ATI Mobility X1600 varying in performance?

Hi all, first timer here!

I too was delighted to see a sorious forum dedicated to notebook graphics, have completely missed this. It answers a lot of questions, although I have managed to collect a fair amount of knowledge myself over the years.

So, to find a notebook that wont trash my bank account but still be able to play my current and future favourite games, I have realized that an nVivida Go7600 or an ATI Mobility X1600 is the way to go. They seem similar in performance, although it feels like the Go7600 have a slight advantage over the X1600.

But now it seems that there are reviews and benchmarks out there on the X1600 that delivers mixed messages. Does the X1600 exist in more than one form? I mean, I know that a card with only dedicated memory should be faster than one with HyperMemory (at the same amount that is).

But here's a question for you graphics gurus out there:

Is there a difference in performance between the architectures, i.e. between normal dedicated memory and HyperCache? Doh! Of course there is, but here's what I mean:

Let's say we compare an X1600 with 256MB dedicated memory, and an X1600 with 512MB HyperCache. According to Chaz' excellent graphics guide, that X1600 with HyperCache should now have 256MB dedicated memory, and 256MB shared memory. 50/50, right?

So how do they differ in performance UP TO 256MB? Does the HM version have to deal with alternations to the architecture, so that even if I don't have to use the memory above 256MB it may be slower? Lower clock speeds, less bits in memory bandwith, something like that?

Like I said, the reason for this question is that I have seen benches and reviews out there that show some very different performance numbers. Some benches places the X1600 over the Go7600, others show that the X1600 is considerably slower than the Go7600 (another benchmark altogether that is).

The prices in Sweden, does show at the moment, that notebooks equipped with the ATI X1600 is a tad lower than notebooks with the Go7600. And from what I understand, the ATI X1600 is better at conserving battery life than Go7600. Now if these both chips are very very similar in performace, I would go for the X1600 based computers.

But I'm worried of the above statement - that you may not get what you bargin for with the X1600, if theres more than one type of X1600 on the market and the consumer has no idea as to which is which.

Hmmm did anyone understand my question? lol Any light on this subject would be much appreciated.

Cheers //epatnor

PS. Kudos to Chaz for putting that excellent guide togehter, but as I (tried to) read the whole thread, I was also utterly impressed with his enormous patience - hat goes off to you! The guide clearly states that tips on notebook buys should be handled in the What notebook should I buy thread, and that readers should read the guide thorugh as it answers most questions there already. Still the thread is hammered with EXACTLY these questions, over and over again! I sat there reading, waiting to see some sign of Chaz and the other moderators having a nervous breakdown. lol Amazing, cheers Chaz.

 

Apple's 17" that comes with 256mb dedicated has an underclock GPU which may explain for the variance that you are inquiring about.

 

Welcome ,

The X1600 is a good card , however it is not future proof just like every other card ( DX10 ) , ofcourse we don't know DX10 will come out but you can bet it will happen just as you purchase a brand new notebook with the latest GPU .

If you want a cost effective GPU go with a Dell 17" with Geforce 7900GS it is almost twice as powerfull as the X1600 for about 1500$ US which is more or less the price of any 15.4" with X1600 .

Europeane alternative might be the Compal M570 17" that comes in many GPU flavours including the 7900GTX & maybe GS ( haven't checked it lately ) .

Both were reviewed here at NBR , Good luck .

 

As with nigh on every mobile graphics chip, different manufacturers clock the X1600 differently to better deal with battery and thermal constraints. As long as you get an X1600 with 256MB of dedicated memory, you'll be laughing as the performance is very good, I've just got one myself that is "slightly" underclocked and I can play Half Life 2 at 1280x800, max settings, with 4xAA and 8xAF and the framerate is buttery smooth.

You can ofcourse overclock your GPu yourself to make up for any sort of performnce decrease your card has but to be honest there's little need to do it.

 

different clocks for different manufactures. Read the thread about 7600 vs. x1600. They are completly identical in every aspect. One game the 7600 is 2 fps faster and another the x1600 is 2fps faster. The difference between the 2 is so minimal that niether card should sway your decision. ALthough Im an ATI guy if two exact same notebooks were offered with 7600 and x1600 for the same price Id be tearung my hair out on which to choose.

Also dont trust benchmarks, they dont measure anything and can sometimes be bias. Someone mentioned that 3dmark was optimized for nvidia products, although it may be hearsay; it wasnt the first time software was optimized for a certain peice of hardware.

 

the only guarantee is that x1600 is better at source based games and nvidia is better at doom3 based games..though at the midrange level the difference is still minimal

 

Welcome to the forum!

X1600 can vary a lot in 3dmark and performance. Here is a list:

X1600 with 128 MB dedicated and Hypermemory 512: so it shares 384 from your RAM. Around 3500-3800 3dmark05.
X1600 with 256 dedicated and sometimes shared up to 512 MB with Hypermemory. Around 3800-4200 3dmark05.

And these two can also vary because some manifactures underclock there cards so it doesnt create a lot of heat.

Hope this helps.

Charlie

 

I've seen most of the 128MB X1600's score around 3000 actually. It is quite a bit behind the 256MB version in synthetic benchmarks. I do not know how it compares in real games, but given that many games easily use over 128MB of video memory, the 256MB card will definitely have an advantage.

As long as the card has 256MB of dedicated memory, then it's fine. HyperMemory doesn't make much of a difference, if anything. Certainly not noticable.

 

Thanks for all replies guys!

I was drooling over the ASUS A8Js mentioned here at NBR until I saw the listed price here in Sweden. Almost like a small Volvo! Ehum, well not really , but much more expensive than the listed 1499 dollars over at Laptopmag's "review".

So, that's why I wanted to look closer at the X1600 (or Go7600) again. And now I have found that the ASUS F3Ja (Radeon X1600 512MB, 256MB dedicated) acually fits my needs fine. Runs cool and quiet too, if the review here at NBR is to be trusted. And that review was very well written, so I certainly do trust it! AAMOF, the reviewer kept referring to his experiences with Battlefield 2, which is one of my favourite games. Seems like a sweet laptop.

Just a quick note anyway. The NBR review mentioned like 3600 points in 3dmark05, and the reviewer was a little dissapointed with that result. And as mentioned above, I have seen scores for the X1600 very very close to 4000. Could the F3J be underclocked, or was it maybe his stock software installation that was the problem? I know I should not look too hard on benches, but that would nonetheless translate into real game performance, don't you think?

Thanks again folks, cheers //Patrik

 

3,600 points in 3DMark05 is actually normal for a Go7600 according to all the benchmarks I have seen. Remember that 3DMark is a synthetic benchmark and *only* a synthetic benchmark and is not necessairly indicative of real-world gaming performance. I doubt you would notice the difference between the two in games.

 

My A8Ja, which has the x1600, gets 3850 3dMark05s, because its default clocks are 472/378. When I "overclock" it to 469/450, which is the highest I can get without artifacting in ATI Tray Tools, I get around 4200 3dMarks

Why are my default clocks and achievable overclocks so **** LOW?!

 

You're X1600 OC speeds are nearly the manufacturer's (ATI that is) ideal stock speeds. 4200 sounds about right for those speeds. If you want to push it higher, you'll need some additional cooling for the notebook.

Hey though, you're getting a 9% increase in performance so far...that's good.

 

I think I'll just abandon the Go7700 / X1700 idea. Not worth the wait / price.

Or maybe it is... Argh, the agony!

Thanks again //Patrik

 

My X1600 does 4200 in 3dmark 05. That's with a W3J and a merom chip and 2gigs of ram.

That is out of the box with no overclocking or driver tweaks.

pretty good id say

 

Argh! Please help.

I have the X1600 with 512 Hypermemory (128 ded.) on my Acer 5672 but my 3dMark05 scores are in the low 1700's plus my frame rate in Oblivion sucks and I haven't turned anything up/down. Why are my scores so low?

Is there something in my setup that I am doing wrong. I use the latest omega drivers and ATI TTool. The default clock speeds appear to be 392/252 and everytime I turn them up in ATI TTool then run a program they go back to the lower default.

I have seen a lot of people with exactly the same specs as my laptop that get way better performance out of their X1600.

 

well my 1600 has 256 mb dedicated (512 hyper) and i have a T7400 merom procesor...that probably adds to my score a bit.

 

Hmm low 1700's... That sounds like a 3dmark06 score to me. Sure you did'nt confuse the two? I'm sorry if you didn't .