8600M GT opinions

Hi there

Since we have had a few benches on this graphics card, I think is time to give our first impressions on how it performs.

Dont you all think it is quite behind expectations? seems like there is something making DX10 cards run slower

 

I think the GT performs well for a card that can fit in a 14" laptop. It brings the power of a 7900gs into a 14" form factor, whats not to love?

It scores better, much better, than the go7700 in 3DM06 which a lot of people seem to be really happy with.

I think once good drivers have been sorted out we will really see this card shine.

I will agree with anyone who says the 8600GS is a disappointment though.

 

drivers which utilize the gpu correctly are not yet available for vista, drivers need to be corrected

btw man the review of the asus g1s shows the lappy (equipped with 8600M GT) can handle stuff pretty nicely, runs supreme commander and command and conquer 3 on max settings at 1074x768 resolution, which is great for a 15 4" laptop.

 

which laptops will have the 8600M GT? does the Compal IFL-90 come with it?

 

Well..it's only a mid-range card...I think people's expectations were just a bit high. And like everything that's fairly new, I'm sure with time and better drivers, it'll get better.

 

powernotebooks and xotic are only saying that the IFL90 is coming with an 8600 card, I think the expectation is the GT but it hasn't been confirmed just yet. I would imagine it's the number 1 question regarding the IFL90 in the US.

This is from Justin at Xoticpc from another thread:
We havent been provided with confirmed info that it will be the "GT". It will likely be this model but we dont want to quote it until it is confirmed

 

It's not only a driver issue. The 8600M GT also has a 128-bit memory bus, which drastically reduces its potential. It benchmarks similarly to the Geforce Go 7900GS of the previous generation in 3DMark06, but as real-world gaming benchmarks come in, the 7900GS is winning because it has a 256-bit memory bus.

Imagine graphics memory as a highway. The 8600M GT has a more efficient architecture, so that means the cars flow faster through the highway, but it only has 128 lanes. The 7900GS' cars flow slower, but it has double the lanes for cars to flow. So, more cars (or data) can flow through the 7900GS' memory.

 

i see. Thanks

but the ATI wont come up much better (with more highways or lanes ), will it?

 

We really can't tell, because the HD 2600XT hasn't been released yet. Expect it to be about as powerful as the 8600M GT, though.

If you're debating whether to just buy a laptop with an 8600M GT now, or wait for the HD 2600XT to come out, don't do that debate. If you need a laptop now, just get it now. The small performance difference that might result from getting the HD 2600XT is not worth the fingernail biting. A better reason to wait to buy a laptop is the fact that there will be more options available later in the summer, since DX10/Santa Rosa is a relatively new technology that few companies have actually integrated into their computers yet.

 

any news on Dell and 8600GT? cos dell seems to be stuck in prehistory

 

As for dell I think for now a 7950 GTX outperforms a 8600M GT. I can imagine Dell will release it for the M1210 but not for the M1710. For the M1710 I'd imagine Dell would wait for the 8700M or even the 8800M if that ever is released.

 

Dell is updating its M1210 into a thinner, more portable design. The M1210 will get Santa Rosa and the 8400M GT at the end of June, along with LED backlighting and a slot-loading DVD drive.

http://www.laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=2489


No word on the M1710 and M2010, mainly because the 8800M GTX hasn't been released yet.

 

Dell is a little behind right now but things look promising with their new updates.
Tim

 

I voted performance is O.K.

 

Performance isn't as good as some expected. For example, in the previous two generations of mid-range cards from nVidia (7600GT and 6600GT) were able to provide performance close to the higher range cards of the previous generation - X1800XL and X800's respectively. However in the 8600GTS's case, it can't beat even the 7900GS, which is priced lower than it. That's where the disappointment comes in I believe.

The 8600 series has some serious shader power, but not enough memory bandwidth to back it up. In some games, like Oblivion and STALKER, you can see the 8600GTS racing ahead of cards like the X1950 Pro only to fall behind when AA is enabled.

And no, better Vista drivers (which aren't as bad as most people say - somewhere in the range of 5-10% less than XP) won't magically create more memory bandwidth.

 

*confused* The GPU guide on this site ranks the 7600 GT as "performance", not mid-range. I was under the impression that the 8600 was also "performance", and that new 8700/8800 would be "high-end".

 

It's just semantics. Most people just use three broad categories: "Low-end", "Mid-range" (which encompasses "Performance" as well) and "High-end". The GPU-guide just makes finer distinctions between the cards. Broadly speaking, the 8600M GT is considered a mid-range card.

 

I reckon dell's finally doing something, their website is having some changes, might be revealing of something might just be nothing, anyway since their laptop offers for last month ended 29th, today the pictures of the dell xps series were missing....might be that they are chaining the setup or might be nothing lol

 

Yep..drivers and Vista. Third, these cards are low end dx10 cards.

 

So basically, if you never plan to buy a DX10 game, you are better off buying a comp with an old 7000 series NVIDA card...

 

I recall seeing somewhere that mentioned the new ati cards are capable of audio and video through the hdmi cable whereas the nvidia cards are only capable of video...is this true? And if it is wouldn't it be significant or I guess one need an hd dvd drive in the computer as well for that to really matter?

 

I think it is a good GPU, just not fully optimized. All I wanted was an improvement over the 7700 and I think we got it.

 

Wouldn't that be pointless then, since hdmi is basically DVI +digital audio (AFAIK)

 

Seems to scale fairly when you figure everything in. Its showing up early in notebooks so its on par with say the 7600 and x1600mobility as far as what we can expect from it. from what im seeing its almost equal to a 7900gs which people have started calling the entry to high lvl for last generation, that is not true. the 7900gs was considerably faster then the 7800 and if i remember right, on par with the 7800gt. I didnt have personal experience with the nvidia cards from that generation so ill speak from the ati side.

I ran an x800gto in my desktop and went to a mobility x1600256mb in my notebook and performance was about equal. the x1600 however, i have no question would fail badly against an x800xt.

If you compare the 8600gt to current midrange tech, and last generations true entry into high end (7800) it looks very impressive

 

I think driver optimization wont do much for DX9 games but for DX10 (hopefully) it should have signifigant improvement. I just stand by the point that until DX10 game (crysis in my mind) is benched with comparison between dx9 and dx10 games and the 8600m gt doesnt show improvement over dx9 then there is no point in getting a one of these cards. Nonetheless while it is more expensive then then the 7900gs there are reasons for that such as nvidia purevideo technology in the card. People also forget that no matter what company it is, it is still new technology and especially since it can run DX10 games theres always a premium to pay for that. For me once it is overclocked I have no problem with it.

 

i think there is a lot of confusion going on about the 8600m gt for several reasons.

First and foremost, a lot of people's introduction to the 8600m gt happens to coincide with their introduction to vista. a good amount of the performance increase with the 8600m gt (from a 7600, lets say) is lost because of the performance deficit created by vista's shoddy dx9 support.

Second, a lot of people expected the 8600m gt to surpass a 7950gtx...
that just sounds ridiculous to me. even by the general logic posed earlier that the 7600 outpaced the 6800 can still apply.

the go 7600 beats a go 6800.

anyone remember the geforce go 7800? the 8600m gt beats this card. tada.

what more can you ask of it? its obviously not going to beat a 7950gtx

the 7950gtx is a 17" monster-beast.

in desktops the same holds true. an nvidia 7600 wasn't faster than the very top 6 series cards. the 8600s aren't faster than the best 7 series cards...

the 8600m gt is actually closer to the top end of the previous generation of cards than those in the past have been, in my opinion, because it ties the 7900 gs.

edit: as chaz said, the new v6 will beat the old v6, but its not even intended to compete with the v8.

 

If your getting an Asus C90S you can swap the 8600gt for the 2600xt at any time they are both MXMII so if the performance is worth it, its an option.

Selling a 8600gt may be rather hard tho.

 

so, my friend has a 7600 on his HP, and I'm planning to get the 8600GT in my dell, granted we have the same specs, it's still going to outperform his right?

 

yeah the 8600gt is better than the 7600 and you get DX10 support.

 

People are simply too hard on graphics card manufacturers. They want the new card to be twice as fast and use half the power of the old one...rarely does that happen.

Until we get some huge advance in battery capacities, graphics cards will move forward at the same rate.

 

^Could not agree more.

People don't look at how much performance your getting for so much more energy efficiency. I suppose because most desktop gamers don't care about power consumption as laptop users do for obvious reasons. Your getting alot more performance with much better energy efficiency. Also if the bus would be increased the price would have to soar along with it, but then people would complain about that. Can't please everyone I suppose?

 

I have a co-worker who owns a the 17 inch Toshiba with the 7900 GT and side by side with my G1S, the fps are not that disparate. There is some bias towards the 17 inch because any larger screen is going to inherently "look" better than a 15.4.

Fact is, you can't carry around a 17 inch very easily. It's hard to find bags for 17 inches and even harder to find good looking bags. The G1S is a tad larger than most 15.4's, but it fit perfectly into my Targus 15.4 Messenger Bag (which I highly recommend by the way, looks hawt).

 

sort of, 80nm is the current nvidia offering.

65nm is the next step wich ATI is already adopting and using.

a shrink means less power and less heat, so that ratio of power = heat + performance becomes less than linear.

 

what are you saying, power draw = heat + performance. thats just an equation, not a ratio....

in a sense that equation is true. all of the energy either goes into moving electrons around perfectly efficiently, or generating waste (mostly heat).

could you embellish a little bit?

 

anyone knows whether this card has turbocache?

 

Up to 756 mb with turbocache.

 

Do the 8600M GT cars available in the new 1520's come turbocache? I was under the impression the 256meg (that is what the 1520 card has?) was dedicated? A bit of a noob. Apologies.

 

The 256 is dedicated, then turbocache takes it to 756.

 

Its an equasion I suppose the way I wrote it out but its a ratio aswell, and the way 80nm moves to 65nm its much more an alteration of a ratio not a change in a varible of a equasion.

so let me try to explane it the way I mean.

a smaller chip process means thinner circutry, the thinner it is the less power draw it uses to function, less power draw means less heat and better efficantcy. Usually a smaller process seems to overclock better too.

so if you think of it as a ratio where heat/power = performance in a 1:1 like the person I quoted above was saying. Its wrong.

His point was people are expecting heat/power to stay the same while performance should go up and its not happening.

Thus somthing like heat/power : performance in a 1:2 ratio is what he is saying people expect.

My counter point was yes while its not happening quite like that, the ratio of 1:1 is not finite. We do not always have to double the heat/power to get more performance because the die shrink will lower the heat/power use to give the same amount of performance. Thus a ratio may be somthing like .7:1 and not quite so linear. This will continue to happen down to some point. atleast 45nm since thats the next cpu size and already being processed as engineering samples.

So if you have a ratio of .7:1 you can expect to get more performance out of the same amount of heat produced and power draw that your used too now.

Sort of a complicated way to explane it all to make a simple point but atleast I explaned it.

 

All I can say is that I'm lookin forward to testing it myself...in a few weeks

 

If the 8600 is anything like the 8400, it's a drivers-related issue for the most part. The 8400GS is a great card for what it is, but there are some obvious driver issues. I can't play an XviD file without it going to the basic color scheme (even most integrated cards can do that), and some older games have very bad support (Red Faction, for one). The game also runs amazing without 4X AA, but when you bump it up to 4X or more it runs horrible. Yes, I know that it's supposed to take a decent hit in frame rates, but not that big. Everything else equal, going from 2X AA to 4X, I lose around 20FPS or more in many games (Half-Life 2 went from 35FPS to 10 or less).

 

i dont like your mathematics, but i think you are basically right anyway. serious over complication of the concept though.

as heat and power draw go down, performance goes up. IF the manufacturing process goes down. the only problem is that sometimes the manufacturing process goes down before the time is right. each node introduces new problems that need to be overcome. leakage, causing excess heat and power draw, seems to occur often in new process sized tech. not saying the hd 2600 series is susceptible to this, but i will say that despite being built "smaller" i think the performance of the chip is going to equate the 8600 series.

 

MasterChef I have the same card as you. What kind of 3D Mark scores are you getting in Pro? I actually have Vista, and in it, my score is 4100 with 3GB of RAM, since Vista does not recognize all 4.

 

i got 3400 in xp, but i was running it in some weird resolution, so i don't know for sure how to relate my score.

 

hmmm if the 8600mt gt can fit in 14in laptops and has a lower power consumption, would it be crazy to try to impliment it in a e1705 aka 9400 dell inspiron?

 

They are in fact doing that with the replacement to the 1705, the 1720.

 

True, but i would imagaine that the motherboard in use with the 1720 would be different from the 1705 and as such have a different layout for the graphics card space, but since the 8600mt gt is smaller than say the 7900gs (which is in the e1705) i was wondering if the card would indeed be compatible with e1705 model

 

someone would have to try and see. i could imagine that it is, seeing as a 7950gtx fits in the e1705. (i know people have tossed those in there with success...)

 

With any luck new nvida cards will maintain a smaller stature for the smaller class of laptop, thus ensuring my laptops upgradablity...well heres hoping any way

 

the 8600M GT is a good card- but Nvidia gimped it by only giving it a 128-bit databus- no idea why- but personally i dont see the point in overclocking the 8600 & calling it the 8700 if you are still going to keep the databus only 128-bit- its like having a car but the throttle only goes down half-way.