8600gt vs. 8700gt

1. whats the biggest difference between the two
2. is the 8700 just an overclocked 8600
3. will 8700 run crysis/world in conflict in high settings at a 1200x900 resolution?

 

Most of the current 15.4" notebooks use MXM-II... only tops out at 25w.

the 8700M GT is using MXM-III... which has 35w.

So no matter what you think, the 8700M GT is not just a OC'ed 8600M. Its been improved upon with dual-rank memory and more power consumption.

So there is no way to OC a 8600M GT to reach the 8700M GT's performance... especially with stock 15.4" notebook parts.

The 8700M GT is superior to the 8600M GT by about 25% in in-game performance at standard resolutions (WXGA, WXGA+, etc...)

 

its MXM-IV actually, dont mean to be rude though and correct you though.

Built on the Clevo M570RU--ultra fast NVIDIA GeForce GO 8700GT / 7950GTX MXM-IV Graphics.

 

1) the differences on paper:
-The 8700 runs its core and shader unit 31% faster than the 8600
-The 8700 has a dual-rank 128-bit memory interface, the 8600 has a 128-bit
(no one outside of Nvidia seems to know what this means, but it most certainly does not perform as a 256-bit interface.)
-The 8700 is speced with slightly faster GDDR3 RAM and does not have a GDDR2 model. Note the difference between the 8600 GDDR3 and the 8700 GDDR3 is mitigated as most 8700s are shipped with default clocked GDDR3 at the 8600 speeds
-The 8700 is only shipped on 17" laptops to date as it probably has a higher power requirement.


In benchmarks:
-The 8700 at stock clocks beats (but not by a lot) a heavily (lap-scortching) overclocked 8600 with GDDR3. The 8600 with GDDR2 (pretty much all but the ASUS G1S and G2S and macbook pro) gets its backside handed to it by both the 8600 with GDDR3 and the 8700 pretty easily.
-The 8700 overclocked stays cool and stable in everything up to 775/938 in my case and can get as high as 800/1000 in games. This is with a max temp of 68C. After 4-5 hours worth of gaming/benchmarking at 775/938 I was still gaming from my lap without the least bit of discomfort. (laptop is a little warm, but not hot)
-8600 with GDDR2 OC'd get around 3900-4000 on 3dmark06 using a 2.2GHz processor.
-8600 with GDDR3 OCd gets a max of 4400 on 3dmark06 using a 2.2 GHz processor
-8700 OC'd gets 5194 with a 1.8GHz processor.
(3dmark06 has a processor-only component which biases results for higher processors.)
The 8700 pretty typically gets set to all settings high and 1440x900... 8600s (especially the GDDR2 model) end up playing with settings to get a reasonable frame rate on more recent games.

2) The 8600 and 8700 are built on the same technology, but the 8700 probably gets more power, uses better components and achieves a 31%+ stock clock difference... by comparison the "refresh" clock speed differences (from the 7900GTX to the 7950GTX) are around 10-15%. The 8700 also uses a slightly different memory interface supposedly. I guess "massively overclocked" would be fair, (ignoring the dual-rank 128-bit) but comparing it to the diffference between a 7900GTX and a 7950GTX or some guy moving a slider in the control panel is rediculous.

3) I don't have either to test it with... but I generally turn everything on for any game I have ever put on it at 1440x900 and see how it goes...
My guess is yes... but once again I'd have to play it to confirm it.

 

Sorry, you are mistaken, thats a description that does not say that the 8700M GT is MXM-IV.... (although it can be... but it would be not cost effective... read below)

... its saying that the Clevo notebook is using a MXM-IV slot... which the 7950GTX is using... and is backwards compatible to MXM-III.

Read the specs of the 8700M GT before arguing, thanks.

NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT

NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT is a video card and capable of DirectX 10. Technically, it has 32 Stream Processors like the 8600M GT, but the core-, shader- and memory clock is higher. Therefore the performance is somewhat above the 8600M GT (according advertisements of NVidia clearly better) and should be sufficient for all current games.

The particularity of this video card are the "Unified Shaders". Pixel- and vertex-shaders do not exist any more but 32 of the so called Stream processors do the graphic work (which up to now pixel- and vertex shaders did).

Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Series: GeForce 8M
Codename: G84M
Pipelines: 32 - unified
Core Speed: 625 MHz
Memory Speed: 800 MHz
Memory Bus Width: 128 Bit dual rank
Memory Type: GDDR3
Max. Amount of Memory: 512
Shared Memory: no
DirectX DirectX: 10
Shader 4.0
Current Consumption: 29
Transistors: 289 Million

Features: Shader clock frequence 1250 MHz, PureVideo technology (H.264, VC-1, MPEG2, WMV9 decoding acceleration), MPEG2, WMV9 decoding acceleration), HDCP-capable, PowerMizer 7.0 power management (dynamic switching between performance and energy economizing), HDR (High Dynamic-Range Lighting), designed for Windows Vista, 16x full screen AA, 16x AF independent of angles, 128-Bit HDR illumination with AA, Dual-Link DVI-D exits for resolutions of TFT up to 2560x1600, PCI-E 16x, OpenGL 2.1, Gigathread technology

Notebook Size: medium sized
Date of Announcement: 12.06.2007
Information: MXM-III Slot because of the 35W TDP, 80nm

 

I'm going to feel like a dumbass, but is it the MXM-IV cards that can potentially be upgraded, or is that the MXM-II?

 

I don't know I still think the 8700 is basically an overclocked 8600 (higher voltage to get to those clocks/etc).

And actually Gophn people with G1s have reached 8700GT speeds in terms of core/shader/memory clocks and got relatively the same performance (~ -200 3dmark scores only but still).

That leaves only the "dual rank" memory bus which helps but it doesn't give it that much of a performance increase to truly put it in another league.

"-8700 OC'd gets 5194 with a 1.8GHz processor." ---> I think you saw 1280x800 benchmarks , im fairly positive the 8700GT only gets ~4500 at 1280x1024 ... or it might have been overclocked or something

 

read www.mxm-upgrade.com

MXM (mobile mini-PCI express module) is for standardized videocards.

technically all MXM types (II, III, IV) have potential upgrades without having to deal with BIOS updates to recognize the new cards.... like you would see on a desktop motherboard with PCIe 16x

 

MXM-IV has the best possibility of supporting cards better than the 8700.

The 8800m or 8700m GTX or whatever they name it will more than likely have large power requirements if they are to going to emulate the 8800 Desktop series. The MXM-IV slot delivers in this regard.

It is entirely possible the MXM-III will support the 8800m/8700GTX if they gimp it far enough or wait long enough to make enough of a technology leap.

It is also entirely possible the 8800m or 8700GTX will be too demanding to place in an MXM-IV slot. (woohoo! MXM-V?)

Nobody even knows the tech specs on the future of the Nvidia mobile line to give anyone a definitive clue as to what will happen...

Honestly... if you are counting on upgrading your video card to a future product in a laptop you are betting on a long shot.

Its not impossible and the MXM-IV slot offers the best chance... but its kind of like counting on winning the lottery jackpot for 300mil+.

 

I agree, the 8700 is only an overclocked and overvolted 8600, the whole "dual-rank 128bit" thing appears to be marketing BS.

 

Read my sig... thats MY benchmark and its 1280x1024.
(and with miserable stock drivers to boot...)

I told you, the 8700 is a crazy-good overclocking GPU.
If I can ever get my 163.xx drivers to OC I'll be in the 5400ish area...

3dmark tests the processor (alone) too and biases the scores...
If the 8700 and 8600 were compared on the same processor, the difference would expand...
Also thats a massively OC'd and very hot G1S at the very limits of its overclockability compared to a lukewarm x205 that hasn't even been clocked up to Nvidia standards (ram is underclocked)

The 8700 at the very least has more power, better components, and is nowhere near its upper limit at shipped frequencies... better yet the chassis they ship them in are designed for MUCH hotter running chips.

My 8700 at 775/938 (for 4+ hours) stays at 68C... what temp are those 625/800 8600s running at?

 

We're not disagreeing that the 8700M-GT can maintain higher clocks at lower temps (that's a fact), however that doesn't change the fact that the 8700M-GT is simply an OC'd and overvolted 8600M-GT, thus the performance difference isn't going to be profound. IMO they're both in the same level of performance.

 

I'm referring to stock clocks, also the cooling in the G1s doesn't compare to the x205 so thats not really fair.

edit: I also have to say CPU makes little difference in 3dmark scores, only time it makes a difference is if it is bottlenecking the GPU and a 1.8 c2d doesn't bottleneck any mobile card (well MAYBE a 7950gtx at very high settings in a game like FEAR or Supreme commander).

 

Nope, that's the case in gaming, but in the 3dmark06 test there's a seperate score based solely on the CPU, so a better CPU will make a noticeable difference in 3dmark06 scores.

 

ah ok, i never really noticed. Is it like 100-200 points or so?

 

The memory thing might very well be "marketing enhanced"...
no one knows and nvidia is not talking...

"Overvoltaged and overclocked" is closer, but
Perhaps "overvoltaged and thus 31%+ factory overclocked" is a better way to put it...

OC'd 8600 or not...
The 8700 buries the 8600 by almost 1000 3dmark06 when both use the same processor and are at their limits and does it cool and comfy.

note thats a similar difference the 8600GT GDDR3 beats the 8400 by...

woohoo! the 8600 and an OC'd 8400 have similar scores!
Does this mean the 8600 is an OC'd 8400?

 

I don't know exactly how much it is, there's probably a table somewhere that lists what the CPU subscores are for different processors.

 

Even if the 8400 could overclock and obtain the same benchmarks as the 8600 we couldn't say that the 8600 is an overclocked 8400 because they are based on different cores. Thing is nvidia actually hasn't named a core for the 8700M and most indications point to an overvolted/higher clocked/better silicon(assumption) 8600M. I also wasn't arguing that the 8700M doesn't crush the 8600M at nvidia reference clock speeds, because it does, I just wanted to show that the 8600M could infact go that high (same shaders also, something the 8400M couldn't do).

edit: I guess my main point would be that I don't think the 8700M is different enough from the 8600M to be considered in a different class (enthusiast vs mainstream), and until I get some information on a "dual rank" memory bus i'm not convinced otherwise. For exmaple, getting 45FPS (8600) to 56FPS (8700) in F.E.A.R. , a +25% difference, isn't enough to justify a different league of GPU. I.e. the 7600 got 25-30FPS in F.E.A.R while the 7900gs got 60+, like a 100% difference, is more in a different class.

 

I'm pretty sure it's been confirmed that the 8700M-GT is indeed on a G84m core (the same that the 8600M is on), meaning the analogy to the 8400M and 8600M is a bad one (as the 8400M is on a different core, the G86m).

 

Well, besides the higher default clocks, the memory bandwidth of 8700M is 25.6GBps vs 22.4Gbps of 8600M.

 

Does 8700 fit inside 15.4 inch laptops? if so, does anyone know one laptop that has it?

 

The bandwith increase is because of the higher clocks, as

Code:

Bandwith=(Bus Width)*(Effective Memory Clockspeed)

Nope, the 8700M-GT is MXM-III, and to the best of my knowledge there are no MXM-III 15.4" laptops available.

 

do u guys use threads like that to get more posts? wasn't there already a bunch of similar(clone) threads?

 

No, people create threads like this because they don't use the search feature. To be fair though, while this particular topic has already been discussed, it may be a bit hard to find with the site search.

 

Wow look at these NVIDIA Quadro NVS 320M benchmarks...
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-HP-Compaq-8710p-Notebook.4456.0.html

I am sure 8700m (basically same as NVIDIA Quadro NVS 320M but with even higher stock clocks and dual-ranked DDR3) can do much better in time with better drivers...

 

There is one series: Fujitsu-Siemens PI. The models with a dedicated card has the same motherboard as the 17" XI series, and they use MXMIII.

 

one last question will the 8700gt be avaliable on the dell vostro range of laptops?

 

I'd guess at no. XPS are possible.

 

Warning... bit of a long post as I reply to everyone...

That's where you are wrong IMHO... the 8700 is indeed enthusiast-class as long as you don't ask more than 1280x1024 from it. Yes, I know that high-res 1920x1200 gaming IS some people's definition of "enthusiast" but the 8700 delivers cool and confortable almost-7950GTX-level performance (within 5-10%) in DX9 in 1280x1024 and below, dx10 compatibility, and does so to a degree the 8600 simply cannot deliver even massively overclocked.

For you maybe thats the same level of performance... but +20-25% frame rates and benchmarks is enough of a difference for me...

So compare the G2S... 17" vs 17"...

Comparing Dells here at work with the same card (8600 GDDR2), memory(2GB), and driver/patch config, it seems to make a difference of about 300-400 between the 7100 and the 7500.
This is all very rough, as I didn't have the time to confirm everything was set the same... but both were Dell 1520s at default settings in Vista + the Vista/DX patches.
T7100 8600GT DDR2 = 2937
T7500 8600GT DDR2 = 3293

The point was that just because you can tweak a lower-end card to score similar to an underclocked version of the higher one does not make the higher-end one an overclocked lower-end one. I realize the cores are very different in the 8400 and 8600 and that the cores are similar between the 8600 and 8700.
However, the 8700 does perform quite a bit more powerfully than the 8600 and thus claiming that one is just an overclocked 8600 is an invitation for someone to do something silly. The 8700 is designed at a different level and while it falls short of some people expectations, it is still defined as a higher ranking card that is over and above the level of the 8600. Funny thing is, it performs that way too.

Hmm apparently within 5-10% of the reigning champ in DX9 with considerably less heat problems and DX10 compatibility isn't "enthusiast" eh? Let's face it... the 8700 is NOT the 8800m.
It does NOT have a 256-bit memory bus (the dual-rank 128-bit just doesn't bench like a 256-bit interface) It does NOT double the 8600's performance. However, the whole point may be that Nvidia wants to raise the middle ground from the DX9 days... remember the whole point of DX10?

Says the guy who added nothing to the thread and only posted to put in a snide remark...

 

the reason being that i don't wanna add anything to what has already been covered multiple times... get ur shiat right, please. u r welcome

 

new 163.67 drivers from laptopvideo2go.com adds 200+ 3dmark06 and 10+ fps in games for 8700m....

 

Great thread guys. Exactly what I was looking for. I'm currently looking at the Asus G2S or the Toshiba X205 as my next laptop. Some advantages to either systems but I'm leaning towards the Asus because of the better chip. My only problem is the 8600m on the Asus vs the 8700m on the Toshiba.

I see that KernalPanic has a Toshiba. Are you happy with it? I love Toshiba maybe a bit more than Asus but I currently own a z71v (asus) and it's been one of my best laptops ever except for overheating.

The benchmarks are a bit of a concern too...

Anyone own a G2S?

a.

 

Being able to give smooth gameplay at high resolutions and settings in modern games is pretty much the definition of enthusiast, I'm sorry. Giving good gameplay at mid to low resolutions and high settings would be a performance oriented graphics card, but not a true enthusiast one.

That may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that it is true. The 8700M-GT is based on an overclocked 8600M-GT with some tweaks (dual-rank memory and such). The 8700M will of course provide a higher level of performance across the board (you stated ~20-25%, which sounds fair), however you will see the cards scale similarly and bottleneck in similar situations. They are not different classes of cards, the 8700M is merely at the top of its class whereas the 8600M is slightly lower. Drawing comparisons to the Go7 series, the 8700M-GT would be like the Go7600GT and the 8600M-GT would be like the Go7600: very different performance, but still in the same class.

It's not within 5-10% of the Go7950GTX, I'm sorry. In a few specific instances it comes close, but across the board the Go7950GTX smokes the 8700M-GT in pure power. And "enthusiast" is based upon the current generation of cards; while a MR 9800 may once have been an enthusiast card, it no longer is. The current and upcoming games are nearly twice as graphically demanding as recent titles like FEAR, and the 8700M just doesn't show the performance improvement over even the lowest of the DX9 enthusiast cards to be considered enthusiast, I'm sorry.

 

interesting argument.... but who is right?

 

I'm kind of an advocate for not taking bits and pieces out of a post and replying to each one specifically as it gives a false impression of the original posters paragraph, so hopefully that will stop.

Anyhow, about comparing G2s cooling to x205 cooling also isn't quite fair either as again both laptops are quite different. You have to look at the cores of the GPUs themselves, both are G84 yet the 8600M is 25W and the 8700M is 35W. So basically more voltage equals more heat so if the cooling on both cards was identical the 8600M would in-fact be cooler. But, my guess would be the 8700M has the ability to be cooler at the same clocks because the silicon used in those cards was tested at a higher threshold than those used in the 8600M (see x1900xt vs x1900xtx as another example). Also we can assume, but not officially, the 8700M must get hotter because it isn't actually in any smaller form factor laptops.

I noticed in your fourth paragraph you contradicted yourself; you first said you realized the cores were the same in the 8600/8700M but later you then said the 8700M is designed at a different level. I feel I have to re-iterate that until nVidia or someone actually releases detailed information on a "dual rank" memory bus I can't see any difference in overall design, despite there still being no difference at the core level.

My comparison between mainstream/enthusiast GPUs of the same series was taken the wrong way by you in your fifth paragraph; sorry to be rude (I never start this sort of stuff) but you completely disregarded what I actually posted and turned it into a DX9 enthusiast/DX10 enthusiast thread and tried to make me look bad by inserting comments like ("...remember the whole point of DX10?"). You also insulted a person's intelligence in your 6th paragraph, please don't anymore.

In terms of what you felt the need to compare, dx9 vs dx10 enthusiast cards, the 8700GT is actually quite far away from the 7950GTX. Take a look at this X205 review from anandtech ( http://anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3074&p=8) for a better idea of the large performance difference between the two. As odin said an enthusiast card should be able to perform at high resolutions, especially in old games, but because the 8700GT is limited by its memory bus it is unable to do so. Well it does perform well at low resolutions/settings (see high 3Dmark06 scores for 8M series), a real test of a cards performance comes at pushing the highest settings possible while maintaining 30+ FPS.

 

oodin is, they may be the built off the same cards with a few tweaks to the 8700, such as higher clocks, but right now is a bad time for gamers, the 8700 is a good card, but not for enthusiasts or high resolutions, and personally this card is not on the level of power I would want it to be. The 7950gtx is and will be very powerful for a long time so that should be used over these two for enthusiast gaming.

now on the other hand the 8700gt can make a game look much nicer than the 7950gtx in directx 10 which as we all well know the 7950gtx cannot do. So in their own territory they are the kings at this point, but since there are almost no directx 10 games at this point, but many coming, the 8700 will be a better choice in the longrun, but the 7950 will still be very powerful.

 

if i were a game developer, I'd probably make an option where u can play the game in dx9(minus most the fancy stuff dx10 has) or dx10 mode.

 

They have that in like 90% of games , half of them still have dx8.

 

I would say the 8600 and 8700 are in different classes.

The 8600 fits in a laptop, the 8700 fits in a desktop... errr huge laptop.

 

Tell me what you get in the end... I'm also considering a G2S

 

8700 doesn't necessarily require a huge laptop... Not that I've had first-hand experience, but it isn't a massively powerful card like the 7950 which requires a massively massive machine. They might even find a way to squish the thing into a 15.4"

 

Uh oh. Hang on. I have a G2S, and it freaking rocks.

Unfortunately...The Toshiba X205 absolutely blows the G2S away in every single aspect minus the processor. And when I say every single aspect, I include battery life. (Yes. The more powerful computer gets more battery) And finally, the lower-end X205 comes at only a hundred dollars or so more than a G2S right now. I purchased at the wrong time. Despite the fact that I still love my G2S to death, the Toshiba is a GOD compared to it.

 

Check ot amazon for the Toshiba X205 1569 for the lower model after a rebate

 

I think I THINK that 8700 will never be in 15.4" laptop. Why ? because the people who buy a 15.4" laptop dont realy want to play...

I dont know... Honestly, 7950 is the king... until december when 8800 arrive, 7950 will be the second best...

 

Well, I have to disagree with that. 15.4" notebooks are the cream-of-the-crop do everything except for gaming at absolutely insane levels. Unfortunately, even though the 8700M GT is a wonderful card, it's not "insane."

Zepto squeezed an 8600M GT into a 14.1" notebook, even though...that didn't turn out too nicely. Then they remade it with a 15.4" form-factor and the thing rocks. So yeah; honestly, I'd say you theoretically COULD put an 8700M GT into a 15.4" laptop, but of course heating is going to be a pain like it was with the Zepto and the 8600M GT. But...


...it CAN be done.

 

Just put down a deposit on the G2S and should have it tomorrow AM.

But Kierkes why do you say the Toshiba is a GOD compared to it? What's so drastically better? Did I miss something important? (I'm sure I did...)

a.

 

Between G2S and X205 is really your weightage in the consideration of price vs performance factors.

Key difference are:

1. Higher C2D CPU on G2S vs lower in X205 - GS2 wins.
2. Higher screen resolution WUXGA in GS2 vs WSXGA in X205 - subjective preference.
3. 5 in-built Harvey Karmon speakers vs 2 speakers on G2S - X205 wins.
4. HDDVD+DVD multi on X205 vs DVD multi on G2S - X205 wins.
5. 8700M GT (512MB) vs 8600M GT (256MB) - X205 wins.
6. Wider/Thinner form factor of GS2 vs Shorter/Thicker size of X205 - subjective.
7. Numberic keypad vs Normal Keyboard - X205 wins.
8. Dual-mode entertainment Touchpad vs Secondary lcd display in G2S - tie.
9. eSATA port in G2S vs none in X205 - G2S wins.
10. Dual hdd in X205 vs one hdd in g2s - x205 wins.
11. 3 year warranty included in retail price of G2s vs 1 year included in X205 - G2S wins. (Toshiba must really improve on this retail standard when others like asus is catching up so strongly in quality positioning....)

...

 

In addition to the 8700 the Toshiba x205 also has better speakers (harmon kardon), a subwoofer, dual function touch pad, finger print reader, a quiet fan, cool running system, longer battery life, and additional ports.

One of the drawbacks is that the x205 weighs quite a bit more than the G2.

 

OK, thanks guys. Still think I'm good with the G2S because I have amazing speakers here already (when playing at home) and most of the other stuff is negligeable for me expect for the battery life and cooling. I just got the call so I either wait till next wednesday for the Toshiba or get my Asus now. I'm the impatient kind. LOL. I'll tell you guys how it runs in just a couple of hours...

a.

 

Yap G2S got a 2.2GHz processor and x205 only got 1.8GHz plus a lower resolution screen...
Not sure if that cause a performance downgrade...