Is the 8600 GT really such a horrible card?

I ordered a notebook with a 8600 Card with 512 DDR2 memory, but have been told today, that it was one of the worst and most decieving cards that you can buy today:/

Is the card really that bad?


I mean.. Is DDR3 so much better? Even if its twice as less ram?

 

My 1520 has one and it plays all my games without a hitch.

 

The GDDR3 is better. If we were talking about desktop and you had bought a 8600GT for $120, then yes it's bad. But it's a laptop, and it's pretty much the best for 15'' right now.

The card is way better than what it was 8 months ago.

 

the 8600 (even the desktop version) isn't bad at all. it's one step below the 8800 (8700 is just a higher clocked 8600 on a bigger board)

DDR3 is only better if you have a larger screens (wsxga+)...and you "try" to play games at that native resolution

 

But I was told that a GDDR3 256 MB version of the 8600 GT, is over TWICE AS POWERFUL as the GDDR2 512 MB version of the 8600 GTO_O


Mate, what do you mean by that the card is better than it was 6 months ago?

 

The difference in speed isn't more than 30% between DDR2 and DDR3.

Also, they are faster these days due to the more modern drivers. Using a driver that came out 8 months ago versus one that came out a month ago results in a substantional performance difference.

 

Depends who you talk to. Everybody has a different view of acceptable performance.

To some acceptable performance could be running the game without problems with some eye candy on, to some this means 400000x32000 resolution at 320AA and 180AF at 900 frames per second on dual 40" monitors.

Some people also have problems comprehending the limits of a card and try to push it into running things in a way its hardware is unable to accomplish. Many also adjust their graphic card needs to their budget first without regards to their performance needs.

I have an 8600GT 512MB DDR3 card on my desktop and runs modern games without a hiccup. The 256MB 8600GT DDR2 on my laptop runs games without problems too.

Having more video RAM does not improve performance per se if we are talking about cards with the same type of hardware (clock speed, type of RAM, number of shaders enabled, etc.) it is just able to display better textures.

For a card to perform better it has to have faster hardware such as higher clock speeds, faster RAM, higher data bandwidth and the like.

 

I see.


But outside of gaming... just asking this out of curiousity. is there any areas where having 512MB DDR2 will be better than 256 DDR3? I mean.. video editing, photoshopping, viewing HD movies, etc.. anything?




im just kinda surprised(in a bad way) since I heard that crysis could run great on a GDDR3 8600 card, but can barely run at all on a 8600 GDDR2 card, even though it got twice the vram.

hmmm.
I have a long history of just selecting the wrong hardware. never been a hardware wiz kid. I used to own the geforce 4 mx and the geforce fx 5200. both horrible cards for games.
it seems like I attract crappy GFX cards like dog turds attract flies. crap


I was told that even though i got the laptop with 4 gigs of ram and a 2.6 T9500 Penryn processor, the gfx cards would totally bottleneck the entire system and leave everything useless.

on the page where i bought the product it said nothing about GDDR3 or GDDR2. I noticed that they dont reveal that in alot of places. but if it makes such a big difference in games, is it not a mean marketing ploy.

or maybe I was just not good enough at researching before buying. that was like 3000 Dollars down the drain

 

Nope. You can edit and watch video as fine on a Geforce 6 as you can on a Geforce 7 or 8.

Photoshop runs the same on an integrated 2D only capable card as it runs on a 3D capable card. Photoshop is a 2D program and does not use any 3D hardware capabilities.

Again, for a 3D game to run better a card has to have faster hardware. A 512MB card may have more RAM but a 256MB card with faster components will perform better.

Again, it all depends who you're talking to and what they are expecting from a card or trying to force it to run. Also, drivers can play a major role on performance as well.

As a personal note, I NEVER install the drivers that come included with a card as I have found that some can give you problems. I always go to the GPU maker (NVIDIA or ATI) sites directly and download the latest drivers from there.

I wouldn't be so hard on myself by saying that I threw $3000 down the drain, unless everything I want to run on my computer refuses to run on it.

 

crysis runs pretty ok on my 1720.. doesn't help that its a boring game though...

 

Let me start with the facts, and then with some analysis.

First of all, the GDDR3 version is better than the DDR2. Even the 512 in the DDR2 are not a difference. The reason is the bus: both of them are 128-bit. So their optimal RAM usage is close to 256MB.

Now, that one is better than the other doesn't say anything else, the real question is how much better is better. As mentioned in a post before me, the maximum difference registered is a 30%. I think is fair to mention that: that difference reduces to almost 10% with resolutions of 1280x800 or lesser.

Nowadays with modern games owners mid-range cards (i.e. 8600m GT) are trying to push the 30-40fps (frames per second) with some decent graphics. So at resolutions of 1280x800 or lesser this difference (DDR2 Vs GDDR3) becomes 3-4fps. Therefore the difference tends to become imperceptible at those levels.

People can argue that they can and prefer to play at higher resolutions than 1280x800 (making the 30% difference a real deal between DDR2 and GDDR3), but if the compromise between a fluid game with medium graphics and a fluid game with high graphics is the getting a lower resolution (say 1280x800) then personally I'll go with a lower resolution regardless of having a DDR2 or GDDR3.

 

I'm using the 8600m GT and I run Crysis on medium....It rarely ever dips below 30 fps....so yea I run it good.

 

Do not worry! Your computer will run every single game out there right now! Any Source game (portal, half-life2, cs:s) or Unreal Engine game is going to run really well. I don't know what your resolution is, but if you set it around 1440x900 or 1280x800, then with games like that you will be near max in quality settings. Any game on Steam is going to rock with your hardware.

Heck, the only games I can think of that will have trouble being maxed out will be games like Crysis (which doesn't run max on 3 x 8800 Ultra) or World in Conflict.

You own the best price/performance mobile card of this generation! The 8600m GT is the progenitor of the beloved 8800 GT (desktop). You did NOT make a bad choice AT ALL. So relax and enjoy! It sounds like you've got a FANTASTIC computer on the way.

 

what brand of laptop is this?

if you want a gaming laptop, you pretty much have to look at sager / clevo 17"+

if you wanted a 15" laptop, the 8600m gt is the best card you can get (exluding a random alienware laptop). gddr3 > gddr2, but its not the end of the world. its not some magical difference that gddr3 is just mysteriously magically better or anything- the default ram clocks on the gddr3 is 700mhz, versus 400mhz for the ddr2. thats all. the core clocks are the same (475 mhz).

so gddr3 has faster memory. the money you spent on your laptop went into ram and processor speed, which helps with processor intensive tasks like video and photo editing, encoding, etc.

the truth is, though, that if you want the best gaming performance flat out, the 8600m gt is not the place you should be looking. the 8600m gt is a compromise between power and portability. if you want to max out games like crysis, you should look more towards an 8800m gts or gtx (not that they could really do it anyway) but they are much much faster than the 8600m.

do some research before buying a product to make sure you know what you want before you even begin to look at specific models.

also- slight possibility you could return it for a small restocking fee and research other options if you just bought it, or also could sell it for a small loss (maybe similar to a restocking fee) and try again.

 

If I may ask, what did you spend $3k on, that comes with an 8600m gt?

 

What's the consensus on the best driver for the 8600 GT then?
Had a look at some older threads, but obviously there are have been updates since then.

 

171.16 is my prefererdd one after trying all the new 174s including .2 and all of the 173s. Also tried the older 169.28s and 169.04.

 

Yeah, I heard that 169.28 and .04 were fairly good.
Truth be told, I'm still sitting on the driver that was installed, for no other reason than the first time I tried to download a newer one from the nVidia website, it gave me a message telling me I had nothing to upgrade... Odd...
Anyway, hence why I want to know what the best one is these days.

 

Check Chaz's guide to updating video drivers: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=204425

 

Yeah they are but the 171s are better. The 173/4s are all erratic, causing a low min fps. They also artifact somewhat older games, like company of heroes.

 

First off, who is telling you these things. All 3 of these statements are completely wrong.

The 8600m GT is a great card. It's quite cheap and runs ALL GAMES to date pretty damn well. It handles almost any old game no problem even Crysis at not too bad settings (medium-ish @1280x800). For a cheap mid-range card, that's not bad.

The GDDR3 version IS better than any one of the DDR2 versions, but, as stated, only by 30% or so. At 30 fps, that's only a 9 fps increase. Hardly a HUGE difference. You can overclock the DDR2 version to perform at roughly the capabilities of the GDDR3 version.

As for Crysis barely running on the DDR2 version of the card, that's just completely naive and wrong.

In *most* games, the GPU will bottleneck the rest of the system, especially if you have the T9500 and 4 GB of RAM. However, there are many other tasks you can do on your computer (encoding, photoshop, etc) that utilize the CPU and RAM much more than the GPU. The GPU won't bottleneck the laptop in those situations.

If you spent $3,000 on a laptop with a T9500, 4 GB of RAM and an 8600m GT DRR2 GPU and you're complaining about graphics power, then you definitely didn't do your research. For under $2,000 you can get an 8800m GTS. Most people will never need all the power the T9500 provides, most often even the T7250 is plenty. The T9500 simply isn't worth the cost of upgrading yet.

 

Don't you mean 9 FPS?
By the way, with my 8600 GDDR3 Oc'ed to 600/1200/900, I get 5673 3D Marks in '06.

 

Yea I do Post edited...

I was comparing stock clocks. It's difficult to compare overclocked cards because each card can be overclocked differently depending on circumstances.

 

Actually 40fps (39~) compared to 30fps is quite a significant difference.

 

Overclock!

 

hhmm...how much of a performance increase is 512 gddr3 8800m GTS over 256mb gddr2 8600M gt ???

I currently have 8600m gt...and it runs all the current games at pretty decent settings....but am wondering about how much long do i have before it will get outdated?? any ideas on how long it will be able to play upcoming games at decent settings??

i got my Dell 1520 laptop couple of months ago but ever since gateway FX came out at that "oh so tempting" price tag....i am getting drawn into it...

 

If you overclock you'll be fine. I overclocked mine and am running cod4 at 1680 x 1050 with max settings.

 

damn thast pretty good....the 8600mgtddr3 is a damn good "bang" for your buck, but now that gateway has a lappy with the 8800 for 1199, its hard to beat that ****.

 

Its ddr2. yeah the gateway is a steal.

 

Not sure if it's already been posted here, but this link might help.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Grafic-Cards.130.0.html

I do agree there. For that much you should at least aim for an 8800.

 

what?! a laptop with 8800m for just $1199? woahhh..
is that a typo..... that seems alil too good to be true haha.

 

I personally played with the FX in Best Buy.

I thought it was disgusting.

I'll never understand the super glossy all over laptops.

Not to mention the keyboard flexed like a half inch.


I am in love with my IFL90 w/DDR2.

It doesn't fail me in anything.

People tend to exaggerate things.

I game ALOT and use 512vram ddr2 8600mGT at 1680x1050 stock speeds.



The thing I will NEVER understand is the processor thing.

I'm sure the real life difference between my T7300 and a 9300 is near unnoticeable, besides power consumption.

Only other notebook that tempts me is the 15.4" alienware with 8800gtx.

Thats not suppose to happen! AHHH!

 

ok, I play a bunch of games, and i have a dell inspiron 1520 w/ the 256MB GDDR2 8600GT. now, i don't use fraps, but i've been gaming on computers for about 10yrs now, and so i can tell about lag.

C2D 2.0GHz 800MHz FSB
8600M GT 256MB GDDR2
2GB RAM
160GB HD
Vista Home Premium 32-bit
Glossy 1440x900 res. screen

Fable: Everything max at 1440x900, AF, AA, shadows, all the bells and whistles, consistent fps even w/ a lot of mobs on screen, no lag.

UT3: 1440x900, everything maxed again, 20-25fps consistent, 18-19 in HUGE battles, 30+ w/ few things going on.

HL2: same as above, but 25-30fps consistent.

WoW: couldn't get more maxxed out, even in big raids i don't drop below 40+fps.

EQ: even better than WoW.

EQ2: maxxed out completely, 25-30fps consistent i'd say.

CoD4: max it all out, i love the bells and whistles, rarely if ever a hitch.

WC3: hahaha, even w/ everyone having as full of an army as possible *my army usually isn't too huge, i spec up to frost wyrms ASAP so relatively tiny army w/ a big punch* w/ everything maxxed out 1440x900, no lag.

Oblivion: max it all out, i prefer HDR to bloom. no lag, ever... on my old desktop Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB i'd have everything on medium-ish and would lag in big battles or in cities or the gold coast.

Bioshock: been a while since i had uninstalled it *lost interest about halfway in* but i had it at like 1200x800 res. or something like that, everything max except AA i think at 2x, smooth as pie.

As for normal use, aero and all that w/ all the bell's and whistles, no lag, surfing web, no glitching, DL'ed a HD version of transformers, very smooth. I also use the laptop as an engineering undergraduate and as such have to have Autodesk Inventor 2008 on my lappy, which is VERY intensive program, and even zooming in on a very detailed item.... like my old 17" chrome alloy wheel i had made to fit an old camaro *made it junior year in highschool in Inventor 10* it works fine. Programs such as Zbrush i can subdivide i think 5 or 6 times on really detailed projects before i get any lag.
Honestly, i only read the first page of this forum, and was wondering who the heck was telling you the gfx card was bad. whoever they are, tell them they don't know jack. if i can play UT3 max settings in a 30+ online team deathmatch or VCTF w/ 20-25fps all the time, which is MORE than enough to be playable *and i'm picky, being a "twitcher" in FPS's* then it's def good enough.

When i used stock dell drivers however, i'd play, again using UT3 as an example, settings set to 1 or 2, get in a game, and avg. about 13-15fps *using the statfps built-in feature*, but i updated them to 169.09 and that's how i was able to bump it all up to max and get 20-25 fps.

So there, went through all my gfx intense programs, and those are real world results. If those settings still aren't good enough for you, get a 8800 oven, i mean laptop, cause the 8600 is one of the best out there imo

 

well said denro!

 

Denro likes fable.

We should be friends.

 

i guess we all have our opinions.....

my barely flexes at all, must have been an overworked floor model or something.

 

DDR3 does not make that significant of a difference in gaming over DDR2. If you overclock your memory only, run 3DMark06, you won't see a huge difference in score. But bump your GPU/shader up and you will. Memory speed is important, but won't prevent you from playing or not playing a game.

I've played everything including Crysis, without a hitch. I see no upcoming games that I won't be able to play reasonably well on my O/C'd 8600m GT w/DDR2 this year.

 

I am going to bribe all the developers so I can get Fable 2 early.

 

Excellent post Denro. +1 for the info even if you do like Fable.

 

Will it be able to play Red Alert 3? but then it hasn't come out yet...

 

Depending on the scale of the RTS.

Command and Conquer 3 and what not don't have a huge viewing radius, so it isn't too hard on the computer which is what I expect.

Although, if it takes the route of huge scale battles like supreme commander, along with new graphics... everyone may have a problem with the game 8600-8700... But the DDR3 wouldn't even allow that to improve too much.

 

YES. I think so. I mean it's bean around a long long time now, we need something new and better!