# Underclocked Video Cards?



## HateEternal (Apr 23, 2006)

Apparently the MacBook Pro isn't configured to do what it is capable of.

If you ask me it's a pretty cheap way to squeeze more battery life out of a machine. Maybe Apple should invest some time into creating dynamic clock speeds for video cards controlled by the energy saver much like what is done with the CPU. I'd rather have my video card throttle its self down if it isn't being used than have it permanently crippled.

So when will someone put out a hack for OS X?


----------



## Mikuro (Apr 23, 2006)

I'm a little unclear on the reason behind this and the specifics of the card.

Here's what I understand. If anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, that'd be great:

&#8226; The iMac and MBP use the same graphics card. It's underclocked on the MBP, but not on the iMac.

&#8226; This ATI card was not really made for portables.

&#8226; The MBP runs very hot.

&#8226; This card, even when underclocked, performs well for a laptop.

Sooo...seems to me like this is a feature, not a bug, so to speak. Is it at all reasonable to expect this beast of a card to go into a laptop at full power? Are any _other_ companies using this card at full power in laptops?

Some people are overclocking them using some Windows tools. Do they know better than Apple's designers? Time will tell. I get the feeling some of these people are going to have dead MBPs sooner or later.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Apr 23, 2006)

Heh... people lauded the performance of the X1600 in the MacBook Pro since it was released.  They considered it to be a powerful mobile graphics chipset, and had little negative to say about it.

Then they learn that it's slightly (~20% - ~30%) underclocked, and now they complain that it doesn't perform up to their expectations.

Somehow the knowledge of the underclocking has suddenly shifted their view of the graphics of the MacBook Pro.

I vote computer companies stop publishing specs altogether (is my computer 2.0GHz or 2.8GHz?  Does it matter?  It's freakin' fast!) and make people judge the computer by raw performance instead of numbers on paper.  I'd be willing to bet there'd be a significant decrease in complaints.


----------



## HateEternal (Apr 23, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> &#8226; This ATI card was not really made for portables.



The X1600 used in the MacBook is a _mobile_ video card. It's purpose is to be used in mobile or small form factor machines.



			
				Mikuro said:
			
		

> Are any _other_ companies using this card at full power in laptops?



Check out this CNet review. They only do one gaming test, but the MacBook is put up against an Acer TravelMate 8200 spec'ed as 





> 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo (T2500) processor; 2GB of slightly slower DDR2 SDRAM (533MHz); an ATI Mobility Radeon x1600 graphics card; and a slightly larger 120GB hard drive spinning at 5,400rpm.



Notice, it has slower RAM and the same video card. There was approximately a 12 FPS difference between the Acer and the MBP. Given the slower RAM in the Acer, I would think it is safe to assume that it was faster because of an unrestricted video card.



			
				ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> ...Somehow the knowledge of the underclocking has suddenly shifted their view of the graphics of the MacBook Pro...Does it matter? It's freakin' fast!...



Lets take the Mazda RX-8 as an example. When Mazda first introduced the RX-8 They advertised it has having ~218 HP (I can't remember the numbers exactly). Lot's of people bought the car expecting that level of performance. For the most part people were pleased with its performance on the road but as soon as they put it on a Dyno it pulled much less (~180). So is the car fast? Yea, its reasonably quick for a ~$30k car. Would it be faster if it had 40 more HP? Of course! Would it make a difference in a (legal) race? FOR F**K'S SAKE YES!!! Mazda actually ended up buying cars back from people that were not satisfied with its performance. As the guy that made this discovery noted; his MBP ran about 30 FPS faster, that is a BIG deal and can make the difference between usable/playable and aggravating.

Performance matters, if just fast was OK Apple would still be using G4s. In many ways they were 'fast' but the Core Duo is much 'Faster'.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Apr 23, 2006)

HateEternal said:
			
		

> Lets take the Mazda RX-8 as an example. When Mazda first introduced the RX-8 They advertised it has having ~218 HP (I can't remember the numbers exactly). Lot's of people bought the car expecting that level of performance. For the most part people were pleased with its performance on the road but as soon as they put it on a Dyno it pulled much less (~180). So is the car fast? Yea, its reasonably quick for a ~$30k car. Would it be faster if it had 40 more HP? Of course! Would it make a difference in a (legal) race? FOR F**K'S SAKE YES!!! Mazda actually ended up buying cars back from people that were not satisfied with its performance. As the guy that made this discovery noted; his MBP ran about 30 FPS faster, that is a BIG deal and can make the difference between usable/playable and aggravating.
> 
> Performance matters, if just fast was OK Apple would still be using G4s. In many ways they were 'fast' but the Core Duo is much 'Faster'.


That comparison would be valid if and only if Apple advertised the clock rate and memory rate of the X1600 they use -- but they don't.  Apple doesn't make any claims as to the clock rate of the card like Mazda made with the horsepower of the RX-8.

My point is that you're not getting "gypped" simply because Apple didn't claim a certain performance rate, then under-deliver.  Purchasers of the MacBook Pro are not being deceived into believing that their X1600s run at a certain clock speed, yet receive a MacBook Pro that doesn't meet the claimed speeds.

I understand that speed is better in certain situations, but not in all situations.  Macintosh computers are not hot-rodded, modified, all-out performance demons -- they're elegant balances of form and function.  Complaining that the X1600 is underclocked is like complaining about the CPU in your computer -- most likely, your CPU can run ~500MHz faster than it's clocked at... do you feel gypped about the fact that Apple underclocked your processor?

Underclocking is common in computers to find a balance between speed and power consumption.  Apple most likely did this to save power or reduce heat.  If leaving the X1600 at the full clock rate meant no added power consumption and no added heat, then we may have something to complain about.  But, as it stands, big friggin' deal... so it runs slower than some 20 lb. "gaming" notebook from Acer.



> Performance matters, if just fast was OK Apple would still be using G4s. In many ways they were 'fast' but the Core Duo is much 'Faster'.


Apple didn't go with the Core Duo simply because it was faster.  Apple chose Intel-branded CPUs over Moto's G4 and IBM's G5 processors because the Intel roadmap made for better performance-per-watt.  Just because the Core Duo is faster than the G4/5 doesn't mean that speed was Apple's sole, driving force behind the switch.

When I said, "Does it matter? It's freakin' fast!..." I meant that no one was upset until they saw numbers on paper.  Everyone was very happy with the performance of the X1600 -- there weren't any negative things to say about it.  Then some piece of paper gets out with the clock rate of Apple's X1600 implementation, and all of a sudden, people are complaining.  Had they not seen the "real" numbers, they would have been completely satisfied and oblivious.  Instead, they're nit-picking numbers on paper and getting in a tiffy over them.  What you don't know can't hurt you, but in this case, it seems people wanna beat themselves up once they found out.  I just find that a little weird and juvenile.  Had I read reports about how the performance of the X1600 was lacking before people knew it was underclocked, I might be a little more forgiving of all the criticism -- but it's true: no one was complaining before they saw the numbers, so the only thing they're complaining about are the numbers themselves and not the raw performance of the card.


----------



## HateEternal (Apr 23, 2006)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> That comparison would be valid if and only if Apple advertised the clock rate and memory rate of the X1600 they use -- but they don't.  Apple doesn't make any claims as to the clock rate of the card like Mazda made with the horsepower of the RX-8.



It's true that they didn't make any claims on the actual clock speed of the card but the name X1600 means something. Generally cards from different vendors utilizing the same chipset don't all get the same results, but they are extremely close. If I see X1600 printed on the box I expect to get on par X1600 results. It's like expecting 2.0 GHz performance out of a Core Duo T2500 processor because that is what they are _supposed_ to run. If I bought a computer advertised with a Core Duo T2500 and found out it was only running at 1.5 GHz as opposed to the standard 2 GHz I would feel "gypped".



			
				ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> CPU in your computer -- most likely, your CPU can run ~500MHz faster than it's clocked at... do you feel gypped about the fact that Apple underclocked your processor?



Yea its true, most processors have a bit of head-room as far as clock speeds go but I can make the same point as I made above. If i buy an Athlon 64 3500+ I expect it to perform at the same level as any other Athlon 65 3500+.



			
				ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Under-clocking is common in computers to find a balance between speed and power consumption.  Apple most likely did this to save power or reduce heat.  If leaving the X1600 at the full clock rate meant no added power consumption and no added heat, then we may have something to complain about.



I'm going to refer to what I said in the initial post. If the video card clock speed causes such a drain on the battery why don't they work it into the energy saver? Utilities to change video card clock speed on the fly have existed for years in the PC world. If it is such an issue Apple should look into allowing  users to set their video card performance to their needs, or do it automatically for them. I know most of the time having a card running at full speed is wasteful but there are times that it should be running at full force.



			
				ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> When I said, "Does it matter? It's freakin' fast!..." I meant that no one was upset until they saw numbers on paper.  Everyone was very happy with the performance of the X1600 -- there weren't any negative things to say about it.  Then some piece of paper gets out with the clock rate of Apple's X1600 implementation, and all of a sudden, people are complaining.  Had they not seen the "real" numbers, they would have been completely satisfied and oblivious.  Instead, they're nit-picking numbers on paper and getting in a tiffy over them.  What you don't know can't hurt you, but in this case, it seems people wanna beat themselves up once they found out.  I just find that a little weird and juvenile.  Had I read reports about how the performance of the X1600 was lacking before people knew it was underclocked, I might be a little more forgiving of all the criticism -- but it's true: no one was complaining before they saw the numbers, so the only thing they're complaining about are the numbers themselves and not the raw performance of the card.



It's not just clock numbers man, 30 FPS is a lot. If the difference between the actual clock speed and the standard X1600 clock didn't make a difference then I would give crap. However, 30 FPS could make all the difference in the world depending on the app. Say you were running something that ran at only 15 FPS. It's going to be choppy as hell, and very annoying. Now say you add 30 FPS, or maybe half of that, 15 FPS, to your current 15 FPS. Whatever you are doing is A LOT smoother and much more usable. What I'm saying is that the performance difference isn't trivial. Yea it was great before but if it could be even better (noticeably) sign me up. In the future when Apps become more demanding that extra speed is going to help out.

When the MacBook first came out the X1600 Mobility was a really young chip. I don't know what the official release date was but Anandtech predicted it making it's debut in mid January. People didn't know what to expect from the card. It seemed to perform well, people were happy. They didn't have anything to benchmark the card with. It's hard to benchmark a PC video card against a Mac because there aren't any applications that post the same results on identical hardware (and there was no identical hardware that could run Win and OS X) running different operating systems. If people had seen benchmarks between a MacBook and a PC with similar specs both running Windows (for comparison) at launch they would have been disappointed with the graphics performance. However, they didn't have anything to base their opinions off of, so the X1600 performed better than the 9700s of the past and people were happy.

Maybe the majority of people don't care or prefer to have their video card crippled for power reasons, but I for one would at least like the choice to run it crippled or to its specification. When I'm at my desk using my computer I want it to run to the best of its ability because I don't have to worry about battery life.


----------



## Qion (Apr 23, 2006)

I'm with El Diablo when he says "Does it matter? It's freakin' fast!", because only after the crippled specs of the card were "found out" did people start complaining. It's just a bit weird and subtly primal to complain about something in that maner. If these people would actually think about it, they would see that they were not being gypped, for Apple said absolutely nothing about how fast the card is really supposed to run. It's not fair to Apple to start comparing an X1600 in their notebooks to something in a Wintel lapbox like Acer would make. Apple wanted to define a line between performance and humanly justifiable thermodynamics, as well as define a line between performance and lawsuits due to burn injuries. Granted, the MacBooks don't exactly do good for thighs, but they might actually become dangerous if pushed far enough.

If you want the extra hair-blowing and thigh-singing power that the X1600 is capable of, just use some overclocking software and shut up about it. The rest of us are fine with mediocrely amazing speed and are happy refraining from 3rd-degree burns.


----------



## HateEternal (Apr 23, 2006)

Qion said:
			
		

> It's not fair to Apple to start comparing an X1600 in their notebooks to something in a Wintel lapbox like Acer would make.



WOAH!?!?!?! WHAT?! Not fair? How many years have we had Apple cramming their Pentium Burner benchmarks and numbers down our throats? We finally have comparable hardware and now it's not fair? Why?!?!?

An X1600 is an X1600. ATI designed to a specification, not a suggestion. Check out that Anand Tech link. Before the card was even available they were listing the specifications.

If you don't care about performance, thats fine, but the argument that it was fine before people knew isn't a good argument. It was fine because people had nothing to compare it to except old hardware.


----------



## Qion (Apr 23, 2006)

HateEternal said:
			
		

> WOAH!?!?!?! WHAT?! Not fair? How many years have we had Apple cramming their Pentium Burner benchmarks and numbers down our throats? We finally have comparable hardware and now it's not fair? Why?!?!?
> 
> An X1600 is an X1600. ATI designed to a specification, not a suggestion. Check out that Anand Tech link. Before the card was even available they were listing the specifications.
> 
> If you don't care about performance, thats fine, but the argument that it was fine before people knew isn't a good argument. It was fine because people had nothing to compare it to except old hardware.



You're completely missing the point. They ARE different machines. Apple has said nothing about how fast the card is supposed to run. You're just making an opinion when you say that the X1600 was designed to specification -in all hardware- and not a suggestion -in all hardware-.  I don't care how long before the card was released they were releasing specs; Apple is using this card for THEIR purposes. Would it make some quantum difference to you if it was called an X1599.75 instead? Apple's claims to superior performance have never had anything to do with the actual hardware specs... come on man... weren't you around for the megahertz myth? 

If you want to get all hot about this topic, that's not my fault. I'm just stating what I believe to be the obvious.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Apr 23, 2006)

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1848

Yep, it's underclocked significantly.

Yep, clocking it back up to ~470MHz/~470MHz produces significantly better frame rates.

Yep, underclocking it saves battery life significantly (~30 minutes, or about 15% to 20%).

I guess it all depends on whether you want better graphics performance, or better battery life.  My vote would be for better battery life.  Apple may very well put a "Graphics Performance" option akin to their processor clocking in Mac OS X in the future, but for now, dynamically scaling the performance of a GPU is relatively new and is supported on only a fraction of the graphics cards available.


----------



## HateEternal (Apr 23, 2006)

Qion said:
			
		

> Would it make some quantum difference to you if it was called an X1599.75 instead?



I believe it would. The video card market is interesting. Two letters such as XT or PE can add a hundred dollars to the price tag and get you a slightly faster board based on the same chip. I don't see this being any different than a X850XT vs a X850XT PE. People _care_ about that PE. It seems silly, but it makes a difference. Generally the difference between an ATI pro card and non pro is about the same speed difference we are seeing between an Apple 'X1600' and a normal X1600, which is usually accompanied by a price difference.


----------



## Mikuro (Apr 23, 2006)

People do not normally consider video card clock speeds. This is something that is never advertised, because it generally does not vary within the same product line. The relevant factors are A) the type of card (X1600) and B) the amount of VRAM. That's what people expect, and they have valid reason to.

I don't think Apple intended to deceive anyone, but people certainly have a right to be annoyed here.

It would make all the difference in the world if they called it an X1599. That would be a different product, with expectedly different performance. As it is, it performs worse than anyone would reasonably expect given Apple's listed specs.

Then again, for all I know this is all normal in the PC world. Since I don't follow PC hardware very closely, I can't say. It's certainly new to me.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Apr 24, 2006)

Qion said:
			
		

> I'm with El Diablo when he says "Does it matter? It's freakin' fast!", because only after the crippled specs of the card were "found out" did people start complaining.



only after chernobyl was 'found out' did people start complaining.


----------



## Veljo (Apr 24, 2006)

Mikuro is right, 99% of people look at the amount of VRAM and the class the card is in (eg. 256MB VRAM and one of the top cards, this one is for me). Very rarely is the clock speed taken into account.

Either way, this is a laptop, and it was never intended to be the ultimate gamer's machine. It's main purpose is to provide a powerful enough computer in a small, portable package.

Whether or not the clock speeds have been lowered doesn't matter; the fact of the matter is that this is a portable, and to be portable it needs to be able to run independently of a power point. Now to do that you need a battery, and you need that battery to last. If things need to be underclocked a little to achieve this purpose, then go right ahead if you ask me.

Either way, there's no denying that the MacBook Pro still has blistering graphics performance, so people should stop worrying.


----------



## jhawk28 (Apr 24, 2006)

I think I'm ok with the fact that the MBP comes a lower clock speed. It lowers heat (this means longer life usually) and increases battery performance. What I expect to see is an "alternative" driver for those who want faster performance. Who knows, Apple may release a new driver to scale the performance based on the energy saver.

Joshua

P.S. My MBP is coming today.


----------



## fryke (Apr 24, 2006)

Well, I guess it just means that gamers who run Windows on their MacBook Pros are now able to adjust the clocking of the graphics cards and that by doing so they can achieve better speeds for gaming. Great. All _professional_ users of their MacBook Pros just won't care. (Or rather, they care about how much life they can squeeze out of their machine, and would probably rather underclock it even further...)

On the other hand, if Apple _does_ advertise they're using the X1600 then it _should_ be of the same spec as other makers' notebooks. I, too, think it's a bit sneaky... A _simple_ fix would be to let the card run at full speed if external power is connected. If that's possible with the hardware, that is. (Is a reboot needed when adjusting the graphics card's clock?)


----------



## Qion (Apr 24, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> A _simple_ fix would be to let the card run at full speed if external power is connected. If that's possible with the hardware, that is.



I think that this is a great idea. You would only be sucking extra energy while plugged in, and then go back to normal when you're not. It sounds like intuitiveness to me... something I'd expect from Apple. 

(Btw, I am admittedly naive to graphics cards and their specs, and I was just speaking -er, typing- from my consumer standpoint)


----------



## Mikuro (Apr 24, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> A _simple_ fix would be to let the card run at full speed if external power is connected.


That depends on the reason Apple underclocked it. If it was strictly for battery life, then that'd be great. But if it were for heat, then that's another story. From what I've heard, you could fry an egg on the MBP as it is.

Seems like all the raving about the portable possibilities that came with the switch to Intel were a little weak. They run hot, they don't last all that long on battery, and they force compromises like this. Is Apple's design just poor, or is this the way it is with all Core Duo-based laptops?


----------



## nixgeek (Apr 24, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> That depends on the reason Apple underclocked it. If it was strictly for battery life, then that'd be great. But if it were for heat, then that's another story. From what I've heard, you could fry an egg on the MBP as it is.
> 
> Seems like all the raving about the portable possibilities that came with the switch to Intel were a little weak. They run hot, they don't last all that long on battery, and they force compromises like this. Is Apple's design just poor, or is this the way it is with all Core Duo-based laptops?



My wife has an E1705 from Dell that has the Core Duo CPU, and she says that it rarely gets hot at all, even when playing games on it.  This excessive heat might be due to the case design.  If the casing of the MacBook Pro is metallic, then it's basically acting as one large heat spreader.  Am I mistaken on this one?

If it were the CPU, my wife's E1705 would have the same problem.


----------



## HateEternal (Apr 24, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> Seems like all the raving about the portable possibilities that came with the switch to Intel were a little weak. They run hot, they don't last all that long on battery, and they force compromises like this. Is Apple's design just poor, or is this the way it is with all Core Duo-based laptops?



I wouldn't say that it is necessarily a poorly designed laptop. They just tried to squeeze way too much into a small box (OK maybe you could call that bad design). Most Core Duo boxes are a lot larger than the MBP, allowing for better heat dissipation. My Acer is small and it the fan gets loud compared to other Pentium M notebooks I've used. It's the downfall of the small package.



			
				Qion said:
			
		

> I think that this is a great idea. You would only be sucking extra energy while plugged in, and then go back to normal when you're not. It sounds like intuitiveness to me... something I'd expect from Apple.



Exactly... thats all I ever wanted.



			
				HateEternal said:
			
		

> I'd rather have my video card throttle its self down if it isn't being used than have it permanently crippled.





			
				fryke said:
			
		

> (Is a reboot needed when adjusting the graphics card's clock?)



I have used utilities in the past on my Windows box to modify the cards clock; it does not require a restart.


----------



## Qion (Apr 24, 2006)

HateEternal said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that it is necessarily a poorly designed laptop. They just tried to squeeze way too much into a small box (OK maybe you could call that bad design). Most Core Duo boxes are a lot larger than the MBP, allowing for better heat dissipation. My Acer is small and it the fan gets loud compared to other Pentium M notebooks I've used. It's the downfall of the small package.



Hmm... so, I wonder, is the 17" model going to be any cooler? May we even go as far as to assume Apple may not have underclocked the 17"s' cards because of better heat dissipation?


----------

