Meaker's Notebook graphics charts.

There, I have swapped things around a bit, I think the 8600GT will be happy with 256mb actually (the desktop cards only have this). There is a 33% difference in shader power between the two 8600s so I have to seperate them by a level.

 

Yes, that is much better, but I think that it should be Performance instead of High mid range (like in Chaz's graphics card thread).

And certainly, the performance gap between the 8600MGT and 8600MGS will be much larger than the one between 8600MGS and 8400MGT. I am actually pretty interested to see if the 8400MGT can be overclocked to beat the performance of the 8600MGS.

 

I honestly don't think that the 8600m-GS will be as weak as everyone's expecting. I guess we'll have to wait for reliable benchmarks, but I would be willing to bet that the difference between the 8600M-GS and the 8600M-GT will be similar to the difference between the Go7600SE and the Go7600GT.

 

Since this is a gaming board I am not making allowances for them being laptop chip and TBH only the high end chips are the true performance chips, anything lower down and you make sacrafices.

 

Ok, here's my analysis:

- 8400M G and GS are both 64bit so they are definitely low-end and with only 3,200 fillrate they are under a 7600 (3,600 fillrate and 128bit) and we can safely assume they are a 7400 refresh !

- 8400M GT (3,600 fillrate and 19.2 GB/s bandwidth) is a 7600 refresh but cannot beat the GT version (6,000 and 19.2 Gb/s) and the 7700 (5,400 and 16 GB/s), so it is definitely a mid class card !

- 8600M GS (4,800 and 22.4 GB/s) well... kind of the same as the 8400M GT and let's say.. a 7700/7600 GT refresh !

- 8600M GT (7,600 and 22.4 GB/s) beats the 7800 (6,400 and 35.2 GB/s) at the fillrate but cannot compete with the 7800's great bandwidth ! 7800 is still a high-end card, so we can just say that could be a 7800 refresh while still being a mid range card !

 

You are making comparisons to the old gen, this gen 7900 performance does not hold a candle to the 8800GTS, there is a very large gap between the high and mid range this time, its really big. Maybe ATI can fill this gap.

 

what about the mobility hd2600xt?

 

They are still not out yet.And let's get not too hasty and wait for some proper [and non synthetic] benchmarks to come out

 

8700GT added, it will be between the 8600GT and 8600GTS desktop cards in terms of performance.

 

In the first post in DX9/business chips section I think should be added
ATI FireGL v5250 (X1700)
ATI FireGL v5200 (X1600)

And what about new DX10 cards?, any info about:
ATI HD2400/2600
ATI FireGL V5600 (perhaps HD2600 based??)
Nvidia QuadroFX 570M/1600M

 

Read posts on before of why ATI cards are not listed.

 

Excuse my ignorance...but...if:

Quadro FX 2500M --> 7900GTX

Why does it cost about 300-500 more to put in a laptop?

 

The Quadro FX has some optimisations made to it, so that it is accustomed to working in workstations computers. The Go 7900 GTX and Quadro FX use the same core, but different drivers mean each is specific to its main job. Thats why the Go 7900 GTX games better than the Quadro FX 2500M.

 

"High Mid range - 256mb Useful
8600 GT = 32 Stream Processors, 8 ROPs, 128bit mem (475/950/700)

Mid range - 256mb Useful
8600 GS = 16 Stream Processors, 8 ROPs?, 128bit mem (600/1200/700)"

Could someone please explain the meaning of GT/GS, ROP, and the numbers in brackets after 128bit mem? Why are the 8600 GS numbers higher than 8600 GT? And what does the m in 8400m mean?

Many thanks!

 

Its fairly simple.
The 8600gs, is clocked higher-however half its stream processors are turned off mostlikely, its a reject 8600gt if I'm not mistaken. So inoder to try to help its sevrerely damaged preformance, they clock it higher-besides the point thermaly it fits in.
The 8600gt, is fully functional, and must be clocked a little lower to be considered stable-however it still UTTERLY smokes the 8600gs, since it has Twice the stream processors working-and possibly a few other things.

Think of it this way, the 8600gs has only 16 workers, so they all have to run extra fast to get their work done. The 8600gt, hired enough workers, 32, and can take it at a slightly nicer pace, and still utterly outpreform his competition.

^.^' That said, the 8600gs isnt that bad-its just kinda pitifull for the 8X00 series. Think of it as a 7600 with dx10. Maybe a LITTLE faster... The 8600gt, however pulls a decent place almost to the 7900gs-its ddr3 version REALY coming close. (Ddr2 8600gts preform, a little worse. Not that much tho.)

 

Ooh wow now I get it, thanks alot!

 

actually the first part of your phrase was correct. it is in fact an overclocked 8400GT but no way a quiet 8600GT (reject).

 

It could be, nVidia's done that before, reselling malfunctioning cards after disabling the affected quad's. I believe they did that in the 6800.

 

that could be too.. but the overclocking is obvious and hence it doesn't seem like a 8600 class at all, because you cannot OC a better card (8600GT) and get a weaker one !

 

That's not specifically true. If you look at nVidia's recommended clocks, the GS is clocked higher than the GT. This makes sense performance wise, since the GS has half the stream processors, thus it needs higher clocks to perform half-way decently. Since they are both 128-bit cards, they're both really in the same class, along with the 8400GT. The only significant differences between the three are the clock speeds, and the greater number of processors on the 8600GT. A likely scenario explaining this is that the cards that function well when testing all quad's are labeled as the 8600GT, while the others are labeled the 8400GT and the 8600GS, depending on what clocks they're stable to.

 

umm.. if you say so.. but again, less likely to have tested 32 and 16 pipelines cards in the same pot. i guess your scenario would work only for separating 8400GT from 8600GS

 

The 8400GT and the 8600GS are essentially the same card, with different clock speeds. The 8600GT is only different because half of the processors are disabled, now I don't know if that's because they aren't there or because they're disabled, but my bet (based on past behavior of nVidia) is that the 8600GS/8400GT are reject 8600GTs which had some defective quads, so they disabled half the processors (including the bad one's) which allowed them to up the clocks and sell them as more mainstream cards.

I see that you don't believe me, but it makes more sense that they're producing a single chip, some of which are slightly defective, than producing three chips which have to be perfect.

 

Intel does the same thing with their lineups of chips. If it cannot reliably hit a clock speed, or some cache is damaged, they sell it as a lesser part rather than scrap it entirely. It is pretty common practice in manufacturing to do.

 

you meant enabled or are there, right ?
and I do believe you ! your theory stands up at least logically speaking

 

Yeah, I meant that they might be present, but disabled, or they might not be present.

 

nope, you did it again ! for 8600GT (you were talking how it is different from 8400GT and 8600GS) they are present and enabled and not the other way

 

Ahh, I see what you mean. You're right, I typed 8600GT, but I was talking about the disabled processors on the GS and 8400GT versions. On the 8600GT all is present and working

 

Its possible that the higher rop 16 stream proc cores are rejects, but they will be laser cut and not unlockable even if they are. Nvidia themselves will want to use the smaller cheaper cores if possible.

Its also possible that rather than redesigning the higher rop 16pipe chip that they cut perfectly working cores down as a cheaper option.

 

Please note, ATI HD series is WIP, if I have the clocks right then their positions are right.

 

the ati has a heck of alot of steam processors.

 

They count them differently.

 

Meaker, do you still plan on updating these charts?

 

Hi everyone, i'll try to, if you want to post stats etc feel free. 3rd year of uni so things are getting busy

 

I just wondered if you could update the business cards sections, i.e.
NVS 320m = 8700M-GT
FX 1600m = 8700M-GT
FX 570m = 8600M-GT
FX 360m = 8400M-GS

FireGL V5600 = HD2600

 

Done, this list is for YOUR benefit guys. I don't need it (though I do get satisfaction from the number of reads/how many people it has helped). If you want something added to the list, and better yet have the specs, then post it here and I will update the list.

 

what about DDR2 and GDDR3 cards?

 

Yep feel free to post their specs and I will put them up.

 

Someone knows, when nvidia will release the FX 2600 M and FX 3600 M?

 

What is the equivalent of an nVIDIA Quadro 360M in relation to the 8XXX series?

 

Try this link: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=70254

This is accessible from Chaz's big sticky at the top of this forum and scrolling down for Meaker's Notebook graphics charts. The sticky has other information which might be useful for you in the future so read the contents carefully before posting new threads.

 

Tried that, but it doesn't list the 360M, the nearest is the 350m.

 

FX 360m = 8400M-GS

 

Meaker's thread does indeed list the 360m....

 

You are correct, my apologies i was looking at the direct x 9 cards.

 

1. I know that Meaker puts the workstation cards like NVS 140M = 8400M GT but from the nVidia website, it says the NVS 140M is 64-bit while 8400M GT is 128-bit. So I guess 8400M GT > NVS 140M?

2. Besides the memory interface, what is the difference between quadro and normal mobile line? Is one better than the other?

3. Also, what is the difference between the NVS 135M and FX 360M? From nVidia website, the former draws 10W while the latter draws 17W, so I assume the latter would be better? How about the 8400M GS that they're based on - anyone know power consumption?

4. Can anyone rank the GPUs based on standard clocks, amount of memory, and type? For example:

1. 8600M GT 512MB GDDR3
2. 8600M GT 512MB DDR2
3. 8600M GT 256MB GDDR3
etc.

I'm curious to know at lower levels if the 8400M GT 128MB DDR2 is still better than the 8400M GS 256MB GDDR3 for example.

If you want to add in the power consumption of the workstation 8-series cards, from the nVidia website:

FX 570M = 35W, FX 360M = 17W, NVS 140M = 135M = 130M = 10W

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

 

The NVS 140m is based on an 8400M-GT core, but it uses a cut down bus width. With only 16 stream processors though, the smaller bus isn't too big of a deal.

The Quadro NVS line has few (if any) advantages over the Geforce line. It's been suggested that the NVS line is more power effecient, but I've yet to see any concrete proof of that.

However, the Quadro FX line is noticeably better than the Geforce line, as the FX line is tested to higher standards, and has more workstation class acceleration features unlocked on the card. In general the FX line is much better at OpenGL acceleration than the Geforce line.

The specs between the 360m and the 135m are basically the same, I assume that the FX simply has a higher voltage rating to help keep it stable for more intense graphical work. I've never seen listed specs for the 8400M-GS, but judging from power draw of the Vostro 1500, it appears to consume about 15W at max.

Currently there is no 512mb GDDR3, just DDR2. The ranking goes:
256mb GDDR3 > 128mb GDDR3 > 512mb DDR2 > 256mb DDR2.

As far as I know the 8400m series is only available with one type of memory, or at least the stock clock speeds are the same between different types of memory. There's no huge difference like in the 8600M series. And anyhow, the 8400M-GT will have the larger memory bandwith with it's 128bit bus width, and it has a higher clocked core.

 

1. The 8400M GS has also 16 steam processors though. So NVS 140M would be more like the GS than the GT?

4. Why is 128MB GDDR3 > 512MB DDR2?

5. nVidia only specifies the GF 8M series as having GDDR3, since you said they're all one type of memory is the entire 8400M line is GDDR3 or DDR2? What's the huge difference in the 8600M series (ie. if its the clock rate difference, what are the rates)?

Thanks Odin, you rock

 

Both the 140m and the 8400M-GT have a higher clocked core, which is why they perform similarly, and better than the -GS. In truth, the 140m performs in between the -GT and the -GS most of the time.

Because unless you're playing at very high resolutions or with very large textures, 128mb is large enough for modern games, so with the higher clocked GDDR3 memory it performs better than the lower clocked DDR2 memory.

I'm not sure what the 8400M series uses, my guess would be GDDR3 memory since they're stock clocked at 600mhz.

And yes, the difference with the 8600M series is that they're specified at 700mhz memory clock speeds, however the DDR2 ones are only clocked at 400MHz (as DDR2 memory can't hold stable much higher than that). That's a

 

List updated.

 

Not trying to sound dumb here but I am having a tough time with the different stats and information out there on the mobile GPU's. Been out of the market too long lol.

I am trying to compare the 256mb Geforce 6800 GO (not ultra) against the 256mb 8600GT. I am struggling with the stats and such and wondering how they compare to each other. I currently have the 6800 GO card and the new laptop im looking at (Asus F8SV-B1) with the 8600GT. Is the 8600GT a noticeable improvement?

I am not a huge gamer but i am looking for a smaller laptop for portability but also a GPU that would be able to play some newer games for the next few years. Thanks for the help guys.

James