There exists a 9650 GT? (+ candidate for new MBP?)

Hey guys! Apologies if this is in the wrong forum or not quite the right kind of question to be asking, this is my first post. I signed up here after doing some research on the possible candidate for the next MacBook Pro revision (Montevina) expected in the next few weeks/months. Currently the MBP has a measily 8600M GT so people are expecting a lot.

So my primary problem is finding any info on the "9650M G T". Apparently it was briefly listed on Nvidia's site but then taken down for unknown reasons, and I cannot for the life of my find details on the specs, nor a possible release date.

The reason I ask is that the Apple community generally thinks that either the 9650M G S or the ATI Radeon Mobility HD 3600 are the two choices for the next MBP, but if there's a 9650M GT coming out soon, is it likely Apple would go for the cutting edge?

I'll admit I'm mainly looking for the best Crysis performance here, so I don't really know which card would be best.

 

First off I would not consider the 8600m GT "measily". Its actually a pretty damn good card. And the MBP still over heats with just that. If you consider it "measily" do your research before flaming a decent card.

In another thread this was posted

I doubt apple would put the "9650M GT" into a MBP. Considering heat space and the already ridiculous price.

The reason that the 9650M GS or ATI Radeon Mobility HD 3600 are the two current likly candiates is because they are "cutting edge". They are the next gen and probable candidates as a replacement for the"measily" 8600m GT.

I am sorry but I have to admit its quite n00bish to consider the 8600m GT "measily".

 

I personally think that you like the design of the MBP very much. Well.. so do i ..

if you want crysis performance, then you are looking for the wrong type of notebook.


As far as the next choice of apple goes, i personally think that they will move to the GDDR3 version of 9600m GT. just a guess.

 

I admit I don't know a huge amount about the 8600M GT but I've been told by many people that it underperformed from what people expected, and that 512mb of vram are wasted on it's engine.

But yeah, I will admit I am a noob, which is why I am asking you guys.

I really hope they don't go for the 9600M GT.. it's 3dmark score is less than half that of the 9650M GS...

How does the Mobility HD 3000 compare to these Nvidia cards?

 

Want to play Crysis on high at native resolution? Get a desktop or if you have the money a laptop with an 8800m GTX.

I can play Crysis on medium with my MBP right now (with my 8600m GT which is a GREAT card thank you very much). What's more, any recent game is playable on medium settings or higher (Conan, Mass Effect, etc). The 8600m GT was a golden card this generation. It offered great price/performance/wattage ratios, and that is why any gaming notebook worth its salt has the 8600m GT among its options. While the desktop version of the card may have been a downer, do not ever consider the 8600m GT anything less than the golden child of midrange laptops 07/08.

If they put in anything more powerful than an ATI3600 or Nvidia 9650GS then Apple needs to start installing Windows instead of OSX. Sure you can play ID games, Blizzard games, and EVE Online in OSX, but NONE of the games from those vendors require ANYTHING near a 9650GT to be run high in OSX. In other words, unless the cost is very low and the heat output is VERY under control, putting a high-power card in the MBP is a bad business decision.

They might as well start marketing a Macbook Pro: Gamer's Edition. They'd make more money that way.

 

MBP: Gamer's Edition would be my wet dream lmao xD

Apologies for getting it wrong about the 8600M GT, I guess I listened to the wrong people.

Maybe hoping for something more powerful than the 9650 GT would be naive.. so long as it's not less than a 9650M. I know I could go for a desktop or a gaming laptop, but at the end of the day, I don't wanna leave the Mac side and I need a laptop really. I know I'm trying to have my cake and eat eat, but who doesn't? I'm just hoping to be able to play Crysis at 30fps with mostly high settings on the new MBP.

Remember though, even if beyond a 9650M GS would be overkill for Mac gaming right now, you've got Spore and StarCraft 2 coming this year, both before next years Nahelem revision. If Apple sold a MBP that was out of date before even December (SC2), I don't think it'd deserve the Pro moniker.

 

The system is simply to hot as it is for much more than an 8600M GT. That's a big limitation.

 

You can be assured that Spore and StarCraft 2 will run max on MY laptop. You have NOTHING to be worried about.

Blizzard will make SURE that SC2 runs well on ALL sorts of hardware. Many faithful SC players have old computers, after all. They want to play too.
As for Spore, reaching a large audience is also in their goals list. It will run on lower-end hardware.

In other words, you can continue to use Crysis as your "pushing the graphical envelope" example.

It feels like you are getting this laptop for school... either way, wait for the GPU refresh and be happy with whatever you get, it WILL be impressive.

 

Considering I can play Crysis on my MBP ATI X1600 128mb at 25fps on low/medium, I'm sure I'll be more than happy with whatever above an 8600M GT Apple can squeeze in Good to know about SC2 too!

My only remaining question is which is more powerful, the HD3000 or the 9650M GS?

 

We don't know, I'd like to know more about the 3000 series myself.

If Apple REALLY wanted to surprise you, they'd release an AMD 4650, which would probably dominate. But we are talking about the AMD 3000 dedicated series, which I haven't seen a single reliable benchmark for.

It's probably a tossup, with an edge in performance going to Nvidia and an edge in low wattage to AMD. Both would be faster than the 8600m GT by at least 25-30%.

 

http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_9650m_gs.html

GeForce 9650M GS

"The NVIDIA® GeForce® 9650M GS GPUs, deliver the ultimate balance between mobility and performance for astounding PureVideo® HD technology playback capabilities combined with 3D features to enable visually-intense applications and games." - lol, sure it will....

Processing Cores 32
Core Clock (MHz) 625
Shader Clock (MHz) 1250
Memory Clock (MHz) 800
Maximum Memory 512MB
Memory Interface 128-bit

edit: lol, sorry, I was just about to flame you for saying it wasn't on there site, and you couldn't find the specs, but the 9650M GS is the best 9-series one listed....

Memory Interface 128-bit (GS) - So whats the deal? Does anyone know the technical problems behind producing a mid-range mobile card that has a 256-bit interface?

 

Yep, it's the 128bit that's disappointing me, I hear this has a huge affect on games like Crysis in comparison to 256bit.

I heard through the grapevine that the 9650M G T when announced will be the equivalent to an 8800M GTS only smaller and with lower wattage, and be 256bit, which is why, unlikely as it may be, my fingers are crossed that the 9650M GT will be out in time for the next MBP.

When Apple adopted the 8600M GT in the MBP, was it fairly new at the time? I'm trying to figure out if Apple is at the forefront or lags behind when it comes to GPUs. I've heard both. One guy said in regards to the 9650M GT "probably Acer and Apple will pick it up first as usual", but others have told me Apple is usually a little late to the latest card.

 

I think that the small numbers of sp's and the use of cheap ddr2 memory hurts more the performance than the 128 bit bus, the desktop geforce 6 and 7 600 gt were on the same level than the previous generation 256 bit high end cards.

 

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Nvidia_55nm_Mobile_Graphics_Cards_Unveiled/5705.html
This has been 100% since the beggining

black are the confirmed to exist cards
9500M GS= 8600M GT
9600M GS= 65nm 8600M GT
9600M GT= 65nm 8700M GT
9650M GS= 8700M GT
9650M GT= 55nm 8700M GT (G96= 32shaders, 128bits)
9700M GS/GT= STILL 65nm 8700M GT based, probably higher clocks ifthey do exist
9700M GTS= G94, beggining of the 256bits cards.

The 9650M GS has a 29W TDP, thus MXM-III and won't in the standard 15.4''. It's the same card as the 8700M GT.
The 9800M GT is a 55nm card, it probably can be on a 15.4'' MXM-II

 

JCMS just did a perfect Description which will end my thoughts about the 9 series. +rep!

 

Aww I didn't realise that the 9650M GT was only equiv to an 8700M GT. I guess that as I only want a 15"er I better pray they do go for the 9650M GT or I have no idea what they'll use on the 15"

 

If the 9700M GTS only has 48 shaders rather than 64, it's possible to be in mainstream 15''.

 

This is what interests me.

The upgrade is still a good 20% from an 8600m GT to a 8700m GT, but as JCMS mentioned, its power requirements are too high. Nvidia really must go down to 55nm for their faster cards to fit and function in a MBP 15.4.

But AMD is already there. A 3600 might offer that 20% extra speed along with the lower power requirements. Heh now I'm all excited too! What's it gonna be?

 

I'm still crossing my fingers for the 9650M GT, that's 55nm right? And low wattage. It comes out soon so Apple have the ability to use it.

 

It is possible that Apple would use Ati cards for their next gen MBP?

 

They used ATI cards for their first generation MBP's, so no reason to think they couldn't go back.

 

It would be awesome to see those Ati new series at an MBP, that would own

 

Going on Apple's almost unbroken record of releasing MBPs ~6 weeks after the processors start shipping, I guess we're looking at a late august/very early september date for the new Montevina ones.

I'm not clued into the GPU roadmap like many of you probably are. Is there anything new on the horizon not yet mentioned that might be a possibility in an aug/sept MBP?

 

I hate hate hate to bump but WHOA, nobody told me about the HD3800 :O:O:O

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49297243,00.htm

Apparently this will be in 15" PC laptops of similar size and shape to the MBP, is that correct?

 

Is there actually any other 15.4" laptop that is 1" thick? In any case, Apple doesn't seem to use high-end GPUs in the MBP, and I doubt they are going to start. Apple's designs are already thermally restricted and I don't see them making it worse. Personally, we'd be lucky for a 9650GT or HD 3670, although a 9700M GTS would be nice.

Those are the choices that I've been sending to Apple's MBP feedback anyways. If you want better cards, you should probably send the feedback to Apple. Who knows, maybe they'll get annoyed enough to change it.

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html

 

Done and done!

Maybe Apple should have added a Pro laptop line to it's range of portables before it added an ultra portable, and if you ask me, two lines of consumer laptops seems a bit excessive.

 

Em. The Macbook Pro is the pro lineup. Hence the Pro in Macbook Pro.

The point is that professional to Apple is for multimedia use like video editing and Photoshop use not gaming. Perhaps with Snow Leopard and OpenCL, and more programs taking advantage of GPU acceleration, there may be more of a focus on GPU performance, but it just isn't that important right now to programs other than games.

Besides, I like Apple laptops because they are thin and light and I think that is one of their more unique features. I don't think there are any other 15.4" laptops that are only 5.4lbs. I wouldn't support Apple putting in high-end GPUs if it adds significantly to the weight or thickness. Granted they probably could on the 17" MBP, but it just isn't worthwhile for Apple to put out a special contract on a unique 17" GPU since there just isn't volume to get a good wholesale price or justify additional design work.

 

Well, if they do manage a Mobility HD 3800 in the MBP I will be more than happy, and it'd be in line with using ATI on the iMacs. As far as I can tell the 3800 is the only card more than incrementally better than the 8600M GT that Apple could use.

 

Whatever Apple puts in their MBP, I hope it can at least play StarCraft 2, Diablo 3, and iD's Rage at a decent resolution and settings. Those are the Top 3 Mac native game apps by far and should be factored into the "pro" equation.

 

Just to clear up, the MBP does not "over heat" with that card. It feels hot because of the aluminum casing, but the internal temps show no signs of "over heating". And I do agree with you that the 8600 is not a measily card, but I really do with Apple would offer better video cards. I have considered selling my macbook because of the video card (and screen size) but don't think I have the money for a MBP.

 

The HD 2600Pro used in the iMacs appears to be a Mobility Radeon HD 2600XT underclocked to speeds similar to a HD 2600Pro desktop part. The 8600M GT in the MBP is actually pretty comparable to the HD 2600Pro in the iMacs so the MBP is already in line with the iMac without the Mobility HD 3800. The 8800GS option in the new iMacs is actually a 8800M GTS and that will probably require a Mobility HD 3800 to be competitive.

 

Yeah, I mean, we all know how quickly the GPU market moves, so right now though the Mob HD3800 might be the first and only real "next gen" mobile GPU, in less than half the way into the new MBPs lifespan it'll be joined by a ton of others.

Apple now have Rage and Diablo 3 as native Mac OS X games they need to provide hardware to support, and the Mob HD 3800 will make such short work of them it's insane, not to mention smoke Crysis on medium and maybe even high?

EDIT:

Toshiba announced this back in Nov 07. A 15" laptop, doesn't look hugely thicker than a MBP, and it has an HD 3800. This card is MXM-III so it's gonna be small have lowish power consumption.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/27/toshiba-readying-radeon-hd-3800-equipped-dynabook-txw-69dw/

And this is 3.5cm compared to 2.59cm in the MBP, has a 4.5h battery and also has the 3800:

http://www.memory-express.co.uk/ind...Business/XP+Pro+(nVidia+Quadro+FX+570M+512MB)