Apple PowerBook Pro GPU 'massively underclocked'

[Bob Crabtree]

According to HardMac.com, Apple is massively underclocking the ATI Radeon X1600 graphics processor fitted in its Intel-powered MacBook Pro laptop PCs, the aim presumably being to cut down cooling fan activity - to reduce noise and extend battery life (by about half an hour, says HardMac).

However - and you just knew we were going to say this, didn't you? - the clever sods who found this out also realised that it's possible, when running Windows XP (see our recent review of the Apple Boot Camp utility that enables OS X/XP dual-booting), to download from ATI tools and drivers that let the GPU run at full speed, greatly increasing the framerates that can be achieved when playing games and benchmarking.

More in this HEXUS.headline.

[DeathByDuke]

doesnt seem right, paying for something you're not getting.

[ExceededGoku]

well really you arent going to buy a mac to play high end games on so I think its fine, you'd much prefer a quiet stable computer than a loud computer if your doing office applications, browsing etc.

[Jonny]

well really you arent going to buy a mac to play high end games on so I think its fine, you'd much prefer a quiet stable computer than a loud computer if your doing office applications, browsing etc.

Then why not put a weaker graphics card in?

[Gordy]

Got question whether its just underclocked in windows and not in os x. No idea how to find out tho.

[vrykyl]

if theyre going to downclock, why not just slap a x1300 in and lower the price??

[Bob Crabtree]

I'm 95% sure that the same under-clocking will be happening in OS X - for the same reasons.

As for why Apple is using the 1600, rather than something cheaper - it's possible, I'd guess, that they only realised the need for under-clocking after they'd signed on the dotted line with ATI.

But that's only a guess and could be a million miles out.


Bob

[SpotMe]

I find it interesting that my Asus A6Ja isn't even clocked at the ATI recommended speeds. Mine runs at 450Mhz for the core and 350Mhz for the ram!?!

[Gordy]

I'm 95% sure that the same under-clocking will be happening in OS X - for the same reasons.

As for why Apple is using the 1600, rather than something cheaper - it's possible, I'd guess, that they only realised the need for under-clocking after they'd signed on the dotted line with ATI.

But that's only a guess and could be a million miles out.


Bob

I'd bet that the underclocked chip is cheaper to get from ati and requires less juices and produces less heat than a lower end chip?

Just a guess tho

[smtkr]

I'd bet that the underclocked chip is cheaper to get from ati and requires less juices and produces less heat than a lower end chip?

Just a guess tho

This is my guess as well.