E6410 Owner's Thread

I'm using a i7-620m with NVS 3100M. There is the 'Multi core' page within the BIOS which allows us to use only one core. Would it reduce power comsumption considerably? I don't have a power meter with me right now but I'd like to know.

 

I don't have the laptop, but Nvidia GPU's do have good power saving feature embedded. Assuming your are maximizing battery life, wireless on, my simple estimate would be 5 to 7 hours, which is very good for such laptop. Considering the deterioration of the battery over time, your system should fit your need nicely.

I would suggest more memory though. 3GB is what I recommend for Win7 64-bit for a great smooth experience. As price wise upgrading to 3GB is silly, 4GB is the ideal. PLUS, with the extra memory you won't have any memory problem for years to come as software become more complex (more features, nicer interfaces, etc..) and more demanding (more resources to fit the demand).
2GB is not enough. A big chunk is for Windows, another large chunk is for SuperFetch (which you want, especially on a laptop), and about 700MB for your software. A web browser can easily eat 300MB... Consider that RAM is never fragmented, and never defragmented during operation, you will face a lot of Context Switch. Context Switch is when the OS can't fit a program in 1 block, all together anywhere, even thought the total amount would make it fit. What happens, is that your OS (they all work the same way), clears the RAM, and transfer the backup memory which your OS do all the time as you use your system, and transfer it to your RAM, in a nice compact mater (every blocks follows with no holes, to fit the program that you ran, that initially did not fit). As the CPU can only access your RAM (outside of L1/L2/L3 cache), you computer freezes during this time, while the operation happens. Of course you have your OS that does it's best to make the system feel more responsive, so it goes in first, then your software. In addition to the slow operation that you will face now and then, you will reduce your battery life with the constant page file swap (when the OS uses your page fie to extend your RAM, and swap between processes from HDD to RAM and vise-versa, you will get heavy HDD seek time, which will slow down further your computer performance, and also reduce your battery life.

 

You don't need a power meter you can use programs to read Windows API callback about your battery to know the discharge rate. I use Everest, but it's not free, but their is a trial version which should fit your needs for your test.
In Everest, go to Computer > Power Management on the side column to know.
Computer Diagnostics & Network Audits Software | Lavalys.com

You need to unplug your laptop to read the discharge rate.

Intel (same for AMD) uses a power management system which not only down clocks your CPU to reduce power usage, but can also disable power to it's idle cores. Where you gain, or should gain by forcing 1 core, is gaining battery life when the system is under load.

On my laptop (E6400) I simply force the CPU at minimum speed when on battery (~800MHz) with Windows 7 power management. As I don't stress the CPU when on battery, why should I have my CPU spike at full speed because I scaled a window or something.

 

That is good going. The other day my E6410 (Intel graphics) was forecasting 7 hours with the battery at 83%.

HWiNFO32 has a CPU power consumption readout (on the Sensors tab)which is broadly correct although I am not convinced about the absolute accuracy. You can also use a battery monitoring program to see the actual battery power drain when running on battery (this should be higher than the CPU power because of the power used by the other components).

It would interesting to see the effect of disabling one core although I suspect that difference may not be very big since all the work will fall on the one active core when will spend less time in the low power states.

John

 

Dell has insane RAM prices,and I would have gone with one Gb if not for the OS requirement. A $50 4Gb OCZ stick will be ordered and delivered before it arrives, and I may spring for an SSD in the near future. Definitely excited about this, never had a laptop with respectable battery life before.

Anybody do much gaming on these? I got adequate performance in UT3 with my old HP, but Borderlands barely ran. Judging by the NVS benchmarks, it looks like enough of a boost over my 7600go. It won't be my primary gaming machine, but I'm often out win friends and it's convenient to pull out my notebook.

 

Many manufacturers have crazy RAM prices, they mark it up because they hardly make any money on the actual laptops, only on extra accessories, software and upgrades.

The NVS 3100M is based off the GT310M which won't be significantly better than your Geforce 7600 Go. Remember Quadros aren't meant for gaming, that's Geforce cards job.

 

Specs from Notebookcheck.net

7600go
3DMark01 - 19036.9
3DMark03 - 7798.1
3DMark05 - 3240.5
3DMark06 - 1828
Windows Experience Score - 4.4~4.7 on mine

NVS 3100M
3DMark01 - 23581.5
3DMark03 - 10238.2
3DMark05 - 6928.3
3DMark06 - 3400.5
Windows Experience Score - 4.4 Graphics, 5.9 Gaming

Nearly double scores sound significant enough for me. I'm mainly upgrading because I need something better for school. I was looking at the consumer notebooks with Radeon 5730s, but they wouldn't give me the battery life or warranty that I get with the Latitude. Even if it's just equal in gaming performance, pretty much everything else is an upgrade from what I have.

 

Nha. A quadro is a Geforce with less disabled features related to CAD and CUDA performance/effects. If you install the Quadro drivers then the drivers is optimized for CAD/3D related software like AutoCad, 3D studio Max, etc.. instead of games. Installing the Geforce drivers will provide you optimization on the gaming side instead.

The Geforce 310M is more powerful than the 7600Go in all aspects. It provide PhysiX, CUDA, OpenCL (CL not GL... it's the non-Nvidia equivalent of CUDA) support, not to mention DX10 support, and is well, more power efficient, and provide better performance. (Also it's a great overclocker, while the 7600 Go is already releasing magma out of your laptop fan (slight exaggeration )).
It's performance is a tiny bit faster than the Geforce 210M, due to it's faster memory ship used.

 

Huh? The nVidia spec page says it has GL 2.1. It also says it DOESN'T have PhysX... Playing Quake III is more important to me than PhysX, regardless.

No, you hit the nail on the head here.

 

Benchmarks should be ignores at all cost.
Intel, Nvidia and ATi all 3 performs driver tricks to get better scores. Intel is going further down with Sandy Bridge GPU, where it popular games it simply ignores effects and go "Look it runs Crysis super fast! at low settings", and when you compare screen shots on your side, you see effects like fog, smoke, some particle effects, and more, reduced or simply eliminated, while both system has the same game settings. Same for Intel GPU's getting super high marks in Windows Experience Index, while it can even run Monkey Island SE fine, while a lower WEI score Nvidia chip, runs it above and beyond. Same for 3D mark. And we have no idea is a certain company comes to hem with a briefcase filled with money to advantage the score of a specific GPU model from a company.

The only thing you should look, is real world performance. Which is FPS in games, and be wise about it (see in game screen shot comparison, to make sure the visuals are the same, and that no effect is missing. That last point was not needed, but since Intel is Intel, and if you are convinced that Intel is a gaming GPU, then yes).