Ultimate X1600 vs GF7600 thread!! REAL LIFE GAME BENCHES!!

Just a question may be stupid , you said in test u used 7600 512Mb but i see all laptop with 256 MB am i wrong ?

 

does anyone know how the 7600 in the hel80 compares to the x1600 in the s96j?

 

@ netuser : you're wrong, A8 has GF7600 with 512 DEDICATED memory
@ a : I suppose both cards have similar performance

 

The comparison between both cards aren't good anymore because of the different specs of the notebooks.

 

And why is that? If Compal and Asus put same versions of X1600 (for example : 350/350) then the scores should be similar.

 

I mean the X1600 with the core duo is compared with a go 7600 with the core 2 duo. If i'm right it's only with hl2 that the go 7600 is configured with the core 2 duo but in that way the 7600 isn't comparable with the X1600 (because of the processor difference).

 

The core 2 duo shouldnt affect the results too much. In the desktop processors, the jump between the core duo and the conroe can be big, and with the extreme edition of conroe, it can double frame rates. But the core 2 duo merom is not as huge of a leap as conroe.

 

I did not said that :S I was saying most of laptop are equiped with 256 mB verison so it will be nice if there is nay comparasion between this version and 512 Mb which is raraly veiwed on laptops.

 

I can't find the link for it atm because I'm on a campus computer, but there is a review out there between the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo and their performance difference. In games, there is 0%-5% difference between them. The limiting factor is the GPU's, not the CPUs for those benchmarks. The 5% increase in performance was for a game that is more CPU heavy then GPU. I bet if you were to give the x1600 Core 2 Duo and the 7600 a core duo it wouldn't make a difference in the scores.

 

We want to see Oblivion benches! Great topic mate!

Charlie

 

Sorry, no Oblivion available

 

Howdy all!

I am just about to buy a new HP nx9420 and try to supe it up from the wholesaler as much as possible. It has an x1600 w/256 (but i asked if they can do a special order with one that has 512 - dunno if it is even possible but they will let me know tomorrow...) and core 2 duo t5600 w/ 4mb L2 cache. I am going to be picking up a similar setup for my friend, except he is getting the dv8xxx series that comes with the geforce go 7600. We are going to sit, side by side, and do comparisons! the only difference is really the processor mine being a little faster but its not a CONROE as I understand, so I don't know if the processor will make difference... In any case some answers are on the way soon!!!

 

For notebooks, the Core 2 Duo's codename is the Merom; the Core Duo's was the Yonah. The Conroe is the codename for the desktop version of the Core 2 Duo. They are very, very close in gaming performance, so it shouldn't have a noticable impact on your benchmarks.

 

Also the Core 2 duo T5600 only has 2mb cache...you need to go to the T7200 to get the 4mb option.

From what I hear it wont matter anyway as the Core 2 duo at any speed is overkill for games...its all up to the GPU now

 

Will I see any difference between 7600 256MB and 7600 512MB ? As I am confused between 2 Notebooks because of the memory Same config cost 100€ (140$) more expesive with 512MB. Is it worht to invest that much money to have 256 MB more ? Which game or application use that much memory of card ? Video editing ?

Thanks for your help

 

It depends on what settings your using, If you running your 7600 256MB at lower resolutions and with AA and AF off, the 256MB and 512MB 7600 should perform exactly the same. However, when playing at high resolutions and with AA and AF on, I think the 512MB's will help a decent amount more. $140 is a lot more! I would say just go with the 256MB. 3d rendering usually uses up a ton of video memory. Video editing runs fine on integrated graphics, unless you’re doing very high end 3d effects....

 

Thanks jason for clearing me this so all games taht run with 7600 correctly dont need 512MB exact ?

 

Spending $140 to have your Go7600 upgraded from a 256MB dedicated card to a 512MB would be a waste of money. You will not see any noticable performance increase; the Go7600 is not powerful enough to use all that memory.

 

Hi all,

So finally i have a question: wich one will you buy? :

1) Intel Core 2 duo T7200 2.00 GHZ - 4Mo L2 / 2048 / GF 7600 256 dedicated
2) Intel Core 2 duo T5600 1.83 GHZ - 2Mo L2 / 2048/ X1600 256/512HM

Im looking for a good laptop for running Oblivion and game like that.
maybe the difference between the 2 processor is the main criteria.

Thx for your answers.

 

What laptops are you looking at? Video cards are clocked differently by different manufacturers so that will affect the video performance.

 

There is a perceptible difference between the two processors, but I'm not sure it would affect gaming performance too much. I second Chaz's question: what notebooks are these?

C.

 

They are ASUS laptop : Z53JV-AP030M / Z53JA-AP053M.

wich manufacturer is the best? coz i can have very good price on these asus.

 

Just curious, im here in the netherlands and have been searchin for a laptop. The Asus seem to be the best, but graphics cards have been a prob. Comparisons suck as usual. The laptops at the same price range have either a X1600 or a Geforce 7300 Go. According to the benchmarks it looks like the x1600 wins by a longshot, but then it seems strange their in the same priceclass (+/- 1000euro)

Justin askin for a confirmation, the X1600 is better than the Geforce 7300 Go?

btw, saw FEAR on the X1600256mb (T2050) and it was really slow, like medium graphics settings it was 20-30fps. I was shocked...

 

The Go 7300 (low-end - non-gaming card) is light years behind the X1600 (mid/high-end - gaming card).

You can find more information in The Mobile Graphics Card Info Page

 

good to know, thanks!

 

Nvidia Geforce Go 7600SE 256MB VRAM (dedicated)

Acer Aspire 5685WLMi
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz (T7200)
2GB DDR2

Having run 3D Mark 05 straight out of the box got a 3D score of 3115 and CPU socre of 7360. Checked the temps using Notebook Hardware Control after the test and the CPU had hit 61c

 

That is a nice score: but I have a few golden tips for you munkeh.

Put all the drivers on a DVD and format your notebook using NTFS mode and not FAT32. Acer notebooks come with FAT32 and that can cause system lag, high memory usage and low gaming performance.

After doing that install the newest drivers including video drivers, see the driver guide for tips. After that defrag your notebook a few times (4-5 times) and run 3dmark05 again.

Your score should be much much higher then this. I expect around 3600.

Charlie

 

3D Mark calculates the score based on frame rate, not the rate at which it loads the scene from the hard drive.

Loading the latest drivers for your equipment, and giving your computer a reload (side effect of which is that no Acer extras are installed taking up memory) will produce a higher score, but only because you're eliminating the extra features running on your notebook (such as restore capabilities, virus protection, launch button managers, etc) and installing performance improving driver revisions.

While there are many compelling reasons to switch to NTFS, speed is not one of them. NTFS uses smaller cluster sizes, and includes journaling, security tagging, and many more features. All of which, unfortunately, take up a little more overhead than FAT. One additional thing to watch for is the Acer system restore will not function properly unless it is on a FAT partition. If you don't need that feature set, then format away.

Alternatively, you could simply prove to yourself that NTFS vs FAT produces no gain in performance by doing a bench test in place.

Defragment your system once, run 3D Mark. Note the score.
Run Convert C: /FS:NTFS at a command prompt and it will convert your FAT partition to NTFS without losing any of your information.
Defragment your system once more, run 3D Mark and note the score again.

Be warned though that without 3rd party partition management software, you cannot convert back to FAT without a re-format (also remember that you just ruined your chances of restoring the system from the Acer image, so be sure to burn the factory disks before doing this).

If you accidentally convert to NTFS and want to go back to FAT you can use one of the many free partition changers out there.

http://www.thefreecountry.com/utilities/partitioneditors.shtml

Good luck!

 

Hey! How much there is difference in performance between X1600 with 64-bit and 128-bit 128mb mem? And is AMD Turion X2 64 TL-50 1,6Ghz good enough for gamer? I think I'll get myself Acer AS5112WLMI as price seems to be fair and if there is 128-bit mem in X1600 well that sound pretty good to me. As gaming laptop I know this isnt like hi-end HC but yeah CS:S HL2 Far Cry WoW with med settings with fair enough fps?

Originally planned Asus A6T but it seems like I was few months too slow ;(

 

My notebook has eaten everything I've thrown at it so far. Fear, NWN2, HL2 and just bought Prey. I've hunted for months for the best bang for the buck and finally found it at Bestbuy of all places. The HP DV9035NR. Originally paid $1499.00. Week later went on sale for $1349.00. Yes I went and got the difference back.

 

There's a huge difference; avoid the 64-bit version at all costs. The performance of an X1600 64-bit will probably be only slightly better than a Radeon X1400, which is about half as powerful as a regular 128-bit X1600.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=94846 just newer version (GF7700 vs X1700)
cheers

 

I think 64-bit x1600 is still much more capable than x1400, i can ran BF2 at high setting(1024*768) 6x AA @25-30 fps in largest map,and also PREY at high setting is still palyable on my acer with 1.6GHz TL-50.but 3d marks are low

 

Ok so the cards here being compared are both using the hypermemory in case of ATI and turbo cache in the case of NVIDIA. Now my question is what if say compare the X1600 512 HM vs the dedicated 256 Geforce Go 7600. Considering the memory bus on the X1600 HM is a 64 comparing to the 128 bit of the 7600, but at the same time the 64 bit is broken down internatlly to two 32 bit but the 7600 split into half is 64 where smaller chunks would be better handled on the x1600 this also inturn affects the memory bandwidth which is half on the X1600 HM compared to the X1600 and 7600

 

Just to add some benches...
With the system in sign, and with default clocks (398/760) I get 20-25 fps @ 1024x768 with highest settings, no soft shadows, shadows medium, HDR on, AF 4x, vsync off, trilinear filtering off.
I think that in OC I could also activate AA 2x and I should experience similar (if not higher) average framerates.
The 7600 should be slower (ATI cards perform better in this game).
SCDA uses an improved version of Unreal Engine 2 (very beautiful).

Notes: I assign the game only to one core, because multithreading slows the game...
Frames measured ingame with Ati Tray Tools

 

So the cards are very similar in 3D marks and speed etc. But the X1600 has 12 pixel pipelines and the 7600 has 8. Does this not make the x1600 superior?

 

Maybe in newer games, which extensively use pixel shader capabilities, the X1600 could grant better performance.
The X1600 is more overclockable, too.

 

But would the 8 texture mapping units on the 7600 compared to the 4 on the x1600 not help to address the pixel pipeline inbalance? i.e make them more even

 

On my 1.83ghz 1.5gb Ram x1600 i can play BF 2142 at 35-40 Fps
WHich is decent.

 

What is the verdict then?

 

The X1600 has 12 pixel pipelines, yes, but it only has 4 ROP (Raster Operation Units). The Go7600 has 8 pipes and 8 ROPs. What that means is while the X1600 can work on 12 pixels at a time, only 4 can be output. The Go7600 can work on 8 at a time and also output 8.

The verdict is that the X1600 is the 'better' overall GPU, but not by much. Either card would serve a person looking for a mid-range gaming card just fine.

 

Actually not. TMUs can't do the work which has to be done by pixel shaders. In modern games the use of pixel shading is enormously higher than in the past, because it can simulate reality much better than texture mapping (skin, bloom, heat simply can't be rendered through 2D pictures).
Having an asymmetric architecture like MR X1600 is much more efficient: having the same number of PS as ROPs, for example, is virtually useless. Even the 8800 GTX only has 32 TMUs and 24 ROPs, compared to 128 shader units.

 

so A.L.M is advocating the x1600!!!!!!!!a noticable difference? and does anyone else disagree with him or with chaz who basically says a mimal difference

 

I think by looking at the first page of this thread, which actually compares the Go7600 and the X1600 side by side, we can conclude that there is a minimal difference overall.

 

yes i see that with FPS there is no difference...and I have already bought a laptop with a 7600 so I am just trying to find this out for interest.....but as the x1600 has more pixel shaders will it give better quality images even though in terms of FPS they are each others equal??

 

They're both going to have the same image quality generally speaking - the Nvidia card may do AA differently than the ATI, but if you ran the same game on both cards at the same settings and took screenshots, you would see no difference between them.

 

I think that Chaz is right, the average difference is minimal, but with the highest details and, let's say, HDR, turned on, you should notice some differences between the two cards: the 7600 Go is slightly better than the 7300 GT (desktop version), instead the MR X1600 is similar to the X1600 Pro (deskop version).

 

Yes, I'm impressed and surprised by the X1600. Mine is 425/378 (below default, I know), but in F.E.A.R I play at 1024x768, all settings high except FSAA and soft shadows both turned off and average about 50fps. I could maybe turn FSAA on a little and drop 10-or so fps, but I don't care

 

So those that argue the x1600 is noticably better or those that think basically the same....do you think that a game could come out in the future that would play on the x1600 and not the 7600?

 

No way. They're too close in performance to have one be able to play a game and not the other. You really cannot go wrong with either card.