GO 7900 GS replaced by 8600M GT (warranty)

Hi everyone

My GO 7900 GS equipped on DELL Inspiron 9400 just busted again, just 5 days after having been replaced under warranty. Now, an exchange has been authorized, but DELL will only give me the best GPU available on that product line (inspiron 1720), which is the Nvidia 8600M GT. I tried to call them to request an equivalent system to mine or better, and they tell me it is actually better. Here are the details :

Current system
Inspiron 9400
Core 2 Duo T7400 (2.16 GHz, 4 mb cache)
2 gb DDR2 533 MHz
256mb Nvidia GO 7900 GS ( 256 bit memory bus)
Windows XP Media center
7200 RPM HD

Proposed replacement
Inspiron 1720
Core 2 Duo T8300 (2.40 Ghz, 3 mb cache)
2 gb DDR2 667 MHz
256 mb Nvidia Geforce 8600M GT ( 128 bit memory bus)
Windows Vista
7200 RPM HD

My main use of this computer was for gaming (GTA, Flight Sim X, BF2). I am worried that the 8600M GT won't get close to the high-res performance (1900x1200) the 7900 GS achieved, mainly because of the half size bus. I found straight from NVIDIA's website the memory bandwidth of 42.2 GB/sec compared to only 22.4 GB/sec for the 8600M GT, which is almost half only! I found many reviews and benchmarks on the internet. I understand the "random" nature of benchmarks, but when they all agree, I guess they must be correct!

http://freestone-group.com/video-card/stability-test/benchmark-results.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/mobile-graphis-cards-benchmark-list.844.0.html
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=98&pgno=1

Dell's tech support supervisor tells me the 8600M GT will be superior, because of the DX10, which I do not believe. Also, he told me the 8600M GT uses additional shared system memory, which doesn't fit with the information I've found so far. Problem is, to give me an equivalent GPU, they would have to upgrade me to XPS, which they supposedly can't. So because they now offer less performance on that product line (inspiron), I will be getting, in my opinion, much less gaming performance.

I would like your opinion regarding the GPU exchange (8600M GT instead of 7900GS), the CPU exchange (higher clock vs lower cache), as well as for the whole system's performance potential.

... And worse of all, I would get vista

Thanks everyone for helping me find out the truth about that latest technology

 

Have you read this thread? http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568

I think it answers quite clearly your question.
DX10: It is still not shining, and many people think it will take at least another year. As for the shared memory: useless, dedicated memory is all about.

 

I'd say stick with 7900 GS since the x9xxx series will generally be better than the next generation's x6xxx series from nVidia; the memory bus is really a good find; that's what keeps the 8700mGT from approaching the 8800mGTX's power. The shared memory they're talking about, TurboCache (I think it's called) is pretty much trash; it doesn't help much at all.

For the processor, however, realize that the T8300 is a "penryn" processor and it's more power efficient and whatnot; I think the extra clocks will probably be good but I think graphics would be the real bottleneck here.

 

not worth it!!!ask them for dell xps 1710!!!

 

If you enjoy gaming at 1920x1200 then you are getting a downgrade. While the 8600M GT has more raw processing power (32 unified pipes vs. 20 + 6 combined pipes) neither this or support for DX10 can make up for more than 50% slower memory speed.

Seeing as the warranty calls for like kind and quality, I believe that Dell should either replace your system with another e1705, or give you the option to cash out and then buy the upgraded machine that you really want which costs more.

 

stick with the 7900GS, SCREW dx10 it is pointless right now

 

I think some people aren't reading the OP....

He can't keep the 7900 GS and Dell is trying to stick him with an inferior card.

 

I don't see the ponit of gaming at 1900x1200 on a 17" screen. It's probably no different from 1680x1050 at that size ..
Also, ask them to put the GDDR3 version of the 8600M GT in the notebook, it's significantly faster than the GDDR2 version (and probably faster than the 7900GS as well, judging by benchmarks.. the GDDR3 version gets ~4k 3DMark06 at 1280x1024). The GDDR3 version is normally reserved for the XPS M1530, but I'm sure they can stick it in your notebook too.

 

The question posted is:
I would like your opinion regarding the GPU exchange (8600M GT instead of 7900GS), the CPU exchange (higher clock vs lower cache), as well as for the whole system's performance potential.

So I think all answers are in line with the question.

Personally, that is cheating from Dell. Yes, they don't have any spare parts which is the reason they will give him the newest model, which is inferior in terms of the graphic card*.

*=Note that this holds true for high resolutions since the 256-bit bus makes a difference. At resolutions of 1280x800 (maybe 1400x900, not sure) the story may be the other way... if Dell is giving him the GDDR3 version and not the DDR2.

 

True, however the 1720 does not have GDDR3 edition of 8600m GT, since Dell is eager to push their XPS lines using the card as a selling point, namely m1530 with the GDDR3 Edition, the 1720 will probably not see a new card until the next gen of mobile cards get release. Even then we are at Dell's Mercy.

 

If you can get the GDDR3 version, than go for it!

 

Request an 8600m GT GDDR3 version and Windows XP SP2. The CPU and memory are slight upgrades.

Either way, expect to only game at 1280x800 with most games. I play on my laptop with the 8600m GT DDR2 version at 1280x800 downscaled from 1680x1050 and looks very very good.

I don't believe the 8600m GT GDDR3 is less performance than the 7900 GS in most cases at 1280x800 resolution. When looking at benchmarks, look at the 8700m GT as opposed to the 8600m GT becuase they usually refer to the DDR2 version, where the DDR3 version is closer in performance to the 8700m GT and can probably be overclocked beyond its capabilities.

 

Thanks everyone for the advices. I think that, even though the 8600M GT DDR3 card would be enough for games to be playable, they would be playable at lower resolutions, which convinces me even more that I am getting a downgrade here. And I still don't know if they would allow me to get it (DDR3)on a 1720. I should be getting a call from somebody at DELL tonight and will keep you updated on their answer. So far, it has been : get the new computer, try it, install the games and test the machine. If it's not satisfying, call us back. I figure this is a weird strategy, as they will get stuck with a used computer rather than solving the problem satisfyingly for both parties PRIOR to shipping, but it seems that it's the way it works...

Thanks again to those who replied

 

yea, you should just keep pushing for a GDDR3 8600gt, it can be done, and seeing how much you've been through, it should be the least they could do for you

GDDR3 8600m gt is more or less a downclocked 8700m gt

 

push for a 1710 XPS if you can

 

I can't imagine 7900 GS will be able to play at higher resolution than an 8600m GT DDR3 can.

 

This is false.

The 8600m even with DDR3 cannot touch the clocks an 8700m can get to.
this is due to the voltage and cooling set up for the 8700m.

Saying the 8600m is an underclocked 8700m is even worse than saying the 8700m is an overclocked 8600...

You are encouraging very silly behavior with these statements.

Running an 8600m GT at even 8700m speeds is heat intensive.
Running an 8600m GT at the speeds most people clock their 8700m to is pretty much guaranteed meltdown.

 

According to numbers on Nvidia's website, with a memory bandwidth of 42.2 GB/sec instead of 22.4 GB/sec (which takes into account bus, clock and data rate), I figure my "old" card is pretty much twice as fast as the new one (8600M GT), mostly because of 256 vs128 bit bus. RAM is the same, supposing I'd get a DDR3 version. What other paramater can outweight this?

I agree that it's a new card, midrange, that will play well in medium resolutions. But I really think that it is far from reaching the performance of 7900GS. I would'nt want to reduce resolution because that is precisely what made me choose the 7900GS in the first place.

Could anyone tell me if I'm wrong?

Thanks everyone

 

Sorry for the bold there, just wanted the question to pop out, not to express anything...

 

the only difference between the cards is the mem and core clocks, and dont even bring in the dual rank bus casue it doesnt do anything. If you could get good cooling to a 8600m GT and overclock it to 8700m GT speeds they would be the same thing.




that shows that EVERYTHING is the same once the 8600m GT is overclocked, sure different parts were used so higher clocks were possible, but if you had proper cooling and good drivers an 8600m GT could reach those speeds.
I really dont see how this is silly at all actually, for newer users to understand the difference this is the easiest way to put it, and it is not false.

 

Yea dude, true, but 8600M gt=15 inchers, 8700M GT=17 inchers.
The 8600M GT is not designed with a good cooling in any laptop,not like the 8700M GT is anyways.
True,with good cooling it might get there,but in real life the 8700M GT is better at stock and OCes a hell lot better than the 8600M GT.
I say either push for a 8600M GT GDDR3, or better yet, a XPSM1710 with at least an 8700M GT.
The 7900GS card was no slouch.

 

If it's a GDDR3 8600 both cards will be roughly equivalent. DDR2 will be a bit slower...

I believe the 8600 runs pretty cool in th Dells. If you can push it to 600/1600...

IMO HDR+ AA is a great addition since I can't stand jaggies

 

Maybe we should do a few benchmarks among us NBR users. Maybe pick someone with an 8600m GT DDR3 and a 7900 GS with similar specs and benchmark them and compare.

I'm surprised NBR doesn't do this already with new laptops. It would be awesome with every notebook reviewed part of the requirement is to do a few set tests and compile them into a chart.

 

I had a gateway NX860XL with the 7900GS and a 1920x1200 screen, and that card allowed me to play all my games nearly flawlessly at native resolution. After that was stolen, I got an XPS M1530 with the DDR3 8600M GT and the 1680x1050 screen. At stock clocks and at this Dell's native resolution, this computer is the same or worse than the 7900GS was playing the same games, but once I overclock this card a bit, it's a bit faster than the 7900 was in my old computer (which had a bios lock on overclocking, so I couldn't ever really push it).

 

8700m GT are higher voltage parts as well... it isn't just cooling its is signal strength. I don't care if you run the laptop in mineral water, the 8700m will outshine the 8600 very easily by running at 25-30%+ higher clocks that the 8600 cannot even dream of running.

Also, overclocked 8600GT do not actually get to 8700m performance, even at the same clocks... everything from 3dmark06 to game performance is still a small margin lower... (the performance is close.. 5-10% difference, but it isn't quite there - this might actually be the dual-128-bus difference, or it might be cooling techniques kicking in, who knows)

That site doesn't seem that useful as quite frankly Nvidia posts its card's stats on it's site. Why compare second-hand with a site with no useful information and no authority?
A simple look and comparison from stats at nvidia's site will tell you the 8700m is 30% faster clocked... and anybody can try OCing to 8700m speeds... but the question is heat and stability.

The 8600m is NOT an underclocked 8700m. They are different parts by at LEAST voltage and cooling requirements... Yes, someone CAN overclock an 8600M GT to get close to an 8700m GT at stock, but this not that same as just "moving a slider" worth of difference. The 8700m GT will runs at 70C max at my 778/1556/1876 after hours of gaming. the 8600m GT (DDR3) runs at 85C+ at just over stock speeds after a short time gaming in the m1530.
The same 8600GT runs at 95-100C after 15 minutes and shows artifacts after 20 minutes at 8700m GT stock speeds without additional cooling. (and the laptop is uncomfortable to use)

FIND me a person running their 8600m GT at anywhere close to the 800/1600/2000 speeds the 8700m users are getting. It doesn't exist.
they may be the same chip, but the actual complete unit is not the same.
Voltage and cooling are the culprits

An overclocked version of a card is designed to go faster than the standard, and underclocked version of the card is being used under it potential.

The 8700m is an overvoltaged and heavily overclocked 8600m GT at best.
The 8600m is most definitely NOT an underclocked 8700m GT.

 

This confirms what I thought. If the 8600M GT were used on 1920x1200, it would definitely be slower.

Thank you!

 

Cooling depends on the laptop, not the card. My C90S' 8600M GT DDR2 runs at 110-118C if I don't force the fans with folding@home while it never goes over 70C on the Inspiron 1520... The only thing manufactured by Nivdia itself is the GPU.

 

yeah just wall of text me to death....


the point is if the clocks were the same then they would be the same card..end of story

 

It would be better if you got a 8700m GT instead. I had two of those in SLI and they overclocked like crazy, reaching speeds of 750 on the Core alone

 

Dell's tech support called me as planned yesterday evening. At the beginning, he was still telling me that the 8600M GT is superior to the 7900GS. After I gave him some numbers (128bit vs 256 and 22.4 vs 42.2 gb/sec). Even the 8700M GT only gets to 25.6 gb/sec. He was very comprehensive and finally agreed with me that the replacement computer would need at least a 8700M GT SLI with 512mb to be comparable (even though 2x128bit isn't as good as 1x256bit, but 512mb rather than 256mb would compensate enough). He told me that the replacement he would suggest would be a XPS 17something . He will tell that to the replacement team and give them spec sheets of the GPUs. He will be calling me back with their answer on next friday.

Thanks again for all your help
I will keep you updated next week

 

Good job dude!!!

 

nicely done

 

memory bandwidth is a big deal, but its not the end of everything. the 8600m gt is more efficient per clock than the 7900 gs. its also doing more per gb/s of memory bandwidth. this is true for every generation bump of graphics card.

imo, in 1920x1200 in older games (flight simulator, gta) the 8600m gt and 7900 gs would fare comparably, with the 7900 gs slightly outperforming the 8600m gt. slightly. both would be able to handle it without much issue. (this is assuming the gddr3 8600m gt).

in newer games, the 7900 gs can't handle 1920x1200, so the 8600m gt ends up being faster at the same resolution (gddr3 only, again)

an 8700m gt will definitely outperform the 7900 gs, regardless of memory bandwidth.

two 8700m gt's in SLI are even better. I don't know how you convinced them to give you two 8700m gt's from 1x 7900 gs, but you definitely got the positive end of the deal. Don't worry about the memory bandwidth. Its not an issue of 2x128bit underperforming compared to 1x256 bit. The 8700m gt (or 8700m gt SLI) is going to be faster. much faster.

well done.

 

very interesting reading everyones posts, i learned a lot about my new lappy and what a great outcome for Allzonecars. !!

 

Wow great job. I never knew you could get such a bargain (upgrading from old inspiron to XPS!?) from dell.

 

way to go, that is awesome, if you tell them how it is they will listen

 

Just keep in mind that with SLI 8700m's will be more power drain and more heat.

 

Congratulations!!! You made them replace your system (high-end system in its time) with a better system (higher-end system in this time). It good to hear they can be reasonable.

 

Thanks for the additionnal information you provided. I think this explains why they are so convinced that the 8600M GT is superior. Now since only the newer games (or even the ones to come only) will take real advantage of the DX10 technology, I figure my 7900 GS still remains at least better than the 8600M GT DDR2 they wanted to give me.

It's a little early to celebrate though, as the final decision is not taken by the rep I talked to, but rather by some "exchange" team. I will be getting THEIR decision by next friday. I am truly convinced that they "digged" the gap between the Inspiron and XPS' respective performance to boost gaming laptop sales.

Last question : Would anyone know where I could find throughput specs on those GPUs so I can get more arguments?

Again, I will keep you posted

Politeness is the key to success

 

Now that`s an upgrade.

 

Well, keep your fingers crossed. About your question: you can either check them in nvidia's website of in www.gpurwview.com go to the compare cards section.

 

Congrats! I'd Ditch the SLI though sucks juice performance is better but... more sketchy/unreliable

 

Holy Jebus!

Does this mean that when my 7900gs dies, I can get them to replace it with two 8700m GT's??

That is one hell of an upgrade. Even one 8700m GT would be a good upgrade, but two in SLI... wow...


Holy Jebus!

 

Holy ****, I will start to pray for my Go 7900GS in my XPS M1710 to die now. I guess the XPS can squeeze some more.
p/s: do you know that if i bought a laptop from the US, will DELL cover the warranty if i'm staying in the UK now.

 

Ahaha now you got him. Although a 8800M GTS would be a better card, and more cost-efficient for Dell

 

One thing to keep in mind - a total of 512MB may exist between the two cards, because the data is mirrored between the two, you still only have 256MB in use. Now, that isn't bad; is just that SLI can mislead people into thinking they are getting more than they really are...

 

As long as you`ll get below 1440x900 you`ll get twice the performance of the 7900Gs, if not more.And all other goodies

 

Hello there folks

Here is the final chapter...

After arguing that the 8600M GT was (or not) better than my 7900GS, I gave the bandwidth numbers from nvidia's website. I now understand that this measurement is only one isolated process that can be compensated, but at the time, I thought that this was the only performance meter. The tech was impressed about those numbers and took a week to look at spec sheets. Meanwhile, I received the replacement inspiron 1720 I was promised. I did not open the box just yet... Got a phone call yesterday : the final decision is out : XPS !
I will be trading in my

inspiron 9400
2.16 gHz 4mb cache
2 gb RAM 533 Mhz
Geforce Go 7900 GS 256mb
win XP media center
100 gb HDD 7200 RPM

for a brand new XPS 1730
T8300 (2.4 ghz 3 mb cache)
2 gb RAM 667 mHz
Not one, but two 8700M GT in SLI 512mb!
Win XP Pro
200 gb HDD 7200 rpm

Can hardly wait to see what color it is!

The inspiron 1720 was worth 1488$ This XPS is valued at 2450$ What a big leap. Considering that I paid 2100$ for my 9400 (before sales taxes) a year and a half ago, I think I got a hell of an upgrade, but I still honestly believe that the 8600M GT didn't cut it and needed to go to the XPS to be equal or better.

I would like to thank everyone that posted to help me get up to date in GPU technology and achieve this "negociation" outcome.

Remember: If your warrantied computer breaks (major) for the second time, just request for an exchange. They told me at first glance that it needed three repairs before being replaced. They called back a day or two later to tell me it will be replaced. I'll never know though if it is because I asked... Also, if somebody tells you that you paid for an inspiron and can only get an inspiron as exchange (even supervisor), that statement is false as the is no such limitation in the warranty; only statement is equal or better.

Thanks!

 

Hi everyone again...

Just had time to install my games on my new XPS M1730 (in this case GTA San Andreas). On my 9400 equipped with GO 7900 GS, I could play at 1920x1080 at, say, one third of the drawing distance meter. Now, with this system, it is totally unplayable at 1680x1050, with all the lowest settings.

I still have Windows XP. I went in the Nvidia settings and activated the SLI functionality, switched the performance/quality slider all the way to performance, and yet, no improvement at these resolutions. I am now dowloading a driver for the graphics adapter on the dell website, which is about three weeks newer than the one installed on my system.

On the freestone group video card stability test, my system scored 121, which seems very low to me.

I did uninstall most of DELL's bloatware, even though I did not do a fresh Windows install.

Could anybody tell me if this is the kind of performance I should be expecting from my system, based on your experience (see the previous posts for more technical details).

Would it really take a 8800 to achieve acceptable gaming performance, and if so, is the GPU replaceable at all?

Again, your help is very appreciated!

Thank you

 

Are on power saver?

I just did the test you mentioned and something is far from right.

7600GT: 180
8400 GS : 41
HD 2400XT : 43
7600GS: 160 (from their website)
Your system: 105

The 7600GS is equal to the 6600GT, which is slower than the 8400GS & 2400XT. I bet the 8600M GT should be arround 200, if not more.

I was maxing SA at 1024x768 on my vanilla 6600 on my old computer so....

You got 8700M GT SLI? It should be crushing your old Go 7900GS. Try the 175.xx drivers from laptopvideo2go.com