8600M GT with C&C3...

My question is simple...How do you think the 8600M GT graphics card will perform with C&C3 (high settings, low settings, medium settings...) ?

 

From the danish review of the new Zepto 6625 here: http://www.laptopworld.dk/index.php?id=385

http://www.laptopworld.dk/assets/images/Znote6625/bench/DemoGame%202007-04-14 15-02-28-93.jpg

http://www.laptopworld.dk/assets/images/Znote6625/bench/cc3 kopi.jpg

 

I couldn't understand what they saying (can't read Danish) but does that mean that I could play at 27 fps if I had everything on high on 1024x786 resolution?

 

if someone could translate the writing underneath C&C 3 and STALKER id really appreciate it.


All I understood is what it says underneath in English, that the lappy offers great gaming performance but lack of proper drivers kinda lets it down

 

Well I run C&C 3 on most maxed out 1680x1050 just fine on my go 7700 512meg

 

I wonder how and where they tested C&C3. In the screen shot they show 4 tanks and a few buildings only. I can play fine at 1280x1024 on my T60 with a x1400 on medium settings but when I try to attack with many units and rush a strong hold the frame rates drops drasticly and even gets stuck because of all the units and explosions.

 

sorry i cant provide i translation can only read english but i think the screenshots show that you wont have any problems running it on fairly decent settings

 

in that case the GT should have no problem since the GT is alot more powerful than the 7700.

 

You should be able to run CnC3 with everything at ultra-high without AA with silk smooth FPS. I recently upgrade my laptop to 1.5 GB and a 2.00 Ghz Pentium M 760 from my old 512 Mb and a 1.60 Ghz Pentium M 730. I'm also using a Geforce Go 6600 with 256 Mb GDDR2 375/600. Before the upgrade, it runs silk smooth at 1280x960 using the pre-defined medium settings without AA. After I upgrade, I can run it silk smooth at 1280x960 using the pre-defined high settings without AA.

 

thats brilliant

how much weaker or powerful you reckon the 8600M GT is compared to your card

 

According to notebookcheck.net:
(If your not familiar with 3Dmark, its a benchmarking tool which scores a graphics card based on its performance, higher the better)

GeForce Go 6600
3Dmark 03: 5800
3Dmark 05: 2800
3Dmark 06: 1150

GeForce 8600M GT
3Dmark 03: 10840
3Dmark 05: 6029
3Dmark 06: 3323

So its safe to assume its much more powerful than his 6600

You can see the full listing here http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile...rk-List.844.0.html?&or=&search=&sort=3dmark06

 

He's right. The 8600GT is alot more powerful than my 6600. First of all, it's a "GT" card so it has more performance than an ordinary 8600, which is the 8600GS. Just like a GF Go 7600GT is faster than a GF Go 7600 and a 7700. Second, the 8600 is two generations above my 6600 so there's a definite performance increase.

But it's easy to say they're both mid-range cards.

Just a note. My laptop gets 6500+ in 3DMark03 and 3000+ in 3DMark05. So I'm happy that my GF Go 6600 has better performance than the rated average. =)

I also tried running CnC3 at 1680x1050 resolution using the pre-defined medium settings without AA. Runs quite fast, but not silk-smooth. But it's just as good when it comes to playability. =D

 

I should test my Gaming Rig in 3DMark06!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my gf2Ti DDR with TV out must be just OK - it's top of the range stuff, unlike your middle-end mobile crap! A bit old, but still runs some GTA just fine

now stop laughing, cause I'm getting a GFM 8600GT this summer too, I think... it's about time for upgrade

 

Too bad that's five generations behind. Ahahahahaha!!! Top of the range my ass...

Yah, tis about tym 4 me 2 upgryd 2!!!111!! Teh Geforz 6800GT on mi dezktop is 2 old yah!!111!!1! Seriously... I can't wait for a proper time to buy a 2900XT for some serious pwnage.

 

WTF? five generations? you must be kidding me! My gear is not that kind! it's a real straight 3D GPU - pixel shaders and other candy is for sissies! aand it is actually 6 generations behind gf8
by the way, unlike some low end current cards, my AcCeleRRator sports 128bit memory bus!

 

Oh. Geforce 7, 6, 5, 4, 3. OMG!!! That's five!!!

And oh, my graphics card also supports 128-bit memory bus. It also has 8 pixel pipelines, 3 vertex pipelines, 8 texture units and 4 raster operators, shader 3.0 support, PCI-E 16x, and all that more recent stuff. Face it, that card is too old. Ahahahaha!!!

 

OK, fine, BUT my second videocard is the one and only 3dfx Voodoo 5 5500 PCI JjjjiiiihaAA! Old, but damn I love that hardware!
<object width='425' height='350'><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k7c-Qh-dTXg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k7c-Qh-dTXg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width='425' height='350'></embed></object>
3dfx - gone but never forgotten!

 

lol thats such a kewl ad, but honestly my psp's graphics look better

 

the 8600m gt is basically (maybe slightly higher due to the gt / gs differentiation) the same class card as the 6600, two generations away.

its going to be a LOT faster.

i know this is a really rough way to showcase the concept: but here is the idea- (i tried to find a sources to back up my logical deduction)

a desktop 6800 ultra from "back in the day" earns some 3200 points on 3dmark06 matched with a qx6700 processor.

now, a 8800 gtx with the same processor and a "similar" system scores closer to 9500 - a threefold increase in power across 2 generations of chips. so you could say that in desktops we have seen a 1.7x increase in power (or efficiency, whatever) across each new generation. In laptops, this has to be somewhat lower because there are strict power and heat concerns with each new generation of chip.

The heat and power draw for the cards two generations ago was considered "massive" because those chips required direct access to the power supply. Now, "massive" is being redefined because people have to buy new, larger power supplies just to run graphics cards. This sort of thing can't go on at all in laptops, and certainly can't go on much longer in desktops either.

So, aiming to be right on target, I would say you could expect a 1.4-1.5x increase in laptop gpu's with each new generation.

I must be crazy, though.

http://www.mvktech.net/content/view/3511/39/1/7/

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/QX6700/4

oh yeah - i almost forgot - my ultra accurate method of calculation sets the 8600m gt somewhere in the 2-2.4x as fast range of the 6600

 

I took the liberty of extracting the main points they made in the text, but this is basically what they are saying:

STALKER:
The game runs smoothly at the three lowest resolutions, as shown in the graph - but at the highest resolution it is unplayable.

C&C 3:
C&C 3 is playable in 1024x768 with no AA nor AF with all display settings (ingame) set to max.

 

Thanks for STALKER does it run smoothly at the low resolutions with high settings

 

Before they write about the games, they write this:
We've chosen to test the 4 games we're gonna test with 4 different settings; 2 different resolutions, and 2 different settings of AF and AA, but with the highest possible detail settings ingame in all games.

So I guess it does indeed run smoothly at low resolution with high settings. At least that's what they are saying.

 

well, according to the danish review, C&C3 is very palyable at 1024x768 resolution, they've managed to get 27 fps with all settings on max, with the exception of AA and AT(both set to 0).