8600GT and 8400GT , whats the difference?

As above... Dont know much about graphics card... :-(

 

The 8600m GT is about a 100% faster it has a bus of 128 vs 64! 8600m is a much faster card!

 

Well... Not really, The 8400GT in the Sony FZ scores about the same as the 8600GS in the f3sv, the 8600GT scores about 45% better if its the DDR3 version

 

Yupe.. the 8400M GT is as fast as the 8600M GS... but if ur choosing between the 2, go with the 8600M GT if u game a lot.

 

As said earlier, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong the 8600M GT 256mb version can come in ddr3 or ddr2 most usually ddr3 while the 512mb version only comes in the ddr2 variety which should be avoided. If you're not sure, do some research before buying. Be careful.

 

actually the ddr2 version is far more common, the only machines offering ddr3 are the mbp, and the g1s and the g1s is clocked higher.

 

So can I ask why you went with the 8600gt knowing it will be ddr2? I've only read negative reviews with benchmarks being cut in half of the ddr3 256mb/turbo cache.

 

its cheaper, for one thing. plus you can set your own clocks.

with the macbook pro, you have a lot of room to change the clocks, you can easily get back to stock without changing the temperature. i personally went WAY beyond that, and i still stayed within the comfortable/safe range.

the 8600m gt is a lot faster than the rest of the cards in the 8x00 series, but keep in mind you will have to get a larger notebook if you want an 8600m gt. smaller notebooks can take the 8400m gt. those smaller notebooks tend to have smaller resolutions, which take less gpu power to render.

 

8600GT has 32 streaming processors, where as 8400GT/8600GS only has 16. In theory, this gives twice the fill rate of 8400GT and 1.7 times the fill rate of 8600GS (8600GS core is clocked higher than 8600GT core), which should translate into much better performance. In practice, however, many 8600GT uses slow GDDR2 - meaning bandwidth is too low to take advantage of its fill rates. As a result, GDDR2 8600GT performs only around 30% better than GDDR3 8400GT in 3Dmarks06. In very fill rate limited scenario, the distance may be greater between GDDR2 8600GT and GDDR3 8400GT, although both card might be underpowered for that scenario.

Oh, and 8400G/8400GS are much slower, they only have 64bit bus.

 

ideally you will just get the gddr3 8600m gt, nvidia spec, which is very fast.

 

Btw, how much gaming do you exactly do? There's no point in getting a GPU for very power hungary games if you gonna be playing something like tetris, rofl.

For average gamers who play often, then an 8400 GS should be enough. If your a gaming freak and play a vast amount, then you should get an 8600 GT, minimum.

 

I am personally getting the IFL90 with the 8600mGT w/512mb

And I don't understand why this should be avoided, even if it does have GDDR2.

I would rather a 512 card against a 256 card.

Turbocache would eat my memory, which I don't really care for it to.

I think it is a very nice card option.

Put both the 8400mGT and 8600mGT in a 15" wsxga+ notebook and tell me which runs better.

That's what I'm buying.

 

I think that if I OC my 8600M GT in the IFL90 it should be sufficient. People are just whining because it's not as good as the GDDR3 version of it's twin, despite the fact that both are very powerful cards and can play anything on the market right now. Since I'm upgrading from an old desktop, that's enough for me

 

The 8600GT is more than sufficient for playing anything as of now but what about two years from now, that extra power might make a difference.
Its not a big deal for most but it is good to keep in mind when deciding say between a 2090 and a G1.

 

My biggest battle was choosing between the G1S, the Compal IFL90, and the Macbook Pro.

I would have LOVED a macbook pro.. But they are just so expensive.. I could not justify it.

the G1S was more expensive with barely any customization and it looked a like a glow in the dark kids toy.

So I dare say the IFL90 DDR3 or not.. Takes my cake.

And I wouldn't expect any laptop to be able to play a game 2 years from purchase all too well.

 

Mippoose, the 512MB card is a fine choice but I doubt it can make use of all that memory, there is some question of how much 512MB helps 7950GTX so just food for thought.

 

Yes, in two years the extra power might make some difference, but the difference isn't -that- large, afterall. The two versions of the card are still in the same ballpark.

And, well, on a personal note, I'm not just buying this laptop for gaming. I need it for all my computing needs. I chose the 2090 over the G1 because I don't want an ugly green tainted notebook for 3 or 4 years

 

An 8600 GT will be rubbish in playing games in 2 - 3 years. By then, directx 10 games will the majority on the market, which an 8600 GT won't be able to play well.

The second generation of Dx10 compatible GPU's would have arrived and only them will be able to play newer games and decent settings.

 

8600M GT has more stream processors and has higher clocks than an 8400M GT. And I'd rather get the 8600M GT with 256 MB GDDR3 over the 512 MB GDDR2. It's slower and only a few games use 512 MB in textures. And even if it does, you won't notice a difference between the 256 and 512 textures -- well, unless you pause the game and take a closer look. LOL. And obviously, in terms of speed, the 256 MB GDDR3 is faster.

 

I am looking to purchase a vostro 1500, and am not sure whether to upgrade the graphics card or not. It normally comes with the nVidia Go 8400m (Dedicated), but can be upgraded for something like $140 to the nVidia Go 8600m (Dedicated).
I would like to be able to play games such as FEAR and Oblivion if possible. Would the 8400m work for those or should I upgrade for sure? If I do upgrade does it garauntee that those games will work?
Also, I was wondering how negatively the better graphics card would affect my battery life.
Thanks alot for any responses in advance.

 

The 8400 will play those games fine on low-medium settings, but the 8600GT is a much better option if you want to game on mid-high settings for the games listed above.

And yea, it will cut into your battery life, as for the number or percentile, I can't say for sure.

 

the 8600m gt downclocks pretty low when it isn't being used.

i dont think it will affect your battery life much more than a different dedicated option (like the 8400m).

 

Yep, I was going for the Sager 2090 but after seeing the Asus G1S I was pretty much like "what! this is an easy choice." I cancelled my 2090 order and am now with the Asus. It is very fast. It can play any game right now. To the people who say that it will be old in several years well, of course. Every peice of hardware grows old but the 8600GT DDR3 is a much better choice. Of course it doesnt hurt if you end up with a DDR2.

Also the Sager 2090 shipping is awefull! I have waited two months and haven't gotten it. The Asus on the other hand only took a week.

 

By the way. A GDDR3 8400M GT will perform as well as a GDDR2 8600M GS and slightly better than a DDR2 8600M GS.

I would personally go for the 8600M GS, or the GT if you are willing to spend. What would be the point of getting an underclocked and underpowered version of the 8600M GS, that being the 8400M GT with GDDR3, when they aer almost the same price, and generally the 8600M GS comes on higher notebooks than the 8400M GT.

If you are going to go for the 8600M GT than good luck finding a version using GDDR3 other than maybe some MacBook Pros or something. The Asus G1s actually uses GDDR2.