quadro fx 1500m vs. 1600m

http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadrofx_go.html

I've been thinking about purchasing the dell precision m6300 for some time now. I recently noticed that the quadro fx 1600m in the precision has 128-bit vs. 256-bit memory interface in the 1500m. So does it make the 1600m(the updated dx10 gpu) alot weaker than it's predecessor?

 

I think the 256-bit should perform better at higher resolutions in gaming. All other things constant, that should be the only difference.

 

I heard fx1500m gives about 3900 and fx1600m gives about 4800 on 3dmark06.

 

hmmm.. interesting! the 128bit vs 256bit still bugs me a bit.. but if it performs better, than thats a plus. Doesn't the 1500m compare to a 7900gs? How does the 8700m perform vs. the 7900gs?

 

hmmm well, you know that these cards are not intended to play games with them. They are certainly capable of playing games, but it´s not 3dmark you should measure them with.

Both cards are highend opengl cards and you should take another test into account. The specviewperf will tell you how good these cards actually are when it comes to professional opengl apps.

You should definitly have a look at the specviewperf benchmark results at http://www.spec.org .

 

here is how it is:

Quadro 1500M ~ Geforce Go 7800 GTX (G70, 256-bit mem interface)
Quadro 1600M ~ Geforce 8700M GT (G84...NB8E-SE, 128-bit* mem interface)

* is also Dual Rank.

 

2500m - http://www.spec.org/gwpg/Aug2_06/apc.data/Dell/m90/maya65/maya_result.html

1600m - http://www.spec.org/gwpg/Nov1_07/apc.data/Dell/m6300/maya65/maya_result.html

1500m - http://www.spec.org/gwpg/Aug2_06/apc.data/hp/nw9440_T2600_FX1500M/maya65/maya_result.html

the composite score of the 1600m is higher than the 2500m and the 1500m... so does that mean that it's better than both?

 

sorry for such a noob question.. but what do you mean by "dual rank?"

 

Quadro FX1500M=go 7900GS
Quadro FX1600M=8700M GT
Quadro FX2500M=go 7900GTX

1500m is the slowest of the bunch, the 1600M and 2500M should be roughly the same.

 

good info, thanks alot man.

 

I got this information from a guy in Dell, but since I haven`t seen something similar before I have to assume that this info is not yet released in public...

“M6300 with 256MB FX1600 outperforms M90 with 512MB FX3500 in all key ISV applications”