will likely be clocked higher than the A8Jp which is the other X1700 computer that people talk about. The W1Jc will probably be more like the W3J, in that it'll use GDDR3 instead of DDR2 in the A8Jp, with clock speeds of 450MHz/450MHz. (I haven't actually heard anyone reporting the exact clock speeds). At stock speeds, the G1 is probably around 10-15% faster than the W1Jc although I just don't know how well that'll translate into actual usability differences. In terms of overclockability, the Go 7700 has shown itself to have great potential, but I wouldn't count the X1700 out since this time it'll have the advantage of GDDR3 and also a larger 15.4" form factor rather than the more thermally limiting 14" cases of the W3J or A8Jp.

The thing is, I'm not sure if the performance difference between the X1700 and Go 7700 should be the deciding factor between those two models. The W1Jc is more of a "professional" laptop with a superior design and finish and it's more expensive, if I'm not mistaken. It also has a TV tuner. I think price, quality, features and style (flashy vs. refined) are bigger deciding factors between the G1 and W1Jc than simply GPU choice.

 

Well, nedless to say, you are really right in your reflexion. Although i look for performance, i am not a hardcore gamer. I would like a strong machine but i am not looking for the perfect fps. If you tell me that the X1700 will have only a slight difference, it's not a big deal. I need to bring the laptop with me to work, its green leds are not convenient !

One last question, in your performance analysis, did you take into account the fact that the W1JC X1700 is only 256 dedicated, with the other 256 shared.

 

Realistically, a mid-range graphics card doesn't have enough power to actually use 512MB of RAM. For something like a X1700 or a Go 7700, 256MB is fine. More RAM is beneficial at higher resolutions, but even ignoring theoretical GPU performance, you are going to run up against a memory bandwidth bottleneck before you run into a memory size bottleneck. I'm pretty sure that all X1600 only come with 256MB of RAM. A few X1700 are starting to have 512MB, but that's really a response to nVidia which liked to put 512MB of RAM for their Go 7600 and Go 7700. I believe nVidia did that as a selling point since the Go 7600 came to market after tha X1600 rather than a major performance differentiator. The extra 256MB Hypermemory for the X1700 is kind of like insurance in the event that you actually need more than 256MB of dedicated memory.

 

Don't worry too much about performance if you're not a hardcore gamer. Regardless of your decision, you can rest assured that your experience will be an enjoyable one. Just make sure you pick the one that you like better and don't consider these small differences.

 

oh believe me i got sick of 3d mark scores about a month ago. when I bought my computer at the end of october I had to go on something and I made these same estimates that are going on in this thread over the same hardware.

Ok but to even use 3d mark 06 as a comparison ( which is worthless as I explained didnt I? Not trying to put anyone down but its almost worthless)

youve got to realize that 2 of the scores are cpu only. Those two scores are going to be exactly the same between out machines right? You have to compare the other scores to even get a "3d mark 06 only percentage" difference. ( you are using this test to compare the two gpus correct? So 3dmark does 2 tests you want to ignore)
Ok and that percentage is going to be over 33% ( using your percentage of the lower score total of the higher score) by a lot.

If anyone wants to get in depth into mobile gpu hardware comparison using data from 3dmark 06 scores the forum is the futuremark forum. Odds are there is a discussion on this.

 

Hey now, don't get your panties in a bunch, I just posted up scores so everyone can see the difference. Nothing I said was targeted specficially at you at all. The information provided is for potential buyers who may be stuck between two very good choices.

And as I said in the last portion of my post that you so kindly quoted. It really doesn't matter much especially since it won't keep you from playing any game comfortably. Chances are, any game that won't play well on the x1600 will not play well on the 7700 either.

It would probably be wise to check the scores G1 owners are getting since the tests are more recent. You will see that it is a very small increase over the X1600.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=94846 maybe someone will be interested
cheers

 

this has nothing to do with 3DMark scores or anything, but when i brought my W3 in to my dealer here in taiwan to get my OS upgraded, i installed F.E.A.R there and did a test run to make sure everything works, the dealer saw it and asked me what game it was, i explained it to him and then i asked if I could install it on one of the other machines so i can compare the FPS differences between my notebook and the others. He said sure and I installed F.E.A.R on one of the G1's on display. behold these results:

W3 1.66 ghz Core Duo 2mb L2 Cache
2 GB DDR2 533 ram (T_T I got a 667 but stock here is 533 so stuck at lower clock speed, **** taiwan)
100gb 5400 rpm hdd
x1600 256mb DDR3 (512 w/ hypermemory)

G1 2.00 ghz Core 2 Duo 4 mb L2 cache
2GB DDR2 667 ram
go7700 512mb (duno if its DDR2 or DDR3)

Fear FPS (normal setting for all)
W3 - ~ 43 average
G1 - ~ 52 average

i didn't have any means of actually calculating the 'average' fps but i just ran around for a bit around each starting room, and watched the fps, and it seemed to be roughly the above dun quote me on the actual fps ^__^)v

my W3 didn't run it too smoothly in max settings so hard to compare FPS, but comparitively, the G1 was 'decent' . still nowhere near high end desktops but its really good for a 15"

this is a less technical comparison, just something i got a chance to try, but realistically speaking, unless u REALLY want everything cranked up all the way there's no difference between the 2, not as big as DX9 vs DX10 cards to come.

 

Thanks for the input. However, those fps reading at max reading on the G1 would be useful!

 

was in the thread mastha212 linked

 

well the more you turn aa off the more fps the gf will go ahead

so that test its only 2 x.

All that data is great data but you have to interpret it....

 

Here is an interesting link of someone who run 3Dmark 06 on his G2, equipped with an X1700, he got the following score: 2305 pts. All the details are in this link:
http://hjj.free.fr/G2/

 

that is interesting

it says its at 459 / 490

So either that is what the g2s x1700 starts at or its overclocked.

 

If it's an overclock, it's a fairly week one. That could be what its clocked at when stock. The X1700 in the G2, I think has better cooling and has double the dedicated memory - 512MB's. It might start coming closer to 7700 speeds, but I'm sure the 7700 will always be at least slightly more powerful.

 

No the benchmark was run without an overclock and yes on the G2 the X1700 is 512 dedicated, not shared (i thought that this doesn't make a big difference when it comes to real world applications, according to some previous posts).

 

The 512MB's of dedicated memory make the most difference when running at higher resolutions or with higher settings.. AA, AF etc.

 

ignore this thread. look at the benchmarks in the graphics section. rickster your wrong.

 

I have an f3jp and just overclocked the x1700 (256MB) to 496/490... i can run some benches but my friend has a 7700 in his g1 and the x1700 is up to par with the 7700. The x1700 has a lot of room for overclcoking. I think the benches show it being much slower because the x1700 at stock settings is clocked lower. I am not sure how overclockable the 7700go is though.

Note: If you overclock the x1700 dont overclock the core to anything over 500 or it could damage your GPU.

 

how do you think will halo 2 perform on the x1700?