8700M GT Benchmarked in Toshiba X200

Right here
http://materiel.froggytest.com/modules/magazine/article.php?articleid=181&page=2

The full review of the Toshiba X200. The 8700M GT 512 Mb managed to obtain a 3dmark06 score of 4021 using 1680x1050. How well does this compare to a 7950GTX?

Now, using a translator I found something interesting

 

Hmm didnt do so well did it?

why the heck would they run aquamark3 as a bench... those guys must have no idea what they are doing.

 

What makes you think they ran it at 1680x1050 and not the standard res of 1280x1024?

I think the Toshiba was run at 1280x1024. They got about 4000 points. The Asus G1s got about 3600 (no oc) if I remember right. But the Asus was tested with a T7500 and the Toshiba only has a T7300.

 

The Aquamark score of 7950GTX is 100k : http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12992
I didn't find a single result for the 1680x1050.

 

I think Aquamark always runs at 1024x764.

Zepto got a score of Aquamark03 = 89508
This is with a 8600M GT with 512MB vram running at 400mhz.

 

My guess is:
Toshiba X200
3dmark06 @ 1280x1024.
Not much of a gain. The graphic of this season is so disappointing.

 

I can get 100k on aquamark3 with a geforce 5700ultra.. I have the screens to proove it.

I guess nobody else understood what I mean by "why test auqamark3"

Its so old by now that any current gpu tears it up and you get a severe cpu botteneck. So in essense it becomes more of a cpu test than a video test.

My 7800gtx got the same score as my 5700ultra because I used the same cpu. overclocking the video card had no effect, overclocking the cpu gave me a higher score.

So its obsolete now, we already know how strong each cpu is based on its clock speed, all aquamark3 will do is fool people that dont know what I just told you.

 

The 7950GTX = 8700m GT, thats not good lol (7950 has a higher 3Dmark06 score)

 

No... T7200 = T7500 in this case.

Read the post right above yours.

 

I'm talking about 3Dmark06.

Read the post right above yours.

*EDIT* I'm sorry, I just found out I was wrong:
3DMark06 scores:
8700mGT: 4000's
7950GTX: 5400's (5200 if vendor underclocks memory)
7900GTX: 4700's
Thus: 7950GTX»8700mGT and unlike what people tend to think, 7900GTX>8700mGT

 

They ran it at 1280x1024....unless your paying for it you can't run it at any other resolution. (unless your comp is below that)

 

I will repeat myself, but i think that part of the article about the history of the card's name is also quite interesting here...

In the light of those informations, it looks like either nVidia will delay indefinitely, maybe even cancel, the 8800m line... or the real 8800m chip showed in Lab tests such a performance leap in comparison to 'overclocked' 8600GT that the previously intended 8800m GS made no sense anymore...

 

wow...


these dx10 cards are weaksauce =\

 

They even complained about the screen not being full HD lol... 3DMark doesn't give a score depending on the resolution, it gives a number, thats that. So like I said, the 7950GTX is still 40% faster than the 8700mGT, that just sucks for DX10 wishers. The 8xxx m series is a huge dissapointment so far.

 

I'll have to agree with that but I'm going to hold judgement until I see some actual ingame comparisons between the 8600 and 8700. Even if the mobile 8 series are a massive disappointment, the 8700M should be scoring higher than that compared with the 8600M GT simply because that massively increased clock speeds should be leading to greater performance gains. Desktop 8600GT --> 8600GTS is about 25%. The clock differences between the 8600M GT and 8700M GT aren't as great, but the 8700 has a dual link 128 bit bandwidth so that should increase performance by another 2-3%. Taking all this into account, the 8700M GT should be 18-20% faster than the 8600M GT, not 11% faster as this benchmark suggests.

I'm going to read up on the specifications of the X200 though. I think I remember reading somewhere that it only has 1GB memory and a T7300, which would definitely explain the unimpressive scores.

EDIT: It seems the X200 has a T7300, 2GB RAM and a 200GB 4200rpm drive among other things. The T7300 definitely would lower the scores but not by 7% since 3DMark almost exclusively benchmarks the graphics card. The 200GB 4200rpm drive might have something to do with it though. I remember reading a review of the G1s where the author upgraded from 5400rpm to 7200rpm and got a 200 point increase in 3DMark. That could suggest the 4200rpm drive lowers scores about 100-150 points compared with a 5400rpm drive, although that still doesn't really help the 8700 too much. It's still a pretty poor card at the moment in my view. That being said, there are still a few driver optimizations to be made so hopefully we'll be seeing the 8700M being 20% faster than the 8600M sometime in the next month or two.

 

They tested neither of the official versions, T7300 and 1GB for 1600EU and the T7500 and 2GB but tested the T7300 with 2GB of RAM from my very bad French

EDIT

They wished they had the T7500, the difference between the two models is VRAM and disk space

 

I think I know why the 8700M GT scored so low. I just ran the CPU section in 3DMark06 with my desktop E6400, which is pretty much exactly on par with the T7500 (+/- a few % and I scored 1813! The X200 reviewed scored only 1091. The T7300 will definitely be slower than the T7500, but not by over 40%. I'd expect it to be scoring ~1600 in the CPU section. I think they may have benchmarked the system while it was in some kind of power saving mode.

EDIT: Here are the apparently official specs of the X200:

I believe this model will be selling for 1599 euros and this is the model they reviewed, although it's been a long time since I've read any French.

 

Since when does 3DMark count as a real-life benchmark? I would like to see some game comparisons instead of an idiot benchmark.

 

uhhh... this is 3DMark 06 you're talking about... and a 40% difference is huge... its not like its a few points... We can hope that its the 256mb 8700mGT they tested...

 

Would it be because the 8700M GT was using a bad nvidia driver? Just guessing...

 

I think it was the 256Mb version they tested but the difference between that and the 512Mb version should only be a percent or two. I think the main reason the score is so low is because they benchmarked on a power saving mode, which would explain the low CPU score (around 600 points lower than expected for a T7300), and with a 4200rpm hard drive. The score should be around 700 points higher taking these into consideration, which makes it about 25-30% faster than a 8600M GT in 3DMark. That's still no substitute for ingame benchmarks though.

 

Still pretty much shows that the 8700 is a rushed placeholder for 17" laptops because the 8800 is gonna be late, anyone notice the weird release date despite it just being an oc'ed 8600? 1month later? Its just there for ppl to buy nVidia in 17" before ATi can respond to the delay with a DX10 card...

 

The Notebookcheck chart shows a little different 3Dmark06 score... Don't know their sources, but... 5200 points?!

 

They could have tested at lower resolutions and/or settings to achieve that. Alternatively, the Toshiba reviewer could have tested at higher resolutions. I personally am expecting the 8700M to achieve around 4500 so both these scores seem suspect to me.

 

Yes, of course, but the most intriguing part of it is that 7950GTX, got almost the same score...

 

Notebookcheck is pretty bad site. I would not trust any benchmarks they take. Their methods of testing are bad.

 

Don't forget the 8 series don't have as much performance in real-world gaming situations as their 3DMark scores would suggest. My E6400, 1GB, 7600GT scores ~3200 whereas the G1s scores ~3700, yet the G1s and my computer are roughly equal in terms of actual game fps.

 

thats a desktop 7600 gt. its a LOT faster than the mobile equivalent (go 7600). Its not really fair to say that a desktop 7600gt is about as fast as an 8600m gt, and then make the conclusion that the 8 series is underperforming.

apples to apples only.

 

Agreed, predicting the real performance on 3Dmark basis is like fortunetelling ;-) But comparing desktops to mobiles does not give us any valuable factors either...

 

That just makes it worse... It better be crap drivers and not a crap card...

 

I don't believe this is a fair statement. While it may not be fair to expect the mobile card to perform as well as the desktop equivalent, it is fair to compare cards which have similar clock speeds, bandwidth and fill rates because this is a major component of performance and are independent of platform. A card with x shaders and y clocks will perform identically in both a notebook and desktop setting, even though the names will be different (eg, the notebook equivalent of the 8600GTS in terms of actual clocks and fill rates etc... might be called the 8800M GS or something. These are the two cards you can compare because the clocks are similar).

The 8600M GT and desktop 7600GT have very, very similar clocks and texture fill rates and so it's a fair point to compare them. The 7600GT scores about 600 points lower than a 8600M GT and yet the two perform similarly in real gaming situations. Of course there is the argument that the 8600M GT is better at directx10, but that's not a valid argument. The 8600M GT simply isn't powerful enough to turn on most of the features of directx10 that make it directx10. In effect, you'll just be turning down effects to get playable framerates and it'll look just like directx9 and play the same too. There's just no point in getting anything below a 8600M, or maybe even 8700M to some extent, if you really want to play directx10.

It is on this basis that I judge the midrange 8 series a failure. But then again, I'll probably end up getting one because I've no choice and I want to play games.

 

Agreed. Heck, their page even has a glaring typo at the very top: 4994 for SLI Go 7950 GTX's? That number is supposed to be 9000+ (for people with Clevo D900C's with SLI 7950 GTX). Not to mention, I don't think they actually run the benchmark themselves - they just post the "official" result advertised by Nvidia.

 

Also Notebook check does averages of benchmarks. They take random benchmarks often which have a glaring 800-1000 point differences and then average these benchies together without mentioning what systems these benchmarks were taken from or under what settings.

LOL! You cannot compare desktop gpus to mobile gpus. Just look at the power consumption of the two cards and you will see why. Performance is not the only thing has to be taken into account when comparing benchmarks.

Elegy how is the 8000 series particulary the 8600m gt a failure? On par with the 7900 gs is not a failure? Purevideo technology which saved you some battery life and pretty decent performance all around. Once DX10 and better drivers come out I guess peoples minds will change. But nonetheless if your not content what can nvidia do for you? Me I'm going to overclock the 8600m gt to the beast it has the potential to be reaching 7900gtx speeds.

 

If two cards have 500MHz core clocks, 1.4GHz memory clocks and a texture fill rate of 10MT/s and otherwise identical specifications, they will perform identically. If one takes up 5W and the other 650W, they will still perform the same. Yes, the 650W card is probably grossly inefficient and the 2W a marvel of engineering when considering the performance, but the two cards will still perform the same in all gaming situations and synthetics.

The 8600gt is just barely ahead of the 7600gt in terms of directx9 performance in most games, with the exception of a few shader intensive ones such as Stalker and Oblivion. The 7600gt is roughly equal to the 6800 ultra, the previous generation's fastest card. The 8600gt is nowhere near the 7900gtx, the seventh generation fastest card. The 8600M GT is identical to the desktop 8600gt except the clocks are lower, making it an even weaker performer. The "but it's better for directx10" argument doesn't make sense because the mid range 8 series are simply not powerful enough to make decent use of these effects anyway.

 

First of all so your saying with a car that has 300 horses and gets 25 mpg while a car that has 300 horses and gets 10 mpg is the same thing even though they have identical speeds and specs ? Think about that. Not all technology has to lead to better performance, efficiency also needs to be increased ESPECIALLY in the laptop gpu market.

Secondly I dont know where you got the info that its on par with the 7600 gt the 8600mgt outperforms the 7700 by a decent margin and is on par with the 7900 gs and if overclocked can reach CLOSE to 7900gtx speeds. I dont think many people would agree with you on this forum that it is on par with the 7600 and I really have no idea where you got that info. If you look at the poll most people (over half) believe that its drivers which are primarily whats holding it back. I agree with that and also claim that the 8600m gt for me is good not great. Everyone I suspect wanted earth shattering results since it was a dx10 card or simply because its big brother the 8800 series is amazing but you are paying up 2.5-3.5 as much for those cards so its a matter of perspective.

 

8600GT Review 1
8600GT Review 2
8600GT Review 3

Those are the first three reviews I came across that directly compare the 7600GT with the 8600GT and 8600GTS, and all three pretty much prove my point. On average, the 8600GT is about 5-20% faster than the 7600GT. The 7600GT on the other hand is significantly more than 20% faster than the 6600GT, as I'm sure you'll agree with.

Granted these are all desktop GPUs, but the 8600M GT is even more underpowered than the desktop 8600gt so it performs about as well as the desktop 7600gt. The 8700M on the other hand is about 20% faster than the 8600M which puts it between the desktop 7600GT and 7900GS, which is still disappointing.

You have a point there though, I didn't think of that. That being said, if people get a gaming or powerhouse notebook, they want pure performance. They generally don't care about extensive battery life as long as it performs.

I can appreciate how the mobile 8 series provide a decent performance:efficiency ratio but it simply isn't good enough. The 8600s should have had 48 or 64 SPs, not 32.

 

are there any 8 series gpus available for a 15.4 inch laptop, which are 256 bit, with 48-64 stream processors. What is the best graphics card available for a 15.4 inch laptop. Im currently assuming either a 256mb gddr3 8600m gt, or a 512mb ddr2 8600m gt, running at 128 bit with 32 sp's?

 

Nope.. none at all..

 

First, sorry for hijacking. MrSneis did a comparison between the Asus G1p (go 7700) and G1s (go 8600 GT), while 3dmark06 said 8600 was 58% faster than 7700, the real games showed the difference was not that big.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2054808&postcount=1

 

hi guys, I hope you can help me as you all seem to know a lot about what you are talking about. I am a bit of a novice on current GPU's but I am hopefully getting a new gaming laptop for christmas and have narrowed it down to one of these toshibas:
http://uk.computers.toshiba-europe....seriesHomepage.do?service=UK&SERIES_ID=131319

hoever the question is which do I go for? they are pretty much exactly the same except one has the 8700M GT while the other has dual 8600M sli's (the one with dual 8600Ms has a slightly faster processor). It will be used almost soley for flight sim x. exactly the same price, basically are 2 8600M Sli's better than a single 8700M GT? thanks,
Rob