ATI - Mobility Radeon 9600

As you know, the Mobility Radeon 9600 (code named M10) and Mobility Radeon 9600 Pro (also code named M10) are mobile versions of the desktop Radeon 9600 (RV350). Seeing as we have already gone over that graphic processor, we won’t bore you with the details (read more here). Recapping from our last mobile graphics preview, the Radeon 9600 (including both mobile version) are produced on a 0.13 micron process, incorporates some serious memory controller optimizations, a new version of Hyper-Z compression technology, and support for component output. Power specifications, according to ATI technical documents, notes that the Mobility Radeon 9600 runs at 1.0V, and consumes 0.5W in Windows idle. We have still not been able to track down the maximum power consumption specification.



Since our preview, not much has changed in the clocks of the Mobility Radeon 9600. The official clock speeds are still at 350MHz core clock and 300MHz DDR memory clock (600MHz effective). So far, the highest frequencies in a shipping system that we have been notified of are 350MHz core clock and 270MHz memory clock. Despite market issues, we have been able to take a look at a Mobility Radeon 9600 system clocked at 350MHz core clock and 250MHz core clock.

We have had reports of memory timing and AGP issues with the Mobility Radeon 9600 A13 revision, and lately, we were informed that this problem was related to non-Intel chipset based mobile systems. But even with a non-Intel chipset based mobile system, the problems weren’t guaranteed to appear. ATI’s A14 revision of this chip solves this problem, while we should note that A13 will not encounter any problems of this nature on an Intel chipset based mobile system.

We covered Mobility Radeon 9600 Pro in past mobile graphics preview, which features OVERDRIVE, inherently higher clock speeds, and GDDR2-M, but we have still not been able to see any designs that feature this product. We are expecting to see some desktop replacement and high-end gaming notebooks that feature Mobility Radeon 9600 Pro sometime in early Q4. For a more detailed look into Mobility Radeon 9600 and Mobility Radeon 9600 Pro, read our original preview.
Index NVIDIA – GeForce FX Go5600 and GeForce FX Go5650
POST A COMMENT

47 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    That 30 FPS-eye-limit rubbish always comes up in these sort of threads - I can't believe there are people who think they can't tell the difference between a game running at 30 FPS and 60 FPS.

    Anyway, I'd like to ask about the HL2 benches - you mention the 5600 is supposed to drop down a code path, but don't specifically say which one was used in the tests. DX8? Mixed? The charts say "DX 9.0", so if that was indeed used then it's interesting from a theoretical point of view but doesn't actually tell us how the game will run on such a system, since the DX8 code path is recommmended by Valve for the 5200/5600.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    The "car wheels not rotating right" effect is caused by aliasing, and you'll still get that effect even if your video card is running at 2000fps.

    Besides, you're limited by your monitor's refresh rate anyhow.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    #14 that is incorrect and totally misleading. Humans can tell the difference up to about 60fps (sometimes a little more).

    Have you ever seen a movie where the car's tires dont seem to rotate right? Thats becuse at 29.97fps you notice things like that.

    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    #13, unless your not human, the human eye cant see a difference at 30fps and up. 60fps is a goal for users cause at that point, even if there is a slow down to 30fps you cant see the difference. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    Overall, I liked the article...

    However, whilst I understand that you wanted to run everything at maximum detail to show how much faster one chipset may be than another, it would have been helpful if some lower resolution benchmarks could have been thrown in.

    After all, what good does it do you to know that chip B may perform at 30fps whilst chip A performs at 10fps if both are unplayable?

    I don't mind whether I can play a game at an astoundingly good detail level or not - I care more about whether I can play the game at all! :)

    In the end, we'd all love to be able to play all our games in glorious mega-detail looks-better-than-real-life mode at 2000fps, but it's not always possible.

    A big question should be can I play the game at a reasonable speed with a merely acceptable quality. And that's the sort of information that helps us poor consumers! :)

    Thanks for your time and a great article.
    Reply
  • Sxotty - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    Um do you mean floating point (FP16) or 16bit color? As opposed to FP32 on the NV hardware, as ATI's doesn't even support FP32, which is not 32bit color. ATI supports FP24. LOL and the no fog thing was just funny, that is NV's fault it is not like it has to be dropped they did it to gain a tiny fraction of performance. Reply
  • rqle - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    I really like this comment:

    "Don’t forget that programmers are also artists, and on a separate level, it is frustrating for them to see their hard work go to waste, as those high level settings get turned off."

    Hope future article on graphic card/chipset will offer more insight on how the may developer feel.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    please note: the warcraft benchmark was done under direct3d. now nvidia cards perform badly under direct 3d with warcraft whereas ati does a very fine job. it's a completely different story, however, if u start warcraft 3 with the warcraft.exe -opengl command. so please take note of that, only very few people about this anyway. my quadro 4 700 go gl gets about +10fps more under opgengl compared to d3d! Reply
  • Pete - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    Nice read. Actually, IIRC, UT2003 is DX7, with some DX7 shaders rewritten in DX8 for minimal performance gains. Thus, HL2 should be not only the first great DX9 benchmark, but also a nice DX8(.1) benchmark as well. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    so valve let you guys test out half life 2 on some laptops eh? very nice. (great review to, well written) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now