8600m-gt 512 gddr3 Benchmark results in prey, cod2 and counter strike

here are some of the benchmark results for the 8600m-GT but i took the liberty to put it here

there are some benchmark results for uk company evesham with regards to the Zieo N500-HD

the main specs of laptops as follows:

Intel Core 2 Duo t7500 2.2ghz 800mhzfsb
2gb 667Mhz
160gb 5400rpm
512mb gddr3 8600m-gt
also 1gb of intel turbo memory
Vista home premium

here are the results:

Prey

1024x768 0xfsaa 0xaf 58.1 fps
1024x768 2xfsaa 4xaf 39.83fps
1024x768 4xfsaa 8xaf 34.83fps

1680x1050 0xfsaa 0xaf 25.53fps
1680x1050 2xfsaa 4xaf 19.96fps
1680x1050 4xfsaa 8xaf 17.63fps

Call of duty 2

1024x768 0xfsaa 0xaf 32.92 fps
1024x768 2xfsaa 4xaf 27.62fps

1680x1050 0xfsaa 0xaf 18.35fps
1680x1050 2xfsaa 4xaf 15.38fps

Counter Strike: Source

1024x768 0xfsaa 0xaf 68.98fps
1024x768 2xfsaa 4xaf 58.67fps
1024x768 4xfsaa 8xaf 37.74fps

1680x1050 0xfsaa 0xaf 46.05fps
1680x1050 2xfsaa 4xaf 31.85fps
1680x1050 4xfsaa 8xaf 18.12fps

Seems that it is definitly (correct me if im wrong) sub par to the 7900gs but still a good card...however reading from another thread the go 7600 got 53 fps in prey at 1024x768 (in xp) however this was done in vista (for the 8600)...and im pretty sure that the drivers are stilll suck for vista...(well for nvidia it does...doesnt it?) so could see some better improvements as the drivers mature...

 

oh also anyone with results for these games in vista post your benchmarks if you can...and see how it comes up against this

 

Yes Finally! =P

 

Hrmmm, yeah, those results don't seem very good. I have to think the card is capable of more than that.

If they are accurate though, it seems like if you play at a native resolution of 1680x1050, like on an Asus G1S, you wouldn't be getting anything all that fancy.

 

i still will hold to my theory that it wont be better than a 7900gs...i dunno how much more capable it will be though..ones things for sure it wont be drastically better...perhaps the fact that it is 128bit only cripples it? (again feel free to set me straight if im wrong lol)

 

eww and this is with a 512mb ddr 3 8600gt?

so it might suck a tad more for either the 512mb dd2, or 256mb ddr3?

 

As far as I know, gddr3 does not mean it's ddr3. GPU's have been using gddr3 for a couple years now.

 

How did the 8600GS get higher FPS than the 8600GT in some tests?

 

So far I have been disappointed by the overall result of mobile DX10 cards.

 

Where did you read/see that dude?

 

Wow... that's pretty bad.

It's strange that at 1680x1050, 4xAA & 8xAF, Counter Strike: Source and Prey have the same framerate (~18)? How does that work out? Prey is a much more graphically demanding game than CS: Source is (and 18 FPS in CS at those settings seems ridiculously low, even for a laptop card). Hopefully its just a Vista driver issue and performance will improve with time...

 

I knew it was coming but I still want to see a good mid-range card for dx10. I think the 8400GT will be really good though. Actually these scores are ridiculous the 7400go scores better in CS: source at those settings. I'm fairly positive these were tested using those bad nvidia vista release drivers.

This is a quote from the article:

First, considering the new Core 2 Duo's have an 800MHz FSB the memory being clocked at 667MHz is a potential bottleneck

Can someone explain why this would be a bottleneck!?!?!?!??!?!? (im like 99% sure it isn't)

 

Reviews are still spouting crap. They should really learn the intricacies of these platforms before jumping to conclusions.

The 8600M-GT won't be as good as the 7900GS, but we can hope it'll also consume much less power.

GDDR3 is based off of DDR2, not DDR3.

I don't know what the situation is with the mobile drivers, but on the desktop, performance isn't too bad in Vista - somewhere in the range of 5-10% slower than XP for most games.

 

Wow, these graphics cards can play games, but with low results

 

i don't see why everyone is so dissapointed, the 8600GT is a very good card for a 14 or 15 inch laptop. If those cards where for a 17 inch laptop than i could see the point, but now i don't see why everyone is whining about the results.

 

well pc pulsar...funny you should say because this particular model was was a 17inch laptop lol....

 

hey, you all depressed me . Can this possibly be because of the drivers or something else? hope it is, cos if not...

 

same lol i hope its the drivers, also someone needs to benchmark this card using windows xp

 

The problem is the FSB and RAM aren't synced.

 

Why can't they just leave all the pipelines unlocked? Such a waste.

 

And.......?

 

And nothing if i'm right , just that the FSB-DRAM ratio will be at 5:4.

 

from another thread I'll repost since its directly relivant here.

Thats my old post, I'll also add to that somthing I forgot to say in that thread is that DX10 is NOT backwards compatible. a DX10 card can not properly play a DX9 game... however it can "emulate" DX9 wich slows down performance big time.

So take that to heart guys, just because they are the new cards doesnt mean it will play all you old games better than your old card. These are DX10 cards and made for the future not the past.

So its kinda early to jump on the DX10 bandwagon, unfortunatly not every average joe knows this stuff so most of the new high end notebooks will be comming with the DX10 cards to promote high sales and in reality most people will be much better off with a DX9 card. Oh and yet another side note the DX10 cards have newer HD video decoding.. if you a HD Fanatic you may like this as its much easier on your cpu.

I really like the new G series from asus but they come with the 8600GT I will be ok with that, but the C90 may be better as I can atleast put a DX9 card in there and let my 8600GT collect dust for now untill DX10 is mainstream.

 

Eh? That's not true... DX10 Cards don't "emulate" DX9; DX9 is wrapped to DX10, so there is no performance loss at all. A DX10-capable card just means that it has to have support for DX10 features like Shader Model 4.0, a unified shader pipeline, virtualization of GPU memory, etc. (full list of features here) And besides that, the desktop 8800 series completely and utterly dominate in DX9.
It's actually quite the opposite: the first generation of DX10 cards actually perform better in DX9 than in DX10 (although that's likely more to do with immature DX10 drivers).

 

What you should be comparing : Go7600GT/7700 against the 8600MGT
With this setup, crank up the AA&AF and you ll see gains from the 8 series, with no AA&AF it will only par the 7 series only. This might be the result of the new board since it is shader orientated.. Looks like what we have last time, the 7900 vs X1900.. if it is shader heavy,the ATI will win, if not the Nvidia...

 

I'll call you out on this. Its been said many times that DX10 cards are a whole new ball game, Gone are pixel piplines, and vertex shaders, and all that stuff for the new stream processors.

They have to "emulate" DX9 to run that content as the cards dont process data in the same way at all. Why do you think there have been all these driver nightmares for even the DX9 games and not just DX10.

Let me post some resources for you to read up on.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/DirectX-10-and-so-it-ends-7762.shtml

here is one by catweazle, me and him are like guru's on this stuff (heck infact I am one of the top guys at guru3d.com a huge computer enthusist site) but thats besides the fact, catweazle runs a computer knowledge database, thats his job is to know this stuff and this link goes to his post:

http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry353.html

Dont forget things like Open GL doesnt even exsist in Vista anymore, that has to be emulated with a software layer aswell.

If you proove me wrong thats awsome I just learned somthing and feel abit smarter, if not then I am glad I could teach you somthing.

 

Unified Shaders aren't completely different from the traditional style of having a fixed number of Pixel and Vertex Shaders. Having a Unified Shader architecture just means that any of the general-purpose floaing-point processors ("stream processors") can compute any type of shader (Pixel, Vertex or the new Geometry shader) depending on what the rendered scene demands. (Read more about the Unified architecture here). So DX10 hardware's unified architecture certainly makes it much more efficient, but the unified stream processors are still processing the same Pixel and Vertex shaders that have always been used (just much, much more efficiently, which is why it's considered so revolutionary). A DX10 card doesn't have to do anything special to run DX9 applications.

On the software side of things: while it was rumored a while back that OpenGL would have to emulated through DirectX (with a huge performance cost), this has changed (see Digg article which links to the MSDN development blog.) <- The third option, "Windows Vista ICD's", is essentially native OpenGL support in Vista.

You are right in saying that DX10 isn't backward-compatible with DX9, but Vista sidesteps this issue and does indeed natively support DirectX9 through a separate API called Direct3D 9Ex (formerly called DirectX9.0L). Since Vista includes both DX 9Ex and DX 10 API's, there is no performance hit associated with running DX9 applications with Vista. In fact, Vista's Aero Glass GUI runs off of DX9 (which is why Vista requires a DX9-compatible card in its system requirements.)

 

Just seems like common sense to me the reason we see a 3-6% performance drop in vista is due to that stuff you just mentioned. Everything is done via software layers now of some sort rather than directly. I call it "emulation" with quotes for a reason.

All of this doesnt change my original point tho that DX10 is supposed to offer the same quality visuals with lower demands on system power.

So its very well possible a slightly lower scoring dx10 card can out preform a better DX9 card when we see some main line DX10 games out that are properly coded and drivers have matured.

Question is tho..... will game devopers actually do things right and make a DX10 game run 20% better in DX10 vs its DX9 version or will they just code it 20% worse... so it runs the same and they can be lazy.

That trend is afully common, making us suffer with horribly coded games just because we have powerfull hardware.

 

well does anyone have these games and are playing them in vista? if so plz do post your results if you can of your peformance(fps) and also what gpu your using....

cheers

 

It's funny how these guys compare an 8600GT with a 7900GS with twice the memory bandwidth.

 

hhhmmm... stalker comes to mind lol...

i agree with alot of people that these directx 10 cards will be alot better as the drivers mature.

Also could the rig used for the benchmarks posted in the original post be bottlenecking? The rig uses the slower 5400rpm hard drive which should definatly slow performance. Also only 677mhz ram is used. I have just ordered one of these laptops and it will have the faster hard drive and i'm getting 800mhz ram to put in it (lets see if santa rosa can use it?!?), i should definatly see better proformance.

 

5400 rpm won't make a difference except in loading times.

 

SymphonyX: they are comparing it to the 7900 Go mobility version; make a difference?

 

You don't make sense. You should rephrase that.

And duh!!! They should compare it to the mobile version of the 7900GS! It doesn't make sense to compare a desktop 7900GS to a Geforce Go 8600GT. It's even going to spread the comparison benchmarks even farther.

 

make sense?

 

The Geforce Go 7900GS is in a different league and has a different target market as compared to the mid-ranged cards like the 8600, 7600, X1600, etc. They should compared the 8600GT to the 7600GT or even the 6600 Ultra if they're wondering how much performance has increase since then. And I'm referring to the mobile version of the cards. BTW, it's also hard to find the GF Go 7600GT and 6600 Ultra. They didn't have a GF Go 6600GT, only 6600 or 6600 Ultra.

 

I believe people are comparing the two as in the past, mid-range cards have always been knocking at the previous-gen's higher-end card's door. Hence, many were expecting the 8600M-GT to be very close if not on par with the Go 7900GS.

 

totally agree

 

@ Chuck232

It's partially true with the newer games since the newer cards have new features. Take for example the Geforce Go 7600, if you see the 3DMark03, it isn't really too far from the GF Go 6600. In 3DMark05 however, the performance difference is much wider and is bordering on the performance set by the previous high-end, the GF Go 6800.

GF Go 7600
GF Go 6800

Notice how in 3DMark05, the GF Go 7600 is nearing the performance of the GF Go 6800 while in 3DMark03, it gets slaughtered.

 

Uh what? Where do I begin?

Please show me how the 8600GTS is so immature, even on the desktop. (And no, don't show me DX10 benches. That's just a quagmire right now.) The 8600/8500 series are memory bandwidth limited. New drivers will not help that substantially. Shader power is there - there's just no bandwidth to support it. Case in point: Oblivion + STALKER.

DX10 fully supports DX9 in the hardware. You go on a few posts later to pull out two articles from 2005. Good for you. That was when the DX10 spec wasn't even fully available. Unified shaders mean just that - shaders which are unified. They can now serve the purpose of any of vertex, pixel or geometry. They are mapped to each function as necessary, in the hardware. To say that DX10 cards are not compatible (in the hardware) with DX9 is either a complete, blatant, lie or misinformation.

EDIT: In fact, I'll add something more. One of the biggest features of these DX10-supporting cards, unified shaders, was predicted to bring performance enhancements to DX9 content as well, not the other way around as you have argued. With on-the-fly reprogramming of shaders, it is quite possible to increase performance in DX9 games over fixed-shader hardware. The idea is you have no unused resources - if a 20:12 pixel:vertex shader combo is best for that scene, then that'll outperform a fixed hardware implementation that only has say 8 vertex shaders available but 36 pixel shaders, many of which would not add to performance. (assuming all else equal - and that's a pretty primitive example)

 

Zepto did some benchmarks on their 6224 with a 8600M GT 512MB (GDDR2)

looks alot better... maybe new drivers do help.

 

Those look promising, really like the 1440x900 ones.

Wonder how the 256MB GDDR3 would perform

 

Do they have new 3DMark06 figures for the 6224, or is it still lagging the G1S numbers in 3dmark06? Incidentally, where did you get these updated numbers?

Thanks heaps.

Petrov.

 

The source is this:
http://www.forumdeluxx.de/forum/showthread.php?t=360222&page=2

Post 58 has the CS:Source info. (need to scroll down alot)

Zepto also posted some overclocking scores for 3dMark06 in post 60 and 66

 

those CS scores seem to be TOO good. I think is more of a funny lie or something. How can drivers boost from 18fps (1st post here) to 70 (58th post there)??

utopia?

 

Thanks. Sad that I can't access that forum from work - any chance you can tell me what the 3dmark scores were for the 6224 (and was it overclocked, and at what resolution)?

Just trying to get a sense for whether the GDDR3 v GDDR2 is a big deal or not.

Thanks,

Peter.

 

6224 gets around 3800 3dMark06 not overclocked, but had been overclocked to 4500.

 

3DMark06 (1024x768px) = 5023 @ 650/1026/540 (Temp 86°C)

that is the best score that Zepto posted. He said it was the highest he could push it or close to that. This is with a prerelease 6625WD and beta bios. He keeps saying that so I will say it too. No idea how much of a differance a final bios will make.

 

Thanks very much for that. Am I right in thinking its still lagging the G1S by a good 700-900 points?

Petrov.

 

Yup the G1S with less faster memory (256 GDDR3) beats the zepto with more slower memory (512 GDDR2) by a very big margin.