8700m Gt / 8600m Gt

I know that the 8600M GT is considered a midrange graphics solution, but I was wondering how much better the 8700M GT is going to be.

I see a lot of notebooks lately that are going to have the 8400M and 8600M cards. How much better is the 8700M GT going to be and how good is it going to be?

If I want to play games such as F.E.A.R., Crysis, Bioshock, etc....will I be able to play them comfortably at low-med settings?

 

Fear is pretty old now and would play comfortably with max settings on the 8700M GT.. Now, running Crysis and bioshock is a different story, but it would definately be playable on low to medium settings..

 

Yeah, I never really mind playing games on medium settings. I can say I'm not even used to playing new games at low settings comfortable with no lag and slowdown. I am currently running a 64MB GeForce MX420 on my 6 year old PC and my laptop, which I dropped, was sporting a IGP, which easily was better than the MX420.

I just want to be able to play new games on at least medium settings with little to no slowdown.

 

Coming from a 64Mb Geforce MX 420, anything over a 8600M GS would be like a monster card!!

Anyhow, these cards are capable of playin most games out there at the moment with generally max to high settings..

 

The 8700GT is near identical to the 8600GT, It just has higher clocks which can be achieved with a good notebook cooler and RivaTuner, I wouldnt bother with the 8700 personally.

 

Oh, if that's the case, then I will be patiently waiting to see how the 8600M GT card turns out. It looks promising.

 

I was thinking the same thing. I Just wonder how easy it would be to over clock one of these cards. And if there is an 8700m will there be an 8800m?

 

I would be really surprised if Nvidia never released an 8800M. The 8700M still falls short in comparison to Nvidia's top end last gen card, the Go 9750 GTX. An 8800M might be far off, but Nvidia will get around to it eventually if just to try to convince those who have a 9750 to upgrade.

 

The 8700M GT, believe or not...

will be on par with the mobile 7950GTX but with DX10

Contrary to what most people think, the 8700M GT is still considered a high-end DX10 card... though it may have a dual-rank 128-bit mem interface.

It should easily out perform the 8600M GT by at least 20-25%... which the current mobile 7950GTX already does.

 

I can see that being true, the 8600gt overclocks like a beat, given the higher clocks of the 8700m and the diffrent setup it can be very close to the 7950. I dont quite think it will beat it tho.

We shall see!

 

what about heat issues, im sure the 8700 has a higher power requirement?

If so it will be limited to 17" laptops so it cant then be compared to the performance of a 15" laptop.

 

awww....I was looking to buy a 15.4" laptop. Hopefully, there are some that have it.

 

Most possibly not, finger crossed.

 

well the current x1700 and 7700 are found in 15.4" I wouldnt be surprised if this ends up in it.

 

The thing is, x1700 and 7700 are mxm2 based(if they are built into mxm), the 8700 is mxm3.. u need a lot of cutting here and there to make a mxm3 to fit into a 15.4" notebook.

 

Apparently, the 8700M GT is a 35 Watt part, and its only sutible for large 17" notebooks. It depends entirely on what the TDP of the graphics card actually is. Its likely that it will not make it in smaller notebooks, because the 8600M GT will do that. Don't forget, that the 8600M GT is also an extremly powerful graphics card, considering what size notebooks it has been installed in.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing more benchmarks and game performance information for the 8600M GT...as I will probably be getting a 15.4" laptop. Not that I mind myself that much...even though I am traveling...the performance of my laptop is more important than the size. If the price is within my budget and it gets good reviews, I may get a 17" laptop.

 

I'm sure some crazy mad scientists down at the sager institutes are armed with a blowtorch and hammer working on this very issue.

 

What's the difference between a dual-rank 128 bit and 256 bit memory interface?

Does "dual-rank" have any particular significance, or is Nvidia just trying to reconcile consumers to the memory bandwith downgrade?

 

Here is the explanation of memory ranks:
http://www.kingston.com/literature/pdf_files/mkf_753-2_memoryranks.pdf

Here is a good presentation from Corsair:
http://www.corsair.com/memory_basics/index.html

 

A term to trick u into believing that the 8700m is 256bits?

 

thanks for the explanation

 

The Dual-Rank DIMMs have been around for a while.

Its main purpose:
Memory (RAM) that will let the system equally distribute memory addresses to gain optimal performance.

Think dual-channel.

 

Hey,

I am thinking about getting the 8700M GT and just wondered when anyone will release any game performance or benchmarking of reliability. Anyone know of this yet???

 

I saw some "benchmarks"....can't guarantee if it is real
- http://www.hartware.de/showpic.php?type=news&id=42297&nr=2&path=/media/news/42000/42297_2b.jpg

 

those numbers are exactly what i would expect out of the 8700m.

 

Was the 8600 GT suppose to be marginally better or slightly worse than the 7900?

 

I am really looking forward to the possibility that Dell will put the 8700M GT into the Inspiron 1720.

 

that comparatives is the 8700 gt vs 7900 gs i find a page that is very helpful sadly its not quite updated to the last mobile graphics cards but it helps

this is the comparatives between geforce go 7900 gs and the 7950 gtx

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=465&card2=394

in my opinion the difference is significant

but i'm really waiting a benchmark like that but instead the 7900 gs put the 7950 gtx i think nvidia is hiding something, what is the point to compare their top Dx10 card to one that it is not so powerfull? in several articles that i read from nvidia and some blogs, nvidia said that the 8700 gt is way better than their previus generation of graphic cards but i'm not sure really...

the only comparative that i achieve is the following

from the page i mention:

7950 gtx
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=465&card2=394


and from nvidia page
8700 gt

http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_8700m.html


last month i wanted a dell xps m1710 for school you know for that long gamerworks... sorry for that i mean that homeworks that require a high end graphics card to run ms word...

but the new dell inspiron with the new full sized keyboard, i prefer to wait because that separate numpad its very helpful.. i hope that dell release the new generation of xps m1710 with at least a 8700 gt or the new 8800m that its rumored to be out on this summer according to this article

http://laptoping.com/nvidia-geforce-8800m.html

i hope that the new 17" xps dell lap top come out soon....

any thoughts?

 

I think the 8000 series might be alot better than teh 7000 series? What am I basing this on? Well just my very basic, and poor knowledge of video cards.

For some reason, nVidia found it neccessary to make the new laptop cards, only 128 bits interface. And this is good enough to compete with the other cards. So that's why I think the infrastructure and architecture is better.

 

The 8800M series aren't necessarily better than the 7000 series. For example, the 8400M is barely as good as the 7400 from what I have read, only it is DX10 capable. Even though it's DX10 capable, doesn't mean it will handle DX10 well.

As you go further up the chain, the 8000M series being to shine. The 8700M and 8800M will hopefully surpass the 7900 and 7950 by a lot.

 

The 8400 is the corespondent of 7400. The 8600 should be the corespondent of 7600, but is far better. You can not compare 8600 with 7900; one is middle range and one is supposed to be high-end.
And as far as I read, the 8700 is just a nvidia marketing trick to convince you that this is better than 7950.
The battle will be between the 8800m and the 7950, and without any doubt will be won by 8800m.

 

I only hope we will live up to see this battle

 

All of the nvidia cards are still on the 80nm process right?

the 2600xt from AMD is on the 65nm process. Based on leaked benchmarks its beating the 8600gt so it may do better in games and I have a feeling just like the 8800GTX vs the 2900XT that it will overclock much better and offer crazy results.

So dont be supprised if AMD beats out Nvidia in the moble market if it gets a high end card out first, or if there counter product to the 8800m is a better card.

I have seen alot of people wishing that the hdmi out port on there notebook carried audio. ATI's 2900xt is the only card that does this right now, so maybe they will bring that to the notebook market aswell with there high end card, that would be a cool feature since notebooks dont have the best speakers.

 

Well isn't that how we're suppose to be comparing the cards? The mid ranged card of the new generation should be on par with a high end card of the last generations.

 

The 8700m gt doesn't seem like a particularly good card to me. It's extra speed and dual channel architecture will give it maybe a 15-20% performance boost over the 8600m gt which means it'll be roughly 15% faster than a desktop 7600gt at best. It will probably cost 100% more though.

 

It does the 8600m gt is on par with 7900 gs and with its massive overclockability it reaches a ballpark area of the 7900 gtx and this is still with premature drivers.

 

I'm going to sit out this series and wait for the 9 (or 10) series before I purchase a DX10 laptop.

 

I doubt it. The desktop 8600gts is only about 25% faster than the 8600gt in gaming situations from what I've seen and the 8600gts is overclocked more from the 8600gt than the 8700m gt is from the 8600m gt. On the other hand, the 8600gts does not have dual channel memory but if desktop ram is any indication, that should give a 2-4% performance boost. I expect a 15 - 20% increase and that's being optimistic.

More evidence for this fact is that the clocks of the 8700m gt lie in between the desktop 8600gt and 8600gts (slightly closer to the gts). The 8600gts is just barely as fast as the desktop 7900gs (around 5% slower) and the 8600gt is about 2-5% faster than the 7600gt. The 7900gs is about 25-30% faster than the 7600gt which places the 8700m gt as around 10-15% faster than the 7600gt.

 

Well the desktop cards compare differently then their mobile counterparts. I've seen 8600mgt overclocked to well close to 7900 gtx levels while maintaining a decent (high of course) temp. Besides if you see the 8700's stats they are benching it next to 7900 which is a little better (basically on par) with 8600mgt and claiming how it is far better well the same is true with 8600gt well I dont think it can be clocked as high as the 8700m it can come in a ballpark area and considering the 10-13 tdp higher rating for the 8700m I think the 8600m gt stands pretty tall. The stats of the 8600 and 8700 are the same same core and all expect higher clocks and of course the main difference is the dual rank 128 bit. Once again I want to test see the 8600 (or any dx10 card desktop or mobile) run a fully ground up built dx10 game specifically crysis then we will see whether the claims of dx10 cards running those games more efficiently thus making them powerful in those situations is correct. If not I concede that there is no point of getting the current mobile dx10 cards.

 

That may be true to some extent but I, and the majority of the population, don't want to overclock their system because it's risky and shortens life expectancy. If anything, mobile GPUs are weaker than than their desktop counter parts - 8600M GT is weaker at stock settings than a 8600GT for example due to the reduced clock speeds. Regardless of desktop to mobile scaling however, a specific percentage increase of clock speeds will lead to increase in game performance.

I've done some research into the topic myself since nobody has posted decent benchmarks of their 8600M GTs (I mean with actual averages, minima, maxima, details of the settings used etc... Random screenshots which are not informative at all). The 8600GTS is definitely overclocked significantly more than the 8600GT than the 8700M is from the 8600M. You can see this much from the specifications. The 8600GTS is 25% faster than the 8600GT so I expect the 8700M to be 15-20% than the 8600M at stock speeds following the same light. Mobile or desktop, an increase of x Mhz clock speed will lead to y extra fps in gaming situations.

The 8700M looks like it will just about be beating the desktop 7600GT in real gaming situations, which is extremely disappointing. I'm not talking 3DMark, where 8 series scores are seriously inflated - these scores correlate very weakly with in game performance. When I get my 8600M GT or perhaps 8700M GT notebook, I plan on doing a very extensive review (3DMark03, 3DMark06, PCMark 05, SiSoft Sandra, UT2003, FEAR, X2: The Threat, wPrime and Cinebench 9.5 are what I'm looking at so far) at every single possible resolution with direct comparisons to my E6400, 7600gt machine and screenshots of every single detail setting. To be honest, I'm quite fed up with the lack of attention to detail in the benchmarks I've seen up to date.

 

Theresa few benchmarks like Kens g1s vs f3sv which benches the gt vs gs and a few others.

 

I looked at that thread for about 3 weeks a while ago and to be honest, I got fed up of people posting screenshots of games like FEAR with fps counters. That means nothing, it's just the fps at that one particular point. Averages over the entire period are necessary, preferably minima and maxima too. I don't know if anyone has posted any reliable benchmarks but it's going to take a long, long while to trawl through all those pages.

I tried downloading the FEAR demo to run the benchmark so I can at least take some screenshots in similar places to compare. After almost two hours of downloading and installation, the FEAR demo doesn't even load up.

 

Eh I forget which game has in the built fps counter which gives the percentages of when it stays in what ranges.

 

Ok... I'm kinda confused now. Everyone keeps saying how crap the 8700M GT will be... But I thought I saw someone in the forums earlier ago saying that the 8700M GT runs Far Cry and Half Life: Lost Coast 27-33% better than the Geforce Go 7950GTX...

 

8700GT isn't going to be crap...it's an overclocked 8600GT. Very capable card for sure that is then made even faster. How is that crap?

 

I believe people are saying it's crap because it doesn't really fill the gap left by the Go7950GTX. Also, it only has a 128-bit memory bus when high-end cards have 256-bit buses. The 8700M-GT looks more like a high-end performance card rather than a high-end card like the Go7950GTX.

 

I have an 8600M GT and i think its a great graphics card. I can play bioshock on max graphics but is just a little choppy so i dumb down the resolution to 1200x800. i can play crysis but it plays on medium graphics....its not bad...plays smooth at 1680x1050....its a good card....i recommend it!! until the 8800M GT comes out!!!