128mb 8600M GT MBP 3dMark2005 score

It does look like it runs at 470 and 635 when in 3D applications. I ran 3d mark then went right back into NTune and it showed the speeds at 470 and 635.

 

Yeah, although others have been reporting that it upclocks back to those normal speeds when 3d apps/games are being used, and that would seem to explain the significantly higher 3DMark06 scores some are getting.

The bigger question would seem to be why it sounds like it isn't upclocking in this case.

 

I am guessing its a driver issue. I also noticed only sometimes during the 3Dmark test the fans come on. I would think they would be going full blast. I wish I could set it so the fans are always on when using 3d games.

I am downloading the 101.28 drivers that are said to be for the 8600M GT from toshiba. Don't know if they will work or not though.

 

Ok don't install the 101.28 drivers. They are not as good as the 158.xx ones. I got 2540 for a score.

 

Ok just put 158.54 back on. Best score yet... 2891

SM 2.0 938
SM 3.0 1225
CPU 1909

I turned on logging with Ntune and I didn't see the GPU clock speeds go up, which is weird. It stayed at 375/502 the whole time. Temps got up to 85 degrees Celsius. Pretty hot but I guess it can take it.

 

Yeah, those temps seem a bit high. I wonder if that's maybe preventing it from going to full clock.

I'm still curious about why your machine's behavior seems to be different; significantly lower scores, which would seem to go hand in hand with it not "upclocking" like it seems other people are reporting.

 

i thought you're not interested in graphical monsters like 8600 GT ! i'd go with the T61 if I were you

 

I haven't really seen any good results from other people, I mean the screen shots we saw showing ~4500 it seems were because the resolution was lowered and it was the 256 meg version. I would like to see other results from people who just run the defaults and with the 128 meg version.

I'm installing company of heroes right now, gonna benchmark that next.

 

This is all kind of disheartening, I think I'm going to end up getting the 256 version and saving up for the apple care package later in the year rather than getting the 128 with the apple care up front

 

So I just ran a benchmark with Company of Heroes. I maxed out all the settings 1440x900. Didn't do that great, but I didn't expect it to.

Average FPS was 11.2

Going to run the test again with the settings taken down a couple notches, but the same resolution. See if I can get something playable.

I still think once we get some decent drivers out for this it will improve. Overall though I am pretty happy. I wasn't looking for a dedicated game machine, I have a Core 2 Duo 3.0ghz with a 8800 GTS at home for that.

 

Yeah, that seems pretty odd. My desktop 6800GT runs CoH pretty smoothly, and from what I've seen the 8600M GT is actually superior to it.

And I recall someone running C&C3 maxed out smoothly, which I don't think is that much more demanding than CoH is.

 

I will be trying to install bootcamp and vista over the weekend, I will post when/if I get everything running

 

Not sure if it helps any one b/c this is run with nothing in vista working and I am not sure if this is the correct Super Pi version

Since the pics is pretty bad:

0h 00m 29.254s initial value finished
0h 01m 53.993s loop 1 finished
0h 03m 30.292s loop 2 finished
0h 05m 05.171s loop 3 finished
0h 06m 40.393s loop 4 finished

 

They have a gaming comparo of the new MBP to the old one at Barefeats here
http://www.barefeats.com/santarosa.html

 

Just because it might not be clear, those are gaming results with the Mac versions of the respective games. Really only useful I think for telling the difference in performance within OS X; games generally don't perform as well in OS X as they do in Windows.

 

The 256m version I have scores 4100 in 3dMark2006(Vista+latest bootcamp).

 

That Bare Feats review does indicate that the 8600M GT is slower than the desktop 7600GT which isn't unexpected. The desktop 8600GT is fairly comparable (really a bit slower) than the desktop 7600GT, so that puts the mobile 8600M GT pretty close to the desktop 8600GT which is to be expected since they wouldn't likely base it off the top-end 8600GTS.

It also seems that the 8600M GT core is not downclocked. It runs at 470MHz while nVidia specs it up to 475MHz which is essentially the same thing. However, Apple is being very conservative with the RAM running at only 635MHz while nVidia specs up to 700MHz. So Apple's 8600M GT implementation is bandwidth starved, which would contribute to the iMac's 7600GT beating it so decisively.

 

2D clockspeeds are 375 core and 500 memory according to the bare feats page.

I'm assuming it's running at that speed for regular office work, so that seems really high and wastes battery life. Are there any programs that can change the idle/2D/3D speeds separately?

 

for comparison I got 6255 on 3dmark05 at 1024x768 with XP and 128mb 8600gt

 

at what resolution?

 

1024x768 for 3dmark05 I got 6255

1280x1024 for 3dmark06 I got 2619

However I am about to reformat and try to reinstall b/c I can't download any updates b/c when I do it installs fine and then upon booting up after the install I get the blue screen of death "STOP: C000021a"

 

Why does it report the video card as "Generic VGA"?

 

I dunno, it says it correctly at the other screen in the beginning but I am not even sure if the drivers for the NVIDA card were installed, as the keyboard, trackpad, and bluetooth drivers were not there after trying to repair the installation (basically reinstalling XP). The little NVIDIA icon was also not in the lower right corner like it was on the original installation. I only had the use of a USB mouse....so I had to save the IE score pages on a jump drive and transfer them to my desktop.

 

thats a rather low score compare to others isn't it.

 

The iMac has a mobile go7600gt, doesn't it? The 7300gt and 7600gt in the iMac are MXM cards. The Sony AR also uses the go7600gt...wonder what kinda scores it gets.

 

Supposedly it uses a desktop version of the 7600GT that does connect through MXM; I don't totally get how that works, but who knows.

 

I wonder why that Bare Feats review didn't test at higher resolutions, where the graphics card would be emphasized. I can't imagine that the 7300gt, whether desktop or not, is more powerful than the 8600gt. What would be the point of spending so much money on a laptop with this processor? The 7300gt is absolute junk, as far as desktop graphics go. How depressing. Please tell me I'm reading those results wrong.

 

Does vista on MBP support shared memory for GPU?

 

Note that those are results of gaming performance in the Mac versions of those games. They don't necessarily reflect what you would see in Windows.

 

It seems like it; I think most people have been reporting that Vista reports a certain amount of shared video memory on top of the dedicated VRAM.

 

VERY good point.=D

 

Zadilo, I can't seem to find any hard 3Dmark scores on the macrumors forums? It seems some ppl just took the scores off of notebook check.

Are the scores for the 128mb version we are seeing on this thread really significantly lower than others are getting?

thanks

 

Don´t the CPU matter when u compare between the (premium MBP) 256 and (budget MBP) 128 versions? I´m sure the bigger cpu in the premium version helps get much higher scores in 3dmark tests or?

 

I think for now there are only the Asus G1s and the MBP which are 15" and 8600GT competitors. Since the G1s owners are complaining of extreme heat with their machines, I was wondering about the heat issue in MBP machines too.
Moreover, is the heat perceived differently in 128Mb and 256Mb MBP versions ?

 

MBP seems pretty hot to me also...I just went to Apple store to check it out, 15.4 inch sitting there doing nothing is at a 54 Celcius...-_-;

 

which version ? the 128Mb at 54C while Idle, would be too much for me !

 

well i think its 128 MB version but does it matter...Idle around 50C is whats holding me back

 

well it matters because if the 256Mb is 54C hot at Idle, then the 128Mb sould be at only 45C or lower !

 

No, there isn't a difference. Unless Apple chose to clock the 256MB version higher than the 128MB the two should produce the same amount of heat.

 

still...my dell Inspiron 6000 is at 42c right now, with just firefox,aim,Bittorrent (400kb/s) turned on.

 

They had a CPU temp program running on a floor model machine at the Apple Store?

Either way, I don't know that they all run that hot; it seems like in people's real-world use they have temps under 50 degrees even when doing some light stuff like word processing, etc.

Either way, we've got plenty of people here who could report on temps as well now that they have their MBP's.

-Zadillo

 

no they don't, but you can download iStat widget in seconds.

 

My MBP (256MB 8600M GT) has been on for 5 hours and the CPU is idling at 48C. The only warm place is the bottom case near the hinge. That area is barely warm .... just above room temp. It isn't hot anywhere. I do use a device that elevates the rear of the machine.

The machines at the Apple store run a bit warmer because they are sitting on a wooden desk. The wood is a poor thermal conductor so any heat radiated from the notebook is not drawn away and just pools near the machine.

 

that's good to hear man !
i wonder how big is the difference in 3dMark scores between the two models..

 

I'm still wondering as well. I was all set to buy the 2.4 but the difference in price in Canada is $600... no small sum. From my trolling of various forums I still cannot come across a solid set of scores for the 128mb version.

However, across the board, the 256mb version seems to rock.

 

i'd def go for the 256mb so i don't have to cry about it a year later.

 

i'm really confused about giving or not the extra $500 for extra 128Mb GDDR, extra 40Gb HDD and extra 200MHz of processor ! do all these worth the $500 extra money ?

 

Well, the actual cost isn't completely unreasonable. For example, on Lenovo's site, I noticed that just moving up from a 2.2GHz CPU to a 2.4GHz CPU costs an additional $250 just by itself (and that's with a special discount; they said it is normally an additional $380). The extra VRAM accounts for the extra cost as well.

Now whether it's "worth it" depends on whether you need the faster CPU, extra storage space and extra VRAM.

 

8600GT 256 definitely help if you want AA AF on, but does the 8600gt 128 also share the system memory like the desktop version does? because if it does, I dont think it will have big difference.

 

I think people have reported that both the 128MB and 256MB versions share system memory (with Vista reporting the dedicated amount plus the shared amount)