X1700 512/1GB Hypermemory X1600 256/512 Hypermemory

I was considering to purchase the ASUS V1J based on X1600 256/512 Hypermemory, while my local notebook supplier said a refresh model will be launched, but no ETA is known yet.

My question is how significant is the performance difference between those two cards. I enjoy playing high-end games now and then, but is it really worth it waiting for the refresh?

Thanks in advance...

 

Those card are very similar in performance, so probably you're not gonna see a difference between them. It's not worth waiting in my opinion.

 

Would you please clarify your assertion? Does the amount of memory and hypermemory not really matter?

 

those cards aren't powerful enough to use 512 mb memory let alone 1gb

and ati's implementation of hypermemory sucks

thats why the amount of memory isn't really that important when over 256 dedicated vram.

i heard x1700 get 2300 in 3d06 and x1600 get 2000, don't quote me on this cause i'm not sure on this figure and some x1600 (ahem macbook pro) are underclocked like crazy

 

The X1700 is just a refreshed version of the X1600. According to the available benchmarks the X1700 shows only little performance improvement over the X1600.

As posted, those cards are not poweful enough to utilize 512 MB of dedicated memory... 1GB HyperMemory is just marketing gimmick... A very good one though, I have to admit...

So, I don't think that is worth waiting, if you need a laptop right now. Otherwise, it's up to you...


Here are some tests:

- http://xtreview.com/review139.htm
- http://www.behardware.com/news/lire/25-09-2006/
- http://www.notebookcheck.com/Mobile-Grafikkarten-Benchmarkliste.735.0.html

 

The x1700 is newly released but early tests have shown very little improvement over the x1600's performance levels.

Either card will not be able to effectively use more than 256 MB of VRAM, so the extra memory is more of a marketing scheme on the x1700.

I wouldn't let the difference between x1600 and x1700 make my decision for me.

 

the 512 mb x1700 has never been tested just the 256 mb one.

It stands to reason that it will be different from the previous version.


The x1600 comes in 2 styles as well a regular and a hd.

This next card is going to be in asus 17 inch g2p and it stands to reason it will be faster.

I estimate it will be about as fast as the 512 mb 7700. I estimate it will even be slightly faster.


so while the fastest overclocked 06 score on the x1600 with c2d 2.0 was 2200, my overclock on 7700 was 3096.
Count on this next x1700 to be similar to my score.

the fact that it has more ram also leads you to this conclusion.

 

I don't know if this is the fastest X1600 score, but a 2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pro can get 2563 in 3DMark06 running at 520MHz core and 530MHz memory. At 510Mhz core and 520Mhz memory it gets 5010 in 3DMark05. I believe 3DMark05 tends to favour ATI while 3DMark06 favours nVidia so that explains some of the variations against your Go 7700.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3019543&postcount=2216

Apple uses Samsung GDDR3 rated for up to 700Mhz operation so there is probably still more clocking room left.

 

Yeah, they are plenty similiar in performance overall.

I have an X1600 256mb/512mb Hypermemory and it performs very well for a mobile card.

 

The X1700 and X1600 are almost similar in performance. The thing that makes the X1700 interesting is it's new technology which gives you a better battery life and same performance.

7700>X1700>X1600>7600

The 7700 is a very strong card if you ask me. Great for gaming.

But if you are not in a hurry buying a notebook, why not wait for Santa Rosa with DX 10? A great platform with DX10 support, new wirless lan, faster FSB and DDR2 support and that for the same price.

Charlie

 

your data doesnt contradict mine at all. It shows a huge difference between the 7700 and the x1600 on the scale of it being bout %150 faster.

The faster cpu ati mac is still below score on 05 and over 600 points below on 06. This is a huge difference not a small one.
My overclock score is with all the bloatware etc. If I were entering a 3dmark competition which Im not, Im positive I would be at 5500 05, and around 3300 06.

This difference is really more in the range of : if you ignore the cpu the actual gpu is at least %150 faster.

way more than i personally thought.

 

I ve seen somewhere that says the X1700 was design to handle heat better than the X1600 due to 80nm engineering, thus making them less warmer than the X1600. The upside is now the manufacturer can clock a X1700 to recommended clock. Consider the MBP with the X1700, it would perform better not because ati change the map of the card but because they reduce the heat it produces thus making apple able to clock it at normal clock. But this is just my guess. Another guess is, the X1700 can score a better score in OC than the 7700. Anyone care to try it out?

Edit: This is confusing, just read the spec off AMD/ATI webpage and it says it's a 90nm, but somewhere else it says 80nm.. what's happening???

 

what do you want again?

I dont think a member of nbr has a laptop with a x1700

check out this math just going by itcomanders data.

even though the ram goes up to a higher speed potentially, each mhz means less because the gpu is so much slower.

somewhere off the 700 mhz scale its still not going to be as fast

the worlds fastest ram needs something to do. Were sort of getting into computer rhetoric which I actually try to avoid.

Look at the statistics of the x1600 here on one of these charts on nbr. Its closer to a low end card than even the 7600 go. you can overclock a 7300 go to 7900 speeds but what are you doing and why? lol you can get to the deep end with this stuff

If you wanted to see real speed youd put the ddr3 in a 7700 or even a 7600

 

Sorry, i din pointed the OC part at you. I m just guessing around, not intentionally.

Anyway, i just confirm it's a 90nm... so we re not getting much out of the X1700 from the X1600.

 

That extra 256 MB is shared, which is your freaking SRAM.

1. It's not even going to use all that.
2/ If you can I would suggest tweaking down the shared memory usage, so that you're using all your 256 dedicated, plus maybe 64 or 128 MB of shared VRAM as a buffer, just in case the 256 MB dedicated VRAM all gets used.

And 512 MB VRAM + 512 MB shared VRAM is just freaking overkill, unless it costs very little more. And with that configuration, I would just tweak the system to not even have shared VRAM as the 512 MB dedicated is well more than enough for that card to even really fully utilize.

When it comes to my notebook as compared to my last notebook, despite having similarly performing GPUs, this machine is a much better configuration for graphics. That Gateway MX7515 I had was equipped with an ATi X600 GPU with 128 MB of Hypermemory. Because of that, the GPU was dependent on the SRAM for half it's video memory. It didn't help that the Gateway had half of it's 1 GB of RAM built in (which was only DDR333) and there was only one RAM slot to expand on. So basically, shared VRAM took a big toll on my system's graphic performace because of the lack of extra RAM to utilize (one gig of overall SRAM), and the fact that it was limited by the SRAMs speed being only DDR333.

On this HP, it's a much better configuration, and games that use more than 64 MB of VRAM run better because despite still having the same dedicated VRAM, I have 3 times the amount of shared VRAM (192 MB) as well as having DDR2 533 MHz SRAM which helps with memory speeds especially when games call for alot of memory. Now to help with all that RAM need, I also have 2 GBs of RAM equiped in this machine, which offers well more than enough for whatever I do on this system, and not have a PC struggling to grab more RAM like the Gateway did. Although I did love that Gateway, had an Athlon 64 4000 in it

 

i don't think thats possible unless you have the gpu cooled by liquid nitrogen and OC like a crazy man.

how can the 4 piplines ever produce the same results as the 7900...

 

Does anyone know how I can overclock my 7200? Like seriously, I need more performance.

 

That's not related to this topic so please stay on topic. Search around for overclocking threads; there are a lot of them.

 

I see plenty of overclocking threads for other GPUs but never for the 7200.

 

that is because the 7200 is just not worth overclocking...

performance gain would be minimal

and create a new thread if you must but don't go off topic on this thread

 

Anybody knows if the latest catalyst drivers are compatible with x1700? It doesn't seem to show on the supported list.