Never mind Merom on MBP, what about the X1600 being upgraded?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
There has not been very much if not any discussion on this area of the MBP. The X1600 is a capable chip but the X1800 and/or GF Go 7600 are newer and even more future proof.



Yes, there will be thermal concerns and integration issues, especially with a GF. But, what are the possibilities of an update on this front?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    I'd say there's a chance now because of new chipsets - part of why Apple chose the X1600 when the X1800 was already available was the difference in heat and power. The GeForce Go 7700 just started shipping and should be reasonably fast without turning the MBP insides into a furnace.
  • Reply 2 of 16
    x1800 is more powerful than the one in the imac, but the 7600 is a viable option
  • Reply 3 of 16
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Commodus


    The GeForce Go 7700 just started shipping and should be reasonably fast without turning the MBP insides into a furnace.



    Historically, GeForce Gos have been terribly hot and unfit for any reasonably-thin laptop.



    The Mobility Radeon X1800 is also not an option, for the same reason.



    I don't believe there's currently an alternative; one will probably come up as the MR X2000s get released.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker


    Historically, GeForce Gos have been terribly hot and unfit for any reasonably-thin laptop.



    The Mobility Radeon X1800 is also not an option, for the same reason.



    I don't believe there's currently an alternative; one will probably come up as the MR X2000s get released.



    I think you're over-generalizing - NVIDIA has low-power, low-heat GeForce Go chips as well. If the 7700 can go into a thin 14-inch laptop, it can certainly go into a 15.4-inch model with more room to breathe.
  • Reply 5 of 16
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Commodus


    I think you're over-generalizing - NVIDIA has low-power, low-heat GeForce Go chips as well.



    At performance levels higher than that of the X1600? Doubtful.
  • Reply 6 of 16
    If a GeForce 7300 GT in an iMac can beat out a desktop X1600, I wouldn't be surprised if a GeForce Go 7700 outclasses a mobile X1600. The latter came out late last year while the 7700 is brand new. I'm pretty sure it's possible for NVIDIA to produce a mid-range chipset in late 2006 that doesn't melt the insides of the case but which still outperforms the X1600.
  • Reply 7 of 16
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    The MR X1600 in the MBP is already clocked down as it is, so presumably, a GF Go 7700 would have to be clocked down even further, diminishing at least part of the performance advantage, assuming there was any to begin with.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    I like ATI chips in portables, as the video playback quality is higher. Also, the X1800 memory interface is 256-bit, and has an internal 512-bit ring bus (whatever that is...).



    I'm hoping for a radeon X1800, w/ 256MB ram. If Apple uses the X1600, which was dated when the MBP debuted, I'll be livid.
  • Reply 9 of 16
    Are there comparative real world tests for the above? Specs are one thing, but Second Life framerates are another. Just how much better could a bump be?
  • Reply 10 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker


    The MR X1600 in the MBP is already clocked down as it is, so presumably, a GF Go 7700 would have to be clocked down even further, diminishing at least part of the performance advantage, assuming there was any to begin with.



    You seem to be making false logical assumptions here:



    1. NVIDIA chips always consume more power at the same performance level.

    2. No chips released after the X1600 could deliver more performance at the same power, even a year later.

    3. Therefore, barring a tweak from ATI itself, the X1600 is the only option for the MacBook Pro.



    The GeForce Go 7700 is a mid-range chip in the same class as the X1600. It's made using an 80 nm process (the X1600 is built at 90 nm) that should help it run cooler. It has 50% more pixel bandwidth than a GeForce Go 7600, which was already roughly at the performance level of the X1600. Odds are it'll outperform the X1600 even if it does have to be underclocked to protect the laptop.
  • Reply 11 of 16
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Commodus


    You seem to be making false logical assumptions here:



    1. NVIDIA chips always consume more power at the same performance level.

    2. No chips released after the X1600 could deliver more performance at the same power, even a year later.

    3. Therefore, barring a tweak from ATI itself, the X1600 is the only option for the MacBook Pro.



    I didn't make any of the three assumptions.



    Quote:

    The GeForce Go 7700 is a mid-range chip in the same class as the X1600. It's made using an 80 nm process (the X1600 is built at 90 nm) that should help it run cooler. It has 50% more pixel bandwidth than a GeForce Go 7600, which was already roughly at the performance level of the X1600. Odds are it'll outperform the X1600 even if it does have to be underclocked to protect the laptop.



    "Odds are"? So you don't know? You don't even have any data to back it up, beyond the manufacturing process?
  • Reply 12 of 16
    But you did make the assumptions:



    Quote:

    Historically, GeForce Gos have been terribly hot and unfit for any reasonably-thin laptop.



    The Mobility Radeon X1800 is also not an option, for the same reason.



    I don't believe there's currently an alternative; one will probably come up as the MR X2000s get released.



    Quote:

    At performance levels higher than that of the X1600? Doubtful.



    Quote:

    The MR X1600 in the MBP is already clocked down as it is, so presumably, a GF Go 7700 would have to be clocked down even further, diminishing at least part of the performance advantage, assuming there was any to begin with.



    See what I mean?



    Once again: if they can put a GeForce Go 7700 in a reasonably thin 14-inch laptop, a MacBook Pro probably isn't an issue even if Apple has to tune it down a bit. I won't discount the possibility that Apple will keep the X1600 (and probably double the minimum VRAM) or even wait for a Mobility Radeon X1700 if it's cool enough, but don't rule out NVIDIA just because you always associate them with hot-running desktop replacement graphics.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    I don't think Apple's that worried about incredible graphics performance. Generally speaking, it looks like Apple might want spec-parity between the iMac and the MBP, so I could see them sticking to x1600. Unless they plan to move the Macbook to a x1300 eventually, they have no reason to update the x1600 in the MBP - it doesn't seem to hurt them in comparison to other notebooks.



    That said, notebooks are apple's major market, and they want to stay very competitive there I imagine.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    MBP are really fucking hot.



    They need all the help they can get on the icy front.



    Unless you guys have some statistics that the GeForce Go 7700 isn't the oven every other NVIDIA chip is, I'm afraid you're all preposterous.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    Heat isn't much of a selling point in laptops. however, battery life is.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    Maybe Apple will just stick to the curent options and release a cooler-running version that's not even clocked down...

    The current card has more potential that could be unleashed if the heat gets taken care of.



    Just my personal opinion though.



    Sure hope to see the new / upgraded Macbook Pro later this month..
Sign In or Register to comment.