8700m GT only has 128 bit memory bus? WHY?

Why would nvidia make the 8700m gt with only 128 memory bus? That kills its performance right there.

Look at this chart.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

All the fast video cards have 256 memory bus.

Its slightly slower than a 7900 GS go ...

 

they gave it a 128 bit memory bus because the 8600m gt has a 128 bit memory bus, and the 8700m is just an overclocked 8600m...

but yes, that bus is going to hold the 8700 back somewhat. it probably wont have much of a performance benefit over the 8600, seeing as the 128 bit bus is holding it back somewhat anyway.

if you want a 17" nvidia 8 series mobile gpu, you should really wait for the 8800m.

 

There is currently no video card for a notebook that has 256 memory bus and supports directx 10 .. lol

 

true. but by the same token, there are really only a VERY few directx 10 mobile gpu's in the first place.

its basically just the 8700, 8600, and 8400 from nvidia. there are slight variations of the latter two.

ati has no directx 10 mobile cards.

so, 0/3 directx 10 gpu's have a 256 bit bus. it doesnt sound so ridiculous anymore, huh?

obviously, dx10 is still emerging tech.

 

Does the MXM II module limit the memory bus? Is it at all possible to assume that the 8800m will have more than a 128bit bus? On that note, I know the 8800s in desktops now have 384 bit interfaces, I'm doubting the 8800m will but do you think they'll ever fit something that size into a lappie in the near future? haha

 

The memory bus at 128 really kills performance though. I'm not sure why they wouldn't make it 256 then it would be such a great card.

I guess we have to wait for a 8800 GO GS or 8900 GO GS like the 7900 GS GO or something.

 

2 reasons they don't make it a 256 bit bus:

power draw. heat output.

the 8600m gt can be put into a 1 inch thick form factor and still last 5 hours.

the increased power draw of the 256 bit bus is going to increase heat output. you can't fry all the components, so you have to keep it from becoming unreasonably hot. so you have to have a bigger cooling unit. which means a bigger laptop.

the 8800m 256 bit bus is coming, but obviously their first concern was to get cards into regular slim laptops, and desktop replacements are coming shortly afterwards. there is no point in making a 256 bit bus 8600m gt for a 17" laptop, because the people that wanted a 17" laptop and cared THAT much are just going to buy an 8800m anyway...which apparently took longer to finish.

they will make 256 bit dx10 cards, its just emerging tech.

 

The thing is though, the 8700M GT is designed for 17" notebooks. I don't know/think it will fit (power/heat-wise) into a 15.4" notebook. It's also labeled an "enthusiast" card by Nvidia (even though it's really more of an "upper end of mid-range" card). I am a gaming enthusiast buying a 17" laptop; I don't care about battery life at all. This card is supposedly aimed at people like me, but my Sager NP5790 is coming with a Go 7950 GTX because when I play Crysis at 1680x1050 and 4xAA, the 8700M GT will choke when it tries to push all that data out because it has almost half the memory bandwidth of the 7950 GTX (44.8 GB/s vs. the 8700's 25.6 GB/s).

 

From my understanding the 8700M GT (or perhaps the 8800M GT) uses 128bit bus, but uses a think called a duel rank bus...Apparently it increases the bandwidth from a traditional 128bit bus.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but getting a 7950 and expecting to play Crysis doesn't sound like a very good idea. First of all I doubt you'll be able to run Crysis at 1680x1050 with 4xAA with either card. Second of all, yeah the 8m series might be lacking in bandwidth, from what others have been saying to keep the heat down, but the 8m series has the stream processors for shader processes and DX10 compatibility. That goes a long way, especially for a game like Crysis which will be utilizing physics and shaders in ways that previously have not been possible, thus the DX10. From my understanding the Crysis will be able to run with older, non-DX10 cards, but DX10 cards will be able to take full advantage of the incredible innovation in physics and graphics that the game is boasting. The way I see it there's really no reason to bother playing that game unless you're running on DX10 card, it just wont be the same game.

 

I wonder if there are any benchmarks yet for the 8700m gt or any reviews, probably not for another month huh

 

if you are a serious gamer and you want a 17" notebook, i would say either WAIT for the 8800m (best option)

or

get a 7950gtx and then expect to uprade to an 8800m (or possibly 9800m in a year and a half or so) when the 7950gtx loses viability. (not as good option)

but the 8700m gt is definitely not what the 17" notebook gamer-who-doesn't-care-about-battery-life is looking for. you just have to wait until they find a way to reduce the heat output enough to fit an 8800m (and the parts required to cool it) into a notebook. its a "not if, but when" situation.

if you are a 15" notebook gamer, you can get an 8600m gt today. its perfect.

 

Hey master, reading your post and looking at your sig, I want to ask you a question. I am stuck between either getting a 17" or a 15" notebook. If it is the 15" it will be the MBP you have (if you have 17", then I would be getting the higher end 15"). I only want to play CS:S and Starcraft 2 on it. I would like to know the numbers you are getting in CS:S, running bootcamp with XP. Otherwise, I will get a gaming laptop from another provider and wait for the 8800m. Thanks.

 

i have the 15 inch, i run cs:s in the native res, 1440x900, all options set to max, with 2x anti aliasing and 4x anisotropic filtering, and i get somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 frames per second in game. i ran the cs:s benchmark and got an average of 112 fps using the same settings.

so. you are set with a 15" mbp. *edits signature*

 

A 7950gtx is more than enough to play Crysis at 1680x1050 because of its 512mb dedicated memory and high memory bandwidth.

DX10 hasn't been good so far. In the games it is utilized so far it has cut frame rates in half (Lost Planet, Company of Heroes patch, Call of Juarez, etc) and not looked all the different from dx9. Search google for 'Crysis dx9 vs dx10 video' and you will see there isn't a major difference between the two. Maybe its because the games were not designed natively for dx10 as we will see in future games but directx updates have traditionally increased performance but this has not been the case so far.

 

i think the best solution is to wait for dx10 to mature a little bit more. does any1 know if 15" notebooks have any possibility of having the 8700m gt/gs card in the near/distant future(before 2008)? or is 8600m gt the best it's gonna get for a while?

 

the 8700m is apparently on the mxmIII module, which prevents it from being a part of the 15" notebook community. that sort of eliminates the target market for the 8700. you wont hear much of it.

anyone who is a serious gamer with an mxmIII module slot will want a 7950gtx at the moment, and then probably upgrade to an 8800m.

on the one hand, the dx10 examples so far have been pathetic, but then, they were obviously hack jobs. i didn't expect much more than pathetic results, personally. i think dx10 will be a solid feature for the cards that support it- and will either add detail with no performance penalty, or increase performance without compromising detail, or, hopefully, a combination.

still- if my goal was to play crysis in high res- i would rather have a 7950gtx than an 8700m gt. dx10 is not a make-it-or-break-it thing. its just a benefit and some insurance for longevity. crysis in dx9 is going to be awesome. whoever said otherwise was uninformed.

 

Doesn't the 8700 Go use a dual link 128-bit memory bus? The concept's supposedly like when you are running two RAM modules in dual channel mode.

And for the reason of using 128-bit only? Isn't it obvious? It's not economically practical for Nvidia to use 256-bit for a mid-range card. It's going to kill their high-end products that use 256-bit aside from having a lot more stream processors, etc.

 

The 7950GTX is only couple of months old, don't count it out, it is an awesome card. DX10 games so far have seen frame rates drop by half... Starcraft 2 will be playable even on the Intel of its time, Blizzards games are extremely scalable, I played Warcraft 3 at max ingame settings at XGA res. (m830)
nVidia is struggling with the 8800, they allowed the desktop versions to become wattsuckers and its hard to get that down, in addition they're developing the GeForce 9 as well... I read a Q4 in '07..doubt it

 

I have heard that there has been problems with framrates and DX10. I'm guessing, like link said, that it's probably because none of the games that have been released yet have been designed specifically for DX10.

In response to those video comparisons of Crysis in DX9 and 10, I think that it's obvious that it looks a hell of a lot better with DX10, although it certainly did not suffer as much graphically as I thought the game would on DX9. I think that DX10 compatibility certainly is a make-or-break thing, at this stage the mobile cards that support it are not mature enough to take full advantage of the benefits but I'm sure developers will find a solution to that soon. I'm sure that when DX10 comes into full swing older generation cards are going to become useless very fast, so essentially getting a DX10 card should be a priority for buyers right now.

The mobile cards on the marker right now just don't cut it, so it's obvious we will have to wait for something a little more substantial to be released. I am going to be getting a new laptop in the near future but I'm just waiting on the availability of a card that's worth buying.

If you guys can wait a bit longer I would suggest that you do so, because I'm sure when the 8800m is released we wont be arguing about if the 7950gtx is a better card. At least I hope it doesn't come to that, I'm hoping the 8800m will be the answer to all my problems and be able to get my hands on it before I go back to school...come on Nvidia! Don't let me down!

 

Are you kidding me in that video it was blatantly obvious what differences dx10 brought. The lighting was amazing, real lighting unlike dx9 where the whole screen has sunlight in dx10 trees movement and even wind swaying causes realistic lighting and shadow effects. DX10s new shader system and other features like the geometry output are very evident. Heres the link watch the jungle fight trailer it is a much better reflection of the changes.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=165546

Also what people dont realize that the dx10 patches like in company of heroes are half assed patches and are not true dx10 games. Crysis is built from the ground up as a dx10 game and is encoded well so that should be a reflection of dx10. After crysis is released if dx10 is still very bad compared to dx9 on that game then justifications of dx10 and its negative effects such as seen in the Company of Heroes patch can be justified.

I also like this article because it reflects my opinion of this being the tip of the iceberg. DX10 is just now being harnessed. DX10 laptop cards have only been out a few months and ATI hasn't even released its mobile and lower end counterparts of DX10 cards!!!!!! DX10 is in its infancy stage so its too early to denounce it though just like all new technology it has a lag time to which it can be effectively harnessed (Just look at ddr3 memory as a prime example).

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=166209