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


View All Comments

  • Andrew Ku - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    We are currently revising our graphics benchmark suite in the anticipation of future DX9 stuff. These two GPUs are full DX9 parts, and we are benchmarking them accordingly. UT2003 and our current line of benchmarking titles are DX8, and therefore aren't specifically appropriate for this context. Why are our choices of benchmark titles odd? The Mobility and Go mobile graphics parts are no more than mobile version of desktop processors (clocked down, better power management features and in the M10 case integrated memory package). Reply
  • dvinnen - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    Where's UT2003 and other stables? Odd choice of benchmarks. I would of liked to see how it stood up to desktop varients also. Reply
  • Andrew Ku - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link


    Question 1: Actually, we were considering memory bandwidth as a possible issue. I will try and report back as soon as we sort this out.

    Question 2: We tested at 1600x1200 for benchmark purposes, as it shows degrade. Additionally, the newer desknotes and mobile multimedia notebooks are capable of this resolution and higher.
  • Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link

    Great review, funny too. (And it wasn't just the horrible failure of the Go5650 to perform that I found amusing!) Reply
  • AgaBooga - Sunday, September 14, 2003 - link

    Wow, nice set of benchmarkings applications! That is really something you've put together! My compliments to you!

    Do you think it is bound by something other than the GPU at 1024x768 on Splinter Cell 2_2_1 Set 1? Also, why was it tested at 1600x1200 because laptop users usually don't use resolutions that high on a relatively small screen than what is used on a desktop.
  • Andrew Ku - Sunday, September 14, 2003 - link

    I am somewhat considered a new writer. My first article was the CEO Forum - Q3/2003. Reply
  • AgaBooga - Sunday, September 14, 2003 - link

    New article writer? Not bad, it seems pretty good! Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now