Geforce 8600M GS vs. 8600M GT vs. 8700M GT

I'm buying a new book at the beginning of next month, and I'm stuck between 15" and 17" screens and their GPUs. The only laptops that pack the new 8700M GT are 17" hunks. They're so heavy and suck the battery clean like nothing. So I was looking at 15" books and saw that none of them have the 8700, but there are some with a 512 mb ddr3 8600.

What are the differences between the two 8600's and the 8700 in the ways of game performace and battery life? Is it a huge difference so that I should consider the 8700 with a bigger book or is it only minor?

in depth answers are greatly appreciated!!! the more info the better here..and if you have hands on experience than i'll be really happy =)
thanks

 

The 8700GT is about 20-30% faster then the 8600M GT which is about 20-30% faster then the 8600M GS.

Battery life depends on the laptop and is hard to compere. Most 17" gameing laptops dont have very long battery life.

 

how does the 8600M GT play on current top DX9 games, and what about newer DX10 games coming out?

i'm mainly interested in world in conflict at the moment but i know there will be more that i'll want

 

8600m gt is considerably faster than any other 15" gpu. ie. go 7600 / x1600.

direct x 10 is sort of a toss up. there isn't anything good happening with dx10 right now. wait for bioshock / crysis to set a standard.

 

The 8600M GT plays all current games pretty good.

DX10 games is a big unknown right now. I have seen benchmarks of DX10 games where even a 8800GTX only gets 10-15 games. Those games will be unplayable in those settins with the 8600M GT. But they will be unplayable for the 8700M GT also.

 

the 8700mGT is just an OC'd 8600mGT

 

yes... ok.

 

problem: i'm buying in a month...
and its going to be my computer for 3 or 4 years i'd guess

but i cant wait any longer because i need a computer for the school year..
i want the notebook to play all the new games that come out in the next few years...not necessarily on highest settings... but just to play them
DX10 WILL be the standard by then..not to mention of course the higher standards that will come

 

why is that a problem? that sounds fine to me. what else would you be waiting for?

 

There is no laptop that will be able to play current games in 3-4 years. Atleast not 4 years. Just look back. 4 years ago the ATI 9700 with 64 or 128MB DDR memory was current for laptops. That card cant play any of the higher demand cames that came out recently.

And the current laptops being a 1st generation DX10 card makes the problem even bigger. 1st generations cards are never that great.

 

i guess so...
haha i think i just want an 8800 on a 15" right NOW..but thats not possible at all

do you guys know if anyone will be offering the 8700 in a 15 inch package within a month?

 

No they wont. The 8700M GT is pretty much 17" or bigger forever. There are roumours that the 15,4" Asus C90 might support it but that is not sure and the C90 is not really a portable laptop.

TheATI/AMD HD2600xt might be slightly better then 8600M GT or even the 8700M GT. But I am not sure if it can be made to fit into 15,4" laptops.

 

Nope. Nothing smaller than a 17" will fit a 8700. If you need a 15" in a month then the 8600M GT is your best bet...

 

okiedoke
guess i'm pretty much all set then

last q..
any suggestions for the actual laptops at 15" with the 512 mb 8600M GT?

 

IFL90 is good value for money.
If you want maximum performace then only the Asus G1s will give you that.

There are 2 kinds of 8600M GT. One has 256MB Gddr3 memory and the other 512MB Gddr2 memory.
I think only the G1s and the Macbook pro use Gddr3 memory and they are a good big faster then all the others with Gddr2.

 

but the 512mb is more memory..
wouldn't that be a more important upgrade then the gddr 3 at 256?

 

I second the G1S since my brother has a G1 with the old Go 7700 and the build quality and the screen is superb! And having Gddr3 gives you more performance than having 512MB...

 

No it is not. 256MB is enough and the G1s memory is alot faster. It runs at 1400mhz and others like the Dell 1520 and Compal IFL90 only run at 800mhz.

 

wow ok i didnt know it was that much..okay..
just a little worried that the games soon are gonna start maxing out my video ram and that can be problematic

whats this turbo memory stuff? the g1 says it can boost video memory up to 512...is that the same concept as integrated cards where it borrows ram?

thanks for the patience =) this stuff brings up more and more questions..

 

Yeah Turbo memory dynamicly alocated system ram to be used by the graphics card. It is dynamic so when the graphic card does not need extra nothing is taken so dont worry about it takeing up your system ram unneeded.

 

sweet
so i shouldn't have a problem with the games using up all my video memory?
at least not for a while?

 

anyone there?

 

You shouldn't worry too much about the 256MB since lots of people said 256MB is enough for today's games. 512MB only gives you a few more fps at a higher resolution. ie. I'll go for the G1S if I were you.

 

sweet
thats answers a ton of questions

just need a second battery for that thing and i think i'm set

 

Nice... Pretty sure you won't be disappointed by the G1S if you're getting that. And hey, any rep points for me? (just joking...lol )

 

If you have gaming in mind, then get a laptop with the 8700M GT. I don't know why some people are very picky about size and weight....when it's not even that heavy.

However, this is coming from someone that can't see how an iPod Nano/Mini is better than a Video because it's a lot smaller. I carry around my iPod in my pocket, no problems. My friends tell me it is huge? ok...

Then I was reading 1520 previews, then reviews. Everyone said oh it looks ugly and it's so bulky. Once I got it in my own hands, all that went out the window.....I am very satisfied with it. The weight is not a problem.

If you game a lot, and you need to do it on a laptop, sacrifices must be made meaning paying more or getting a bigger laptop.

 

i'm gonna be on the road all fall and winter...and i travel internationally all the time
in fact i technically live in mongolia.
7 lbs is the max i want on my shoulders while walking through an airport after sitting on a plane for 14 hours

 

Go for the G1S man, you'll love it. Personally own the 1st generation G1. Build quality is great and the screen is for lack of a better word sweet!

I also own a 17" HP notebook, while i liked having a big screen I didn't not like the bulkiness/weight to it. Also the 90min or so of actual use of battery made going off the outlet hard for any period of time.

Since your traveling my opinion is 15". But if you find the weight/bulk not to be a problem then by all means go for bigger. Have any friends with one so you can see how the weight feels to you? Maybe walk around with one for a day or something.

Anyways good luck in whatever you decide!

 

yea i've used 14 15 and 17 inch screen sizes on friend's laptops and though i haven't walked around, 15 seemed like the perfect size just with it on my lap and stuff...
the more i look at it the more i'm hooked on the g1s
its just a beautiful peace of art =D

i'll just be buying a second battery most likely to have more mobile time

 

haha, I still remember I was kinda jealous when my brother bought his G1 last year... The name "Asus Gaming Series" really suits the notebook very well...

 

just a quick question didnt want to bother everyone by making a new thread.

which would be quicker, an 8600m gt with 128mb ddr3 or a 256mb ddr2 in game at 1280x800 resolution???

thank you

 

The Macbook pro. Atleast in bootcamp and Windows the 128MB 8600M GT Turbocaches the aditional memory it needs. Just make sure you have enough ram. 2GB is good. 3GB is better.

 

really even with 128mb the ddr3 still beats out the ddr2, by how much? what about at 1440x900 res?

 

hypersonic's aviator SR5 carries a 512mb gddr3 8600gt

 

An 8600M GT with 128MB DDR3
Where did you find that? (I've only seen 8600's with 256 and 512).

 

The "smaller" macbook pro has a 8600M GT with 128MB Gddr3 and the hypersonic one is an IFL90 so it has Gddr2. If they say Gddr3 then their homepage is wrong.

 

These cards are still no real gaming cards. Just look at that 128bit bus compared to say a 7800GTX 256bit bus. Sure they are DX10, but they are indeed very very crippled given it's 128bit bus. Higher clocks and memory won't help this much. If I would buy a gaming laptop I would go for a smaller screen for pure gaming to be able to play in native resolution. No way you'll be able to game feasible at a high resolution with these cards.

I sure hope Nividia pumps out a 256bit card soon.

 

Yet the 8700GT will tromp the 7800GTX and pretty much keep up with the 7900GTX in DX9.
(The 7950GTX outperforms the 8700 in DX9 by a decent margin)

The point of DX10 is efficiency... the whole idea is that you won't require SLI to get reasonable frame rates with decent details.

The 8700 is an impressive card that does its job (at least in the x205s) with very little heat and thus a very quiet fan system.

People continue to worry about small percentage points in fps differences when the 8700 pumps out impressive performances while gaming actually from my lap.

After gaming in bed (Oblivion 1440x900, almost maxed out) next to my sound-sensitive wife on my lap for 5 hours without barely a hint of extraneous heat, I decided that this laptop was a keeper.

(note this is a testament to its quiet and cool operation and not its battery as it was plugged-in)

Note that any statement of battery life on a 17" is also false in the case of the x205. Almost 3 hours of non-gaming battery life is far more than I expected.

The 8700 is a very solid GPU which games very well.
The 8700 isn't enthusiast level, but I can't say I miss the heat, the power comsumption, or the noise necessary to cool those beasts either.

 

Sure it tromps the 7800GTX in 3D Mark but that doesn't prove anything. Try to game with 8700 in 1920x1200 and compare it to a 7800GTX and see which card that struggles the most. And no it is nowhere near the 7950GTX in terms of performance. It will tromp the 7950 in DX10 but not in DX9. 8700GT is only an overclocked 8600GT. It's 128bit bus definitely hinders it performing at high resolutions.

If you can play full settings on Oblivion in 1440x900 I would say the 7950GTX does that in 1920x1200.

I do own a DX10 card myself for my desktop a 8800GTX, yet still the drivers are so unoptimized that it's just better to wait until they get some decent drivers out for Vista.

So if you max Oblivion you say, what framerates do you achieve with your 8700GT, then I mean in open areas with lots of trees.

 

and you know that how...?

 

I see you own a 8600M GT, now have you tried Oblivion in 1920x1200? or Command and Conquer 3? I would like to see those benchmarks.

http://www.notebookforums.com/thread201504.html

I own a 7800GTX and it's overclocked to 446/1200. Now I play C&C 3 at 1920x1200 with all settings highest except AA. Now I played a scenario with lots lots of alien units on the ground and the lowest frame rate I had when there were tons of units on ground was 20fps, usually it lingers between 30-25fps and that at a resolution of 1920x1200. Now how does your card perform in CnC3? Or better up a 8700GT in a resolution of 1920x1200? Would be nice to know so I can see if it's worth getting a new system yet or wait for a better 8700GT with a 256bit bus.

 

sounds like a spell for disaster.

midrange cards aren't designed to run games in high resolutions.

doubtful that either will be playable at that resolution.

 

whoa
when i go to bed its dead ... when i wake up this thread goes crazy

so how much is the 128 bit bus gonna cripple my asus g1s with its geforce 8600M GT?

 

its just the total memory bandwidth that counts, even though a lot of people bark up and down about the "crippling 128 bit bus". it has a good bit of memory bandwidth, but not enough for ultra high resolutions. ultra high resolution doesn't mean 720p (which is 1280x720). it means like 1920x1200, which is like twice as many pixels per frame.

so

that answer your question?

 

yea the computer i'm buying doesn't even have 1920x1200. So should not be a problem at all.
thanks