nVidia 8600M GT Znote 6224

Just wondering is the GT with the Zepto GDDR2 or GDDR3? I saw in the pre-review that the guy said since it was a enginering example it had GDDR2 and GDDR3 would be in the final. Is it true, or is it GDDR2 in the final build.

I also saw one other thing that I didn't understand. Someone said that these laptops couldn't take advantage of 800MHz memory. What does that mean? I thought Santa Rosa allowed the use of it?

Thanks,

DIGev

 

santa rosa gives the cpu an 800mhz front side bus, but still 667mhz ddr2 memory.

 

It uses GDDR2.

Santa Rosa cant use 800mhz, but that is Intels fault not Zepto.

 

OK, so when I ordered my 6224 there we barely any choices for memory, so I had to take the one with PC6400 for 2GB. Will it just downclock or something?

Also about the GDDR, why is GDDR2 still around? I'm no tech guru or very knowledgable in this but doesn't GDDR3 use less power and emit less heat, also perform better? To me at least it makes no sense to have GDDR2 in a laptop if GDDR3 is easily available, especially since you would want to reduce heat emission and power consumption in a laptop.

 

ok. you have to understand that you are not using gddr2 memory in your notebook.

its just ddr2. graphics memory is really a different beast entirely. in fact gddr3 is more like dd2 than anything else. ddr3 isn't available for on the consumer market at the moment, not even for a PC, much less a notebook.

and ddr3 is not gddr3. "g" is for graphics!

hope that makes sense.

 

I AM talking about the graphics memory. That's why the thread title is nVidia 8600M GT Znote 6224. Apparently the 8600M GT in the 6224 uses GDDR2 instead of GDDR3. GDDR2, as I have read so far, consumes more power and gives off more heat, not to mention it's slower than GDDR3.

 

You probably already knew this, but the newest technologies always cost more. For companies that seek to maintain a price/performance ratio for mainstream users, there will be compromises.

DDR2 costs less than DDR3, and is not one of those entirely visible specifications that everybody checks.

DDR3 is currently in the Asus G1, which is aimed as a gamers notebook, and has the price to match, which is actually quite competitive.

Its perfectly okay for you to have the latest technologies, if you're willing to pay more than you can afford.

 

ok i totally misread that. I saw santa rosa and gddr3 memory and made the wrong connection.

i will read slower in the future.

you probably already know that 8600gt can use whatever memory a vendor chooses to put on it - in this case gddr2 or gddr3. gddr3 is better, and more expensive, and usually there is a significant, sometimes crucial, performance benefit of "fast" cards to use fast memory.

again- you are probably aware of this and now i feel like a jerk for not being able to answer your question :/

 

Heh, it's ok.

OK, I did read about the GDDR thing. It seems that GDDR3 has been widely available since the GeForce 5 series (high end ones). I would think that being available for about four years would have made the price of GDDR3 cheaper, later this year, as it seems, the high-end market will start employing GDDR4.

So is 256MB of GDDR3 more expensive than 512MB of GDDR2? If so, how much? I mean if it is something like €50 then it should be a no-brainer, especially considering the amount of power saved, increased performance and lesser heat emission; I would imagine it is doubly so in the case of a laptop.

 

256 megs of gddr3 is definitely a better option for the end user in this case than 512 megs of gddr2. you will see better performance across the board.

as far as price- i really dont know. it might even be a case of a manufacturer deciding that "512 meg video cards sell more laptops so we want one of those in our machine even though there are better performance / dollar options" i dont think we are going to see gddr4 in laptops for a while yet, it usually takes a while for stuff like that to trickle down to our market- and that might not be a bad thing considering the questionable performance benchmarks of gddr4.

 

I was referring to desktop cards about GDDR4 though. My primary concern was that the ASUS G1S, or whatever, has almost the exact same specs as the 6224 but it has a 256MB GDDR3 variant instead of the 512MB GDDR2. If I were to spec the ASUS to almost the exact same spec as I configured my 6224 then the price would be negligable.

 

I did some more research into the whole GDDR3 and GDDR2 and I came up with a pretty cool site, however outdated but the concepts still apply even though they're using desktop and older GPU's.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA4

Basically, it says even with GDDR3, you get pretty much the same real world performance as with GDDR2; even if you do over clock the memory. The only real advantage it seems to have is a lower voltage, and less heat so over clocking is easier, but even with over clocking, it is not necessarily better in real world performance.

 

Very interesting article. Should we be hesitant about the conclusions given its 3 years old, or not? Also, I was really interested about their real-world comments and would love to know with today's much more graphcs-intensive games, whether the same conclusions would hold. Tests between the Zepto GDDR2 cards and the Asus G1S GDDR3 cards have shown, in 3DMark06, a difference of about 20-25% in scores in favour of the GDDR3 cards (despite having 256MB vs 512MB).

Has anyone been able to run some 3DMark06 scores for the Zepto 6625 at 1680x1050?

Petrov.

 

The reason that the 256MB GDDR3 card performs better is because it is clocked at 700MHz and the 512MB GDDR2 is clocked at 400 MHz, no?

I wonder if they perform similar at the same clocks..? Or porhaps then the 512MB GDDR2 outperforms the 256MB GDDR3 one?

 

Pardon my ignorance, but does anybody on here know for a fact that GDDR2 is to be used on the Zepto's 8600GT? I mean, is anybody actually in possession of a finished, production 6625WD or 6224W? If not then surely all of this is pure conjecture. I think if GDDR2 is used in the final product then what a missed opportunity that would've been for Zepto to absolutely smoke the competition!
Would any insiders from Zepto care to comment?

Peter

 

If you can read or use translation tools, check out www.zeptoforum.com - the Zepto reps/admins on there have posted that they will be using GDDR2.

Petrov.

 

I believe you are right, haven't looked much into it yet though. The basic structure of RAM transistors are pretty much the same. The only difference is one uses less power and therefor less heat, which its a lot easier to overclock it. If you boost the clock speed on the GDDR2 card, they'd have the same performance, albeit, the GDDR2 card will run hotter and run down the battery faster.

And I think regardless of the date the article was written, the same technology still applies, so if you clock both cards at the same speed they'll perform the same.

And it'll be interesting to see if you clock the 2 cards the same, if the 512 GDDR2 will have better performance at higher resolutions. I imagine it would but even with the 512 module, the gain would prolly be negligent.

 

The fact that GDDR3 can operate at so much higher clock speeds than GDDR2 is exactly the point isn't it - how they perform if clocked the same is irrelevant (why would you ever run GDDR3 at GDDR2 clock speed)? Or am I missing the point...(I do that sometimes)

Petrov.

 

Well that is an advantage, and makes GDDR3 better. But that advantage is sort of relative cause you can always boost the clock speed on the GDDR2 to match, but at a compromise of heat and more power. Also we're talking about the RAM clock here, so a say with a 100MHz difference, its unlikely you'd see a change unless you're using a synthetic benchmark. Now if the clock is say, 400 vs 700, there be a noticeable difference, however real world performance is unknown for certain, but I have a feeling that it'll maybe add a couple more FPS (some where in the range of 1-5). Thats why Chaz always stresses to look at real world performance and not synthetic benchmarks.

So in a way, GDDR2 could be potentially better by achieving the same real world performance as GDDR3 but at a lower cost.

 

Tha actually New 6xxx Models, comes with GDDR2 Ram on 8600M GT.
Benchmarks i will post (from 6224W) in 1024x768, 1280x800 and 1280x1024, soon on www.zeptoforum.com .

In this, it is the Pre Release Sample of it, with older VBios and NonFinal Driver.
Let check it out, when the finale are available.

3DMark06 *8600M GT GDDR2 512MB, 2.2GHz T7500, 2x1GB DDR2 800, 80GB Hitachi SATA 7200
1024x768 (non OC) = 3900
1280x800 (non OC) = 3500
1280x1024 (non OC) = 3100


BR

 

Not to put too much weight on 3dMark06, but for lack of other comparisons...

The G1S, with 256Mb GDDR3 scores around 4,700 points at 1024x768 (no OC), which is a pretty significant difference. I'd love the 6224 to have a GDDR3 version/option!

Petrov.

 

No way with GDDR3 for 6224W. An other Benchmark her in the Forum se(look http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3728&review=Asus+G1S), arround 3800 Points for G1S. Now, i think, you must buy the G1S.


BR

 

800 points is a lot, even in a synthetic benchmark. I'm not disappointed with 3900 points, not at all, but seeing that just having 256Mb GDDR3 making such a difference in performance to heat/power it make me wonder how it is logical...

I will save my final judment, since Zepto did say it was using old bios and non-final drivers. Also I'm pretty sure as more optimized drivers get released for Vista we will see hopefull large steps in performance.

 

If you read the comments you will see that both 3dMark05 and 3dMark06 were done with the default resolution. That means 3dMark06 was 1280x1024 and got 3800 and was not done at 1024x768.

 

Sorry:

I can read other !

 

Yes, I know that. It was a mistake and was cleared stated in the comments:

 

ok, I'm sorry ;-)