128mb 8600M GT MBP 3dMark2005 score

Hey everyone,

I just got the driver working under Vista 32bits.

The 3dMark score I got was pretty disappointing... I'm wondering if there's something that I did wrong when I was benchmarking it.

I ran the test with the default settings on the Free Edition at 1024x768.

The score was only 1789!

The driver I was using was the same as stgben on this thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=128501

I have the 2.2ghz version of the MBP with the 128mb 8600m GT. I can't believe how much of a difference there is...

Any suggestions?

 

Hmm... strange indeed. Make sure its on "Better Performance Mode" in your battery settings, and i'd also run it plugged in. Other than that, anyone else?

Those are really low for just 128mb of RAM difference.

 

I just ran it again after a fresh restart... Much better: 5660.

Still a little lower than I would have liked. Maybe the overhead of Vista...

 

I'll try to run 3dmark2006 after I download it.

 

very nice i really want to see how this performs.
there is a very large price gap in my opinion for a faster processor, 40gb, and 128mb vram.
how does it run vista? is it exactly as it would run on a pc based machine?

 

Vista runs well... The one thing I can't get over is that there's no Delete button on the keyboard and theres no right click.

So far, I got Bluetooth, audio, video, wireless, ethernet all working.

3dMark06 is running right now. I can't seem to change the resolution to 1024x768 like it is on 3dmark05. I don't have a full version of it to run it. So far it looks like its crawling tho so I'm not expecting a great score.

 

3dmark06 score is 2771 at 1280x854...

That's a pretty big difference from teh 256 mb version of the 8600m gt.

 

Windows experience scores:
Processor: 5.1
RAM: 4.8
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming: 5.4
Primary HD: 4.5

 

Try going into Windows Task Manager and turning off all unnecessary processes and turn off everything else thats running in the backround.

 

Nvidia drivers for Vista, afaik, still suck. Can't you do the same tests under XP? that would give a much better indication of performance. Of course, if you run Vista on a daily basis, then the performance under Vista is what concerns you, but I'd also try real-world gaming. Lost my faith in the meaning of 3Dmark a long time ago.

 

Very strange. Drivers same, OS same and the 128MB GT gets 1300 points less then the 258MB version???? The faster CPU acounts for 100-200 points I think.

 

I was running 32bit Vista Ultimate with all the options set for performance and all unnecessary tasks disabled...

I wonder if they put in a slower vid ram and halved the size. That would really suck.

 

I can't run XP becuase there aren't any drivers that I could get to work. I tried all the hacked INFs for different versions of the forceware drivers and it was no good.

I would love to be able to run XP... In my opinion it's a much better OS than Vista given the decreased overhead.

 

Weird. I think apple should upgrade bootcamp shortly with drivers for the 8600GT soon, in fact they should have done it before the release...

 

Yea that would have been nice. I wouldn't have to have searched for all those drivers...

 

Which vista gfx driver did u use?

 

FYI Boot Camp v1.3 was just released and does fix the XP / Nvidia issue. I'm downloading 3dmark05 right now. I have the 128mb version so it will be a good comparison.

To confirm, what resolution do you want me to run it at? Also, I'll power down reset before running... anything else?

 

i'm having a hard time deciding between the 128mb version and the 256mb version...if someone could post/find identical benchmarking scenarios that would be great...especially with official apple drivers...also the stock clock speeds

 

I would LOVE to see the performance of the 128Mb model as that's what I'm considering. Is there any chance you have anything to do an in-game benchmark with?

*edit* I guess the best resolution to run at would be something comparable with the other benchmarks... in other words 1024 x 768 or 1200 x 856 or whatever it is we've been seeing.

 

On XP with Boot Camp v1.3, and the 128MB version (ForceWare v101.34) = 6512 @ 1024x768

Can't run any other resolution with the free version. Not too shabby!

 

Would you be able to try with the free version of 3dmark06?

 

Still seems a bit on the low end though..... over at MacRumors, someone with a 128MB version ran 3DMark2005 and got around 7200.

I'm curious about what the differences might be.

 

I'll have to do so later. No time in the next few hours

No idea. This is a fully updated XP SP2 version with nothing installed except BootCamp v1.3 and 3dMark05

 

Ahh, I see. The person at MacRumors was running it with Vista. Maybe that made a difference?

 

this seems to be really good, as it is comparable to the 7900 GS. One of the best Last gen high end card. this is one very sexy machine "drools"

 

On XP with Bootcamp1.3 for 3dmark05 with default 1024x768 I got 6407

Installing 3dmark06 now and running bench...

 

I really don't know anything about Benchmark scores and such, I am just looking for a MBP that I can run (in OSX) programs like Finale (music notation) Photoshop, and Garage Band, and be able to (in windows) run WoW and some of the upcoming games like Shadowrun (Vista/DX10 only I think).

With only the 128mb GPU would I have a frustration free experience with xp, vista, shadowrun, wow etc. or is it going to be worthwhile shelling out the extra cash for the 256 card? I'm sorry for such a n00bish question, but I've heard that benchmark scores really are only good for comparison, and even so I don't know how to translate the scores into real life performance.

Thanks!!

 

If you're willing to sacrifice on the settings then I think the 128mb version should be enough.

Honestly I just couldn't justify the $500 gap. For that price I'll wait for the XG station to come out and hook up a real graphics card.

 

Yeah I suppose, I have a decent desktop with an SLI card in it now, I could always just upgrade my Desktop if I can't get the MBP to keep up. I mean I can do everything I need to and more with a 6600gt and 1gig of ram right now, so this Mac would already be over 2x as powerful, I can't imagine having the cheaper Mac would be a problem, especially when it would cost me like 300 to upgrade my desktop to catch up or be more powerful.

Also I don't suppose anyone knows if the free ipod Nano offer for college students applies to in-store purchases as well... I'd love to walk into an apple store and walk out ready to go, no waiting for shipping.

 

it should, u simply fill out a rebate form afterwards

 

That's what I did. I'm a medical student so I got an educational discount + ipod nano with rebate!

 

same here, walked out of the store with MBP + IPOD + printer

 

3dmark06 results: 2845 at 1280x1024. I wish I could change the resolution...

 

Wow, those are dramatically lower than the scores other people are getting, even at 1280x1024.

 

I don't think I'm doing anything wrong... These are the 1.3 bootcamp drivers running on a very clean xp setup.

 

Yeah, I don't know. Just that other people seem to have gotten much higher scores. Not sure what the difference is.

 

don't worry about it, try a few games see if the performance is satisfactory. if your favourite games play just fine i don't see why u should sweating over the numbers.

 

That's true, but what about us who haven't bought one yet, we'd like to know if we really need to spill for the 256 card or if we can save our money and get a 128 ya know?

 

I don't know, but the reports I've seen of people gaming with the 128MB version make me think it can basically do the job (especially I think since the card is able to use shared system memory on top of the dedicated memory anyway).

-Zadillo

 

I have a lowend MBP and I got 3085 at 1280x800, which is roughly the speed of yours. This is with Bootcamp 1.3, and I remember the guy with the 128MB 8600M getting much better scores, but he did it with his own drivers. Maybe that's the difference?

There's no side effects from installing your own video drivers right?

 

right, give us some specific fps numbers of some of the new graphically intense games since the benchmarks aren't all that great.

 

Those are good scores for a laptop of that size and footprint. My 17" DTR gets somewhere over 6400 in 3Dmark05 and about 4000 in 3Dmark06.

 

i know thats why instead of posting benchmarks maybe we should focus on getting FPS and posting screenshots; this might be more informative as opposed to just numbers.

 

I'm surprised no one has done that before, Jokkon that is an incredibly good idea!! we should make a (small) list of games that we are interested in running on the MBP and find notebookreview members who both own a new MBP and those games and have them compile a list of Screen Shots with FPS measurements included for each (including online and offline games). I really can't think of a better way of judging this, it is a lot of work, but if anyone is willing to do it I think it would be phenomenally useful to the rest of us waiting for more info before we buy ours!!!

 

I just ran 3DMark 2006 with Nvidia Drivers 158.48 running Vista. I got a 2750. Not really what I was hoping for seeing as the 256 meg card got 4500+ really didn't think 128 megs would be that big of a difference, but maybe. Or aybe their are really no good drivers out for the 128 mb card?? Will have to play around with it some more.

 

Every manufacturer usualy clocks their cards different to fit into thermal and battery specs. If someone could check the clock speed of the 128, we could see if it's the same as the other cards. It's not always about the vram.

 

I just posted a thread with those numbers

GPU Core Speed = 375
GPU Memory Speed = 502

 

Taken from the g1s thread:

 

I just ran 3DMark 2006 again with default settings.

SM 2.0 Score - 976
SM 3.0 Score - 1081
CPU Score - 1911
3DMark Score - 2763

Just for reference my old desktop PC with a 2.8ghz P4, 7800 GS 256mb vram.

SM 2.0 -1429
SM 3.0 - 1454
CPU - 737
3DMark - 3152

 

It's just downclocked 100mhz core and 400mhz mem Vs G1S and all other reference 8600M GTs, which should be why you're seeing 800 less in '06 then the Asus G1S.