FX 1700M Reviewed

well, you kno i'm pretty sure the advantage of the 1700M onver the 770M can be see throught a 3D/CAO application practise using nvidia performance drivers (by selecting the sofware profil in nvidia control panel).

Don't be part away this card is made for 3D/cAO work. I understand 3dmark can't take asvantage of this video Card. The most potentiel of tis card can be reveal in OpenGL applications, not DirectX.

 

OpenGL benchmarks show little to no difference between the two, so how else do we prove anything?

 

@bubba

and others

the OC settings u mention don't really make any sense. It's not like you can add the same number to all the clocks and expect that to be the best setting.

For me default is 500 / 800 / 1250 and the optimal setting found by nVidia systemtools in XP are 750 (+250) / 920 (+120) / 1650 (+400)

as you can see there's not really a certain ratio in that. At these clocks i would get glitches so i lowered all an amount that seemed in line with the amount in which they were raised, lacking a better understanding of how this might be calculated or determined otherwise.
Core to 690 (-60) / Mem 890 (-30) / Shader 60 (-60)....shader should have been lower according to my own rule but just thought i'd leave it up there because it was raised so much.

AS5 kocked between 8-10c off the temps btw
And does anyone have any experience with 3dsmax running with either OpenGL drivers, nVidia Maxtreme performance driver, or DirectX 9 / 10?? Which performs best in your opinion? Somehow with Maxtreme drivers my selection tool rectangle isn't transparent anymore but shows that part of a diff viewport...weird and very annoying.

 

Note that he did the test at 1280X1024 and not 1280X800.

 

Ok did a test at 1280X800 7288 oc to 700/900/1600 all perfect.

ok now same oc setting but at 1280X1024 and got 7063 so yes I would say the 6885 at the speed of ocing 800/1000/2000 is low not bad but low.

 

According to Nvidias website the 1700M hardware is identical to the 770M except for current draw (35W vs 50W):

nvidia.com/page/quadrofx_go.html

This would lead me to beleive the only difference is a core clock speed setting.. So the 1700M doesn't really provide any more features, even in a graphics app like Maya, just a slight speed increase.. Hardly worth the extra $499 IMO.

 

Bump... so what's the verdict? I'm considering a Precision M4400, and I'm wondering should I get the 770M or should I hold out for a 1700M? Either way, I will definitely be getting the CCFL WUXGA screen...

 

Same chip...same performance,dell don't even use 9700M GT shader clocks on the 1700M like you would think...merely bumbing the core speed 125mhz,which can be easily done [and then some] on the FX770M also.

Save your $500.00 you will achieve more,spending the money on the cpu imho.

FWIW,the highest benchmark score's we've seen have been from QX9300 and FX770M.

 

Good to know, thanks for the response. I didn't quite get that solid of an answer from the previous posts.

I suppose I should start a new thread for this, but since I'm here... I'm going to be buying a refurbished system, it's really the only way for me to get all the functionality I need within my budget. Is there anything I should watch out for, things to make sure to get, things to avoid, etc? Are there any problems I should watch out for once I get the system?

 

NP Dabeer,on a refurb,I would be looking for damage on the screen bezel [very easily damaged when removed] and the bottom panel retaining screw,which a couple of guy's have received stripped or crossthreaded,and just general bad assembly/damage,just in case the factory techs are as bad at their job as some of the field tech's.