[tiger]

Anyone know what the real difference in performance is between these cards? Will there be a noticeable difference between the new and previous gen MacBook Pros?

[nationwide]

according to apple the 8600 seems to be faster than the 1600 but keep in mind the test was performed on two different macbook pro's, a core duo and a core duo 2 with a faster processor and front side bus.

[mduell]

Depends how much they underclock the 8600M GT

But yes, if you're gaming at decent resolutions, it will make a noticeable difference.

[olePigeon]

According to mobile benchmark aggregate NotebookCheck.com, the 8600M GT comes with 16/16 pixel and vertex shaders, clocks at 475/700 for core and memory speeds, supports DirectX 10, and scores the following in 3DMark tests:

3DMark03: 10840
3DMark05: 6029
3DMark06: 3323

By comparison, the current high-end Macbook Pro GPU, the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600, scores as follows:

3DMark03: 8000
3DMark05: 3500
3DMark06: 1800

[Chuckit]

So going by the benchmarks, it averages to about 65% faster. (Not that benchmarks really tell everything, but that's how it works out.)

[tiger]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

According to mobile benchmark aggregate NotebookCheck.com, the 8600M GT comes with 16/16 pixel and vertex shaders, clocks at 475/700 for core and memory speeds, supports DirectX 10, and scores the following in 3DMark tests:

3DMark03: 10840
3DMark05: 6029
3DMark06: 3323

By comparison, the current high-end Macbook Pro GPU, the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600, scores as follows:

3DMark03: 8000
3DMark05: 3500
3DMark06: 1800

Whoa that's amazing, I didn't realize how slow the X1600s were. Thanks.

Also, the new 17 inch MacBook Pros offer a 1900 x 1200 display, this card ought to make a difference there.

[highstakes]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

According to mobile benchmark aggregate NotebookCheck.com, the 8600M GT comes with 16/16 pixel and vertex shaders, clocks at 475/700 for core and memory speeds, supports DirectX 10, and scores the following in 3DMark tests:

3DMark03: 10840
3DMark05: 6029
3DMark06: 3323

By comparison, the current high-end Macbook Pro GPU, the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600, scores as follows:

3DMark03: 8000
3DMark05: 3500
3DMark06: 1800

Really tempted to get a new MBP

[tiger]

Originally Posted by highstakes 

Really tempted to get a new MBP

I'm holding off for a 10ghz quad core with 4 terabytes of memory and a 4 gig graphics card running at a 5ghz clock frequncy... all for 700 dollars.

[Super Mario]

guys, Apple says the 8600GT is 57% faster than the X1600. That shows you how much underclocking they have done because 3DMark 06 puts the 8600GT at 90% faster.

Looks like the 8600GT has been underclocked to 375-400Mhz.

[tiger]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

guys, Apple says the 8600GT is 57% faster than the X1600. That shows you how much underclocking they have done because 3DMark 06 puts the 8600GT at 90% faster.

Looks like the 8600GT has been underclocked to 375-400Mhz.

400 mhz isn't too bad, they downclocked the x1600 to 275... now that's a real speed bump.

[Thinine]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

guys, Apple says the 8600GT is 57% faster than the X1600. That shows you how much underclocking they have done because 3DMark 06 puts the 8600GT at 90% faster.

Looks like the 8600GT has been underclocked to 375-400Mhz.

The MBP has the 8600m GT, not the desktop part. There is quite a speed difference there. From what I've seen the new MBP's should be about 30% faster than the previous versions at 3D stuff.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Thinine 

The MBP has the 8600m GT, not the desktop part. There is quite a speed difference there. From what I've seen the new MBP's should be about 30% faster than the previous versions at 3D stuff.

Ok so I left out the M, but who cares when we should all know we're talking about the mobile chips.

The X1600 is almost the same speed as the cut down 8200M in benchmarks. The 8600M GT offers almost twice the performance. If Apple says they only get 57% increase then they've underclocked the chip massively.

[tiger]

It is not hard to believe that apple has underclocked the chip, the already handicapped GMA in the MacBooks is downclocked to 250mhz from 400mhz... that's a huge performance difference. Apple underclocks pretty much almost everything to save energy, and lower heat output. That's the trade off for having a 1 inch thin notebook.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Ok so I left out the M, but who cares when we should all know we're talking about the mobile chips.

The X1600 is almost the same speed as the cut down 8200M in benchmarks. The 8600M GT offers almost twice the performance. If Apple says they only get 57% increase then they've underclocked the chip massively.

According to the benchmarks oldPigeon posted, the 8600M GT is supposed to be 65% faster.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

According to the benchmarks oldPigeon posted, the 8600M GT is supposed to be 65% faster.

When you benchmark the current gen of grfx cards you must use the latest benching tools and games to get an accurate figure. 3DMark 2006 shows a massive 80-90% difference. Nvidias and Anandtech's own benchmarks show that the 8600MGT is over twice the speed of the cheaper low end 8200M which should be slower than the X1800 and X1700 but in line with the X1600.

Here is some craziness. 8600M GT versus an 8600M GS.

G1S 8600M GT vs F3SV-B1 8600M GS Benchmark - Notebook Forums and Laptop Discussion

Both notebooks have the Core 2 Duo 2.2Ghz T7500. Both tested with 3DMark 2006. The 8600M GT offers twice the performance of the 8600M GS.

Here is a full on rundown of most GPUs that olePigeon quoted from. The benchmarks were done on different CPUs, that's why there are discrepancies.

Notebookcheck: Mobile Graphics Cards - Benchmark List

The 8600M GT scores 3323. The 8600M GS scores 2743. The X1600 scores 1800. That is an 85% difference between 8600M GT and X1600.

Apple claims a 57% increase (they used Quake IV to get this figure) over the "original Core Duo-based MacBook Pro". Note, Core Duo, not Core 2 Duo. That's not pretty. I would expect much more with better faster CPUs, faster bus and much faster high end GPU.

We have to wait and see what Barefeats and other guys come up with when they bench the new books.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

When you benchmark the current gen of grfx cards you must use the latest benching tools and games to get an accurate figure. 3DMark 2006 shows a massive 80-90% difference.

[SNIP]

The 8600M GT offers twice the performance of the 8600M GS. The latter chip is much faster than the ATI X1600 so Apple must have severely underclocked the MacBook Pro's GPU by more than I previously thought.

How can the 8600M GT be only 90% faster than an X1600, but offer twice the performance of a chip that's much faster than the X1600? These claims are wonky. OlePigeon offered hard numbers on both relevant cards (in 3DMark06, even), and that's the best evidence I've seen. I'd also note that Apple is not using a particularly new game as a benchmark, which you claim would throw the numbers off, so I'm not sure why you're taking that as canonical either.

[Super Mario]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How can the 8600M GT be only 90% faster than an X1600, but offer twice the performance of a chip that's much faster than the X1600? These claims are wonky. OlePigeon offered hard numbers on both relevant cards (in 3DMark06, even),

Well Apple's tests are with Quake IV and the benchmarks olePigeon (I linked to the page) showed are on different CPUs. The 8600 GS is 50% faster than the X1600. The 8400 parts are slower than the X1600. Don't rely too much on that page because it doesn't make mention of what CPU the GPUs are tested with. Their Geforce 7 series results are faster than the Geforce 8 series. They must have used 3Ghz Core Duo Extremes for those scores (Alienware and Dell sell notebooks with overclocked CPUs).

On the same CPU the 8600M GT is almost twice as fast as the 8600M GS under 3DMark06. The hard numbers are on that page I linked with the two Asus notebooks benched side by side.

In the real world the results will vary but there's no way a full clocked 8600M GT on a Santa Rosa Core 2 Duo should be only 57% faster than a X1600 on an original Core Duo. The difference in real world application, like Quake IV or Doom III, should be almost double or more.

I hope you're not saying Apple didn't underclock the new GPU.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Well Apple's tests are with Quake IV and the benchmarks olePigeon (I linked to the page) showed are on different CPUs. The 8600 GS is 50% faster than the X1600. The 8400 parts are slower than the X1600. Don't rely too much on that page because it doesn't make mention of what CPU the GPUs are tested with. Their Geforce 7 series results are faster than the Geforce 8 series. They must have used 3Ghz Core Duo Extremes for those scores (Alienware and Dell sell notebooks with overclocked CPUs).

On the same CPU the 8600M GT is almost twice as fast as the 8600M GS under 3DMark06. The hard numbers are on that page I linked with the two Asus notebooks benched side by side.

In the real world the results will vary but there's no way a full clocked 8600M GT on a Santa Rosa Core 2 Duo should be only 57% faster than a X1600 on an original Core Duo. The difference in real world application, like Quake IV or Doom III, should be almost double or more.

I hope you're not saying Apple didn't underclock the new GPU.

"Apple didn't underclock the new GPU" and "Apple underclocked the GPU exactly as you guess they did" are not the only options here. For instance, there's also "Apple probably underclocked the GPU, but we don't actually know how much."

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

"Apple didn't underclock the new GPU" and "Apple underclocked the GPU exactly as you guess they did" are not the only options here. For instance, there's also "Apple probably underclocked the GPU, but we don't actually know how much."

okay, I didn't ask for an English Lit lesson.

I see a massive underclock by as much as a 30% or more. But nobody can tell until independent tests.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

okay, I didn't ask for an English Lit lesson.

I see a massive underclock by as much as a 30% or more. But nobody can tell until independent tests.

That I can agree with.

[bearcatrp]

The under clocking is probably done to control the heat and power consumption. Apple should have a some kind of setting control that lets users adjust this to our preference (ie max for gaming or low for battery life). My old G4 laptop would get so hot after gaming for an hour that I couldn't touch the bottom.
Randy

[Super Mario]

Apple's underclocking is to boast about battery life. Why not let it dynamically clock up when the AC power is plugged in? Well because Apple thinks a laptop has to be 1 inch thin and made of metal. We'll burn our nuts and sue them. Doh.

They should use a slanted design. 0.75 inches thin at the front and 1.25 inches thick at the back. Volume stay the same and there's more space for a better cooling system where the processors and grfx chip are. No more underclocked chips. Anyone notice they are using 667 DDR memory on a 800Mhz bus?

[tiger]

Component speeds are automatically reduced when running on battery, but that's not the primary reason why apple underclocks. Thin and cool laptops is the main reason, mine starts spinning the fans as soon as I start a game, and after about 30 minutes, I could no longer keep it in my lap... after an hour it was frying my desk. These laptops are already running extremely hot as it is due to the massive amount of power packed into them... I assume that's why they went with the lower clocked GT that has twice ammount of processors. My guess is that it should still smoke most games out there. The 7600 GT on the iMacs was great at playing games, full settings, full ress... so even though this one may be underclocked it should not be much of a problem.

[kazurm]

First barefeats test results...

[olePigeon]

I remember there being utilties for the X1600 to "overclock" the Radeon, or rather, put it back at its normal CPU speed. Are there similar tools for the nVidia graphics? If Apple underclocks their video cards by 200 MHz, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a little battery life and heat (I've never had an issue with the heat) to get that extra 200 MHz.

[P]

Originally Posted by kazurm 

First barefeats test results...

That sucks. The 8600M GT can't even beat the 7600 GT in the last gen iMac. Unless the drivers are far from the usual quality - not impossible, but unlikely - Apple did indeed underclock the chip significantly. We can certainly hope that Leopard makes better use of the chip - it will have a significantly updated OpenGL, after all - and that Apple includes accelerated H.264 support in Quicktime, but if not, this was a much smaller update than it seemed at first.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by kazurm 

First barefeats test results...

LOL
hahahah almost neck in neck with the 7300 TP (toilet pro) and much slower than the iMac's 7600 GT. Forget that 30% underclock estimate. This mother has been underclocked 50%!!!!!!!

The Windows guys are going to have a field day with this one when they use Windows to see what Apple has done to the chip!

[tiger]

Originally Posted by kazurm 

First barefeats test results...

Man that really sucks... Perhaps the iMacs will have better luck without extreme underclocking. Also, it seems apple's underclocked these cards a lot more than 300 Mhz.

[buffswin]

Why is it surprising that a notebook graphics card does not perform as well as a desktop graphics card?

Graphics cards use a lot of energy (electricity) and give off a lot of heat.
In a desktop machine, this is not a problem because the computer is plugged into the wall outlet all the time, and the machine has housing space for fans, cooling vents, etc.

In a laptop machine, energy is of central importance, especially if you are trying to squeeze 3+ hours out of a battery. Heat is also a problem, because all of the components are packed tightly together and there isn't always a lot of space for fans and so forth.

[tiger]

The iMac also uses mobile graphics cards which are inferior, what's surprising is that they have underclocked it so much that it scores very poorly against the inferior 7600 GT when it should be leaps ahead.

[kazurm]

Well, not all users use a laptop on the go, some (like me) also use it a lot as a desktop replacement. I don't really care about battery life, so if possible, I'd try to push the gfx card to it's maximum setting (or near to it, depending on heat).

I'm still hoping that the 8600M GT in the new 17" runs a bit faster, as barefeats found out in the older models.

[JoshuaZ]

Eh, someone will find out over to clock it back up again. Then someone else will do it, and later burn themselves, then start a thread complaining about how Macs such because he got his legs burned while overclocking and not wearing pants.

Its an improvement from the last model and has some good specs on it, even if its underclocked. Its what you get for buying a laptop.

As long as it plays StarCraft 2, I'll be happy! (When I buy one in two months.)

I'd like to see the difference between the low end model and the medium model. See if that extra 128 memory and CPU power makes a major difference.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by kazurm 

I'm still hoping that the 8600M GT in the new 17" runs a bit faster, as barefeats found out in the older models.

The MBP they tested is the 17". The only other new MBP they are going to test for now is the 2.2Ghz 15".

[kazurm]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

The MBP they tested is the 17". The only other new MBP they are going to test for now is the 2.2Ghz 15".

Hm, so I took a look again:

"We're starting with a page comparing the 3D Gaming Speed of the 15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz C2D "Rosa" to various other Macs."

and

"
We will also be testing the 17" version of the latest MacBook Pro to see if the GPU clocks up higher than the 15" (like we observed on the late 2006 models).
"

[Super Mario]

Barefeets isn't doing a good job at testing or criticising the 8600M GT in the MBP at all. Even though it is underperforming massively all they say is it is slower than the 7600 in the iMac. They're not criticising this poor showing...



At most they went into Windows XP to check the clockspeeds out and found

Core Clock when idle 169MHz
Core Clock in 2D 375MHz
Core Clock in 3D 470MHz
Memory Clock when idle 100MHz
Memory Clock in 2D 502MHz
Memory Clock in 3D 635MHz

Nvidia and Anandtech list the 8600M GT as having

Core Clock 475Mhz
Shader Clock 950Mhz
DDR RAM Clock 1400 MHz (700Mhz x 2)

Judging from their benchmarks there's no way the 8600M GT is running anywhere near its full clockspeed under Mac OS X. The Mac drivers must be hobbled to operate at the lower clockspeeds of 375Mhz Core Clock/502Mhz Memory Clock or less.

[P]

I doubt that. Apple doesn't underclock chips to annoy you personally - it underclocks them to keep the heat down and the battery time up. One of the new features in the 8x00M series is that it clocks up and down on the fly - that would achieve the same goal. At most, they would do what they do with the CPU - let the user set the mode in the Energy Saver panel.

No, if the chip runs with the core at full speed under XP, it does under X. The RAM may be underclocked, which would hobble the chip as the memory bandwidth seems to be its major limitation. More likely the drivers and the lack of a more modern OpenGL is holding the chip back. Give it some time - we were supposed to have Leopard by now, so the 8600M support in Tiger has to be a hack.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by P 

I doubt that. Apple doesn't underclock chips to annoy you personally - it underclocks them to keep the heat down and the battery time up.

Dude, you can't say Apple doesn't and does underclock in one paragraph!

One of the new features in the 8x00M series is that it clocks up and down on the fly - that would achieve the same goal. At most, they would do what they do with the CPU - let the user set the mode in the Energy Saver panel.

Apple doesn't supply a control panel to adjust GPU clockspeeds. The 8600M GT's driver for Mac clearly doesn't perform at the level it should so automatic core speed adjustment looks disabled.

if the chip runs with the core at full speed under XP, it does under X.

The drivers set the clock speed when booting up. Windows and Mac drivers set a different clock. Tiger mentioned the X1600 is underclocked to 275Mhz in OS X. Barefeets (on the same page) shows it runs at the full 475Mhz under XP.

The RAM may be underclocked, which would hobble the chip as the memory bandwidth seems to be its major limitation. More likely the drivers and the lack of a more modern OpenGL is holding the chip back. Give it some time - we were supposed to have Leopard by now, so the 8600M support in Tiger has to be a hack.

Doh! Drivers are supplied by Nvidia to Apple who package it the way they want and set the clockspeed they deem perfect for battery life and heat output. There's no such thing as a hack driver coming from Nvidia. Apple has always underclocked. In the case of the 8600M GT they have gone too far. If they were going to cut performance for the sake of battery life etc they should have used an 8400M.

Or maybe I'll forget about all things 3D in OS X and use Vista for all that.

[Thinine]

If you look at what you posted you'll see that when in 3D the GPU clocks almost all the way up to where it's supposed to be. You're losing 5MHz Core and 130MHz memory.

And Halo's performance problems are due to ATi vs. nVidia GPUs, not much else. It's its own fault.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Thinine 

If you look at what you posted you'll see that when in 3D the GPU clocks almost all the way up to where it's supposed to be. You're losing 5MHz Core and 130MHz memory.

In Windows XP. Barefeets also show the X1600 runs without underclocking in XP. In OS X both GPUs are underpowered compared to all Windows benchmarks that are out there.

The 8600M GT should not be so slow compared to the 7600 in the all round slower iMac. That is a given. It should be miles ahead. Look at this comparison between two Windows notebooks to see how well the 8600M GT should fare against a 7700 (faster than the iMac's 7600) in an Asus Lamborghini VX2.

TrustedReviews - Evesham Zieo N500-HD

The 8600 is much faster than the 7700 in most tests and around the same in others. The 7700 is much faster than an X1600 and 7600 in 3DMark06, etc. Yet Apple's site says their implementation of the 8600M GT is only 57% faster than the original MBP which was slower all around.

It is very disappointing to see this performance because there are many notebooks such as the Evesham above that aren't exactly too thick, hot or suffering poor battery life.



When someone wants to use their notebook as a desktop replacement there should be settings that allow them to get full performance out of their chips. Apple doesn't provide any advanced video card settings to control clock rates.

And Halo's performance problems are due to ATi vs. nVidia GPUs, not much else. It's its own fault.

They 8600 and 7300 in the Halo chart are both Nvidia chips. The Mac Pro's advantage is its CPU but even then these games should not be so CPU bound, the 8600M GT should beat the 7300 easily.

[tiger]

Apple has always used high end GPU's and always underclocked them, but the fact that they use a good GPU makes it reasonable. If they used a 7600go or something similar and underclocked it, then people should be complaining. But they chose an 8600M GT which has double the number of processors as the 8600 GS, its the higher end model and therefore when underclocking it, the performance is stilla acceptable. Its giving you about 60 frames, at high settings, that really isn't too bad. Most people who complain are hard core gamers who want a super fast overclocked card. Its a 1 inch thin laptop, and performs well compared to most other crap pc laptops out there that weight over 10 pounds.

[Super Mario]

Yeah but the point is we should have system preferences for controlling the clock rates so we can use it in desktop replacement modes when we don't need an unplugged MBP in our lap. The Windows guys have it too good. That link I posted way up top of the page has one guy overclocked his 8600M GT to 700Mhz without extra cooling!!!!!!!!!!!!!%$^!^%

[JoshuaZ]

The question is, can you spot the difference between 30 fps and 35 fps? If your answer is no, then stop complaining.

:-)

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ 

The question is, can you spot the difference between 30 fps and 35 fps? If your answer is no, then stop complaining.

:-)

8600M GT versus 7700. I would notice that! The iMac's 7600 is slower than the 7700 so imagine! Yet the 7600 in the iMac is faster than the 8600M GT in the MBP....by miles!

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by P 

We know that Leopard has a significantly updated OpenGL stack - Apple said so last year. We also know that Quartz is changing again, with Core Animation and Quartz 2D Extreme. We have reason to believe that the kernel will also change significantly this time.

hgwedfhdhflwdhjfl

This is all just speculation. We won't know until we have Leopard up and running on an MBP

Gimme a break with your Leopard. The next OS isn't an issue. You don't see Windows guys telling everyone to shell out for Vista to get the graphic driver they should be getting with XP. Such a sorry ass excuse for crippled drivers dude.

[P]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Dude, you can't say Apple doesn't and does underclock in one paragraph!

I didn't. I said that their motivation wasn't to annoy you.

Perhaps you do need that English Lit lesson...

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Apple doesn't supply a control panel to adjust GPU clockspeeds. The 8600M GT's driver for Mac clearly doesn't perform at the level it should so automatic core speed adjustment looks disabled.

I meant that the existing setting in Energy Saver might be set to control this as well. It would be very interesting to see "live" clockspeed measurements when doing different things under X to see if the clock goes up and down. It is indeed possible that the driver is not up to date yet - that's what I mentioned below.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

The drivers set the clock speed when booting up. Windows and Mac drivers set a different clock. Tiger mentioned the X1600 is underclocked to 275Mhz in OS X. Barefeets (on the same page) shows it runs at the full 475Mhz under XP.

He did? I'd love to see the source for that - I read it as a reaction to low test scores.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Doh! Drivers are supplied by Nvidia to Apple who package it the way they want and set the clockspeed they deem perfect for battery life and heat output. There's no such thing as a hack driver coming from Nvidia. Apple has always underclocked. In the case of the 8600M GT they have gone too far. If they were going to cut performance for the sake of battery life etc they should have used an 8400M.

My English must be very bad or something...

We know that Leopard has a significantly updated OpenGL stack - Apple said so last year. We also know that Quartz is changing again, with Core Animation and Quartz 2D Extreme. We have reason to believe that the kernel will also change significantly this time.

(The reasoning behind this is more complicated - basically, Tiger was the first OS to set the kernel APIs 1.0. Now that the kernel APIs have been set, Apple can start modifying the kernel data structures as long as they keep the 1.0 version of the API working as it did in Tiger. All extensions that used this API will still work, and Apple can improve the kernel as they please - including making version 1.1 of the API, if they require. Changing those data structure at any point up to and including Tiger would have broken a lot of kernel extensions. Now, driver developers have had years come up with new drivers that work on both Tiger and Leopard, and only drivers that were written for Panther are likely to fail under Leopard.)

These two things but together suggest that making a driver for Leopard will be very different from making one for Tiger. Not that a Tiger driver won't work in Leopard - it might, and likely will for less complicated subcomponents - but you could squeeze out more speed if you design it for Leopard. Assuming that nVidia did that - likely, if Leopard was supposed to be out by now - they would have had to hack something up for Tiger. That driver would then not be full-featured.

This is all just speculation. We won't know until we have Leopard up and running on an MBP. That the chip clocks that high in XP is a good sign though - that means that any crippling that may be there may be undone in software, similar to how the L2 cache on G3s could be overclocked in software.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

My response was in a time machine so I'll respond again outside my Delorean.

Gimme a break with your Leopard. The next OS isn't an issue. You don't see Windows guys telling everyone to shell out for Vista to get the graphic driver they should be getting with XP. Such a sorry ass excuse for crippled drivers dude.

I'm sure they're very sorry for offering a productive solution. Whining about the unfairness of life is of course a much better response to the situation.

[Chuckit]

WTF? How did my response wind up before the post I was responding to?

[Super Mario]

My response was in a time machine so I'll respond again outside my Delorean.

Gimme a break with your Leopard. The next OS isn't an issue. You don't see Windows guys telling everyone to shell out for Vista to get the graphic driver they should be getting with XP. Such a sorry ass excuse for crippled drivers dude.

[Super Mario]

:THUNDER:

The Gods of GPUs Curseth Apple users who make excuses for underclocked graphics by mixeth up time and space!!!!!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Oh man goAway goMac. I ****ing hate it whenever you come along and think you know everything and then insult people wiht your superior attitude.

This is ironic.