512MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GS vs. 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT

This is similar, but not the same as a couple threads I have found.

Yesterday Hewlett Packard updated their home notebook line and began offering a 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GS (as opposed to the 256 GS that they had offered previously). Meanwhile Dell still offers a 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT (as opposed to the GS that Hewlett Packard offers). So, my question is this: what's an overall better card? A 512MB GS or a 256MB GT? Does the increased memory of the new GS compensate for its otherwise weaker specs compared to the GT to make it superior overall now? I'm sorry, but I'm not technically literate enough to figure this out and it's pretty confusing for me... I realize that there is probably an "apples and oranges" element to this question, but unfortunately that's what I have to compare.

I'll be using the computer for video like Premiere Pro and and 3-D animation programs like After Effects that uses Open GL, among other things.

 

For openGl uses you might want to consider a quadro card...such as Quadro 570m in the T61p...

But Normal cards are fine... The GT is way better than the GS, no question about it.

 

Or the HP 8510w without blu-ray

 

The 8600gs 512mb is likely a gddr2 card, while some of dell's 8600gt is a ddr3 card which is much better than the gddr2.

Now for a conclusion, the graphics card memory is not what to look at when looking for a good card its the clock speed and etc.

According to what you described for what you need to do, both cards will be very sufficient so its just a matter of your choice i guess.


The guy is asking for advise on the graphics card...not what laptop to get...

Although i do agree that a thinkpad will probably be better than a dell

 

A 8600M GT already doesn't really have enough power to make use of a full 512MB of VRAM, so a 8600M GS has even less use for it. In general, 512MB of VRAM on mid-range GPUs is just a marketing gimmick for those who like big numbers. It really started with the Go 7600 when nVidia included 512MB of VRAM to try to make it look better than the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 and catch up in sales, since the MR X1600 was released ahead of it.

 

Thanks everyone, your comments are very helpful.

Here are specs from NVIDA's website comparing a 512MB GS with a 512MG GT (they didn't have a comparison between 512 GS & 256 GT):

8600M GS 8600M GT
Stream Processors 16 32
Core Clock (MHz) 600 475
Shader Clock (MHz) 1200 950
Memory Clock (MHz) 700 700
Maximum Memory 512MB 512MB
Memory Interface 128-bit 128-bit

So then, if I put an inference from these specs together with your advice, I take it that a higher of stream processors, and lower numbers on core clock and shader clock speeds are preferable, and that the maximum memory is essentially irrelevant. Is that about right?

 

My thoughts exactly. The 8600 series is just too crippled with its 128-bit memory bandwidth to make use of all 512MB.

The best 8600M GT version would be the 256MB GDDR3 version, which has much higher memory clocks than the DDR2 512MB 8600M GT. A bit confusing, but the GDDR3 8600M GT > DDR2 8600MGT in a lot of benchmarks.

So far, it's kinda rare to see the GDDR3 8600M GT, AFAIK, it's only found in the Asus G1S, the V1S, the C90, and the new Dell XPS 1530.

 

Correct. Hence why Nvidia doesn't list a 512MB GS to a 256MB GT. vRam doesn't make a GPU powerful (in most cases), it depends on interface, SP, clocks, and so on.

 

Might be Apple buying up a whole bunch of the supply since the MacBook Pro has always used GDDR3 in both the 128MB and 256MB models for both the Mobility Radeon X1600 and the 8600M GT. Apple seems to use premium GDDR3 too, since I remember seeing take apart photos of the Mobility Radeon X1600 using Samsung 700MHz GDDR3 chips, the same ones ATI was using in their desktop X1950Pro.

It's not that lower core and shader clocks are preferable, its just that more stream processors is generally the most important characteristic. In terms of memory, the amount isn't irrelevant since you should have at least 128MB nowadays with 256MB being the preferred amount for a mid-range chip. More memory is useful to hold more/larger textures usually involving higher resolutions and higher AA levels, but a mid-range chip doesn't have the power to drive those high resolutions or AA levels in modern games, so that becomes the bottleneck before you exceed 256MB of VRAM.

 

Itcommander_data,

Would there be any value to having additional ram, say 512 instead of 256, even on a mid-range chip, for powering a second monitor attached to a laptop?

 

I don't usually use 2 monitors, so someone with more experience might provide a more definitive answer, but I would say no. Regular desktops and applications don't really consume that much video memory even with Aero in Vista, video is more GPU and CPU intensive than VRAM, and I don't think you'll be playing games on multiple monitors. I've occasionally use a 1280x1024 external monitor in addition to my native 1440x900, and I've never noticed any performance degradation on 128MB.

 

I'd have to say no, even if you are planning on gaming on both monitors. Why?

Because it's pretty much impossible to get a decent FPS in any game (due to the lack of raw processing power) with a 8600M GT on a 1280 x 800 (or 1440 x 900, as the case may be) native Laptop screen AND an external 1280 x 1024 screen. So there's honestly no advantage there.

Just for reference:
Dual monitor with a 1440 x 900 and a 1280 x 1024 external monitor requires the GPU to process 2606720 pixels, while 1680 x 1050 monitor requires 1764000 pixels... If the 8600M GT can't even play games at any decent setting and FPS at 1680 x 1050, don't even dream (well, you can dream about it ) about it powering a game on dual monitors .

Now, if you were to just power an external monitor, then even less advantage there are, since just rendering two desktops require very little VRAM.

Let's do some simple math:
Let's assume, once again, you have a 1440 x 900 screen and an 1280 x 1024 external monitor. That's 2606720 pixels, just to refresh our memories.

Now, if you're displaying a 32 bit desktop, that's 4 bytes * 2606720 pixels (The reason you have to multiply by "4 bytes" is because each pixel requires 4 bytes to display the full 24bit range of colour *). That would be 10426880 Bytes. Okay, you're right, who count in bytes these days? Let's count in KB and MB, respectively:
10182.5KB, 9.9MB.

So, you see, you're FAR from needing 512MB to display two desktops.

Even display two 1680 x 1050 display wouldn't be a problem for even a 64MB video card.

*Why 24bit of colour? What's happening to your extra 8 bits? "32-bit colour", for all intent and purposes, is simply 24bit colour with "bit alignment" so that the hardware can read the data easier.

You see, Intel's 32-bit data bus is more efficient at getting 32bit data "chunks" than it is getting 24bit chunks, bit by bit. If I were to request 32bit, I only need 1 request, but if I were to request 24bit, I have to make two 16bit requests and chop off the bits I don't need. Thus wasting CPU clock (at the same time, saving memory). However, since today's computers have SO much memory, and not as much CPU clock, it's far more efficient and practical to sacrifice memory for CPU time.

 

Well it's a little bit more complicated in Vista now, and as I understand it, if Aero Glass follows Quartz in OS X, the VRAM stores each window's information, and composites it on the fly rather than just buffering the final desktop image. Holding the window information increases VRAM usage, and compositing means that the extra 8-bits in 32-bit colour is used for the alpha channel rather than byte aligning. Still, even with Vista, more than 256MB isn't required for dual monitor usage. Microsoft reports to OEMs that 128MB of VRAM is recommended to drive 2,304,000 pixels in Aero Glass, which as you calculated is pretty much a 1440x900 monitor plus a 1280x1024. 256MB should be sufficient to drive dual 1920x1200 monitors (which is higher than 1080p) in Aero Glass.

 

Thing about this is the GS compared to GT. Even though the GS has more memory, it has weaker streaming processors. I only know this because I ordered the HP and 10 days after I got the same laptop your laptop, the hard drive crashed. By that time I knew that the GS would lag because I download Call of Duty 4 Demo and it would. Luckily, HP took the laptop back and gave me my money back.( Remember, just because there's 512 doesnt mean there will always be a 512, because that is dedicated memory. Now with the memory card, that is shared memory, and that is used to kick up the graphic card performance, whenever in need. I ordered 3Gb memory, so the shared memory would be kicked up to 1279 MB!!! I think the Dell will be around 800 to 1000, because of the less dedicated memory.

I think you would be better off with the Dell XPS, I am going to order that in a few days.

 

Shared Vram dont do much...and 512mb Vram on a 8600 ? is point less anyway...the 128-bit bus can not utilise it.

 

Hey, also the Dell XPS scored better in the CNET review than the Apple in 3d benchmarking.

THE GS AND THE GT OF THE 8600M ARE BOTH CLASS 2 GRAPHICS, BUT THE GT IS RANKED 3RD BEST IN CLASS 2.