*OFFICIAL* M11x Benchmark Thread

Got my m11x yesterday, and I just ran my first 3dmar06 benchmark

3dmark score: 6505 3dmarks

This is on stock gpu settings, and the su7300 OC'd using the bios overclock option. Haven't had any issues what so ever on this computer so far. I have been pleasantly surprised by this things performance and quality.

 

I have a quick couple a' questions, please bear with me if I am a little slow here or not...

I am looking to post a 3dmark vantage benchmark here, BUT I am noticing that the above says " All runs done at default settings, native resolution, 1280 x 768." ... correct me if I am wrong, but my native resolution = 1366x768?

secondly, when running 3dmark vantage (version 1.0.0) on windows 7 x64 home premium it would crash at the 1st processor benchmark with the error "IDXGISwapChain::ResizeBuffers failed...." and would literally stop the benchmark process. so I clicked the link in the error which took me to here, which tells me the fix is to download the latest benchmark version - which currently is 1.0.2, so I grabbed the patch and install it. I then re-launch 3dmark vantage, and now get the error (after windows 7 gives me a message about an application is requiring it to goto BASIC colormode, because 3dvantage cannot suppport AERO color theme??) message with heading "IMPORTANT INFORMATION" reading " required resolution of 1280x1024 is not supported" the only button is CLOSE! now I cannot run ANY benchmarks in 3dmark vantage?!?! I can goto the OPTIONS tab and see the list of resolutions = 1366x768 (16:9) <- which is what 3dmark vantage starts up with, but no matter what resolution I choose in TEST OPTIONS if I click the RUN BENCHMARK button to start the testing, I get the error " Minimum required resolution is not support"

how are people benchmarking the m11x with 3dmark vantage? I really dont see how it is even possible? hahaah I am certain I am doing something wrong (I hope!) please assist

 

OK, I was playing with this yesterday since I just got my M11X. Just some default setting runs. Havn't had time to run some actual benchmarks. When you run Vantage at any other resolution below 1280x1024, it will give CPU and GPU scores, but doesn't give an overall score. I think in order to get the overall score, you need to run it on an external monitor that supports that resolution. I will have a better answer by friday night as friday is my only day off, and I will get more time to play with it. That was one of the reasons for the default of 1280x1024 for Vantage runs. As you can see by the scores, there are not many who have actually done it.

Don't worry about it going to basic color mode. Thats normal and once you exit, it will change back to Aero. Have you paid for Vantage? If not, then you can't change the default settings. It's $20 for a product key, and you can change up the settings. Another reason for 1280x1024 is to standardize all the bench runs, as well as be able to compare to other systems. I'm not how sure it will effect it running on an external monitor thought.

But I think the main thing is registering Vantage, which will allow you to change all the settings. Also,a piece of advice, when running Vantage, go to options, feature tests, and click each of the six to turn them off. They don't count towards your overall Vantage score, and it will cut a lot of time off your runs. Of course you can run them for fun, but for the purpose of this thread, they really are not necccessary. If you need any information feel free to PM me and I will try and get back to you soon. Just remember I'm 8 hours ahead of the east coas time

1280x768 applies more toward 3DMark06, which can give you a score at that resolution. I may have to go back and edit the Vantage portion.

 

yes, I paid for vantage... well actually, I have the "advanced edition" when I purchased my video card for my desktop, thru EVGA.

great, thanks for the info! I did not know that

I will try with an external monitor then, and go from there - thanks alot!

 

abusedbunny asked about this, dunno if you still need it, but i'm running m11x with intel ssd, 2gb ram, su4100 pretty much all the basic stuff plus the intel drive, and just benched killing floor.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
27773, 857469, 13, 52, 32.390

the min was probably when i went freecam around the map super fast running into a boatload of monsters all at once so its understandable. Either that or it was from the beginning when the benchmark started and doesnt have anything to do with the game at all. Ran super fluidly. kf-biotic map

ALSO

counter strike source, cant remember what map. two rounds, also benched other players being much better than me. full settings and res except for 2x AA and 2x AF. Looked great, ran very fluidly.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
9561, 210560, 23, 86, 45.407

 

i should mention I'm taking requests for benches on my previously mentioned system. I'll also put the specs in sig.

 

Has anyone benched Bad Company 2 yet? This game looks almost as good as Crysis.

 

I have a couple videos in my sig for BFBC2 gameplay.. as for real benchmarking eggs scrambled did a quicky I think, but there's no benchmark tool for it, so it's all relative to what scene you're in

 

Thanks, Azn. From some of your videos, it looks like Crysis will be unplayable @ the snow levels.

 

There's a lot of talk about it in the Gaming thread, I havn't played it yet or even gotten around to installing it. Right now I'm finally getting to doing some OCing 3DMark06 runs. Numbers should be up later tonight.

 

What makes you say that? I'm on mediums with high shaders and low shadows. If it struggles then lows will work but not unplayable. Plus the snow levels have been benched and the seem fine.

 

I played Heroes of Might and Magic 5, and Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising for a bit today. I have a Core 2 processor, 4GB RAM, and I did NOT overclock the CPU or GPU. I tested at the default 1366x768 resolution.

Heroes 5: Highest settings, including maxed AA and AF:
Average FPS: 60-80

Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising Medium settings (which includes the highest-detail textures), AA off:
Min: 29
Max: 54
Average: 38.205

The Operation Flashpoint: DR results are very good, considering I did not overclock, and one of the minimum requirements for the game is a 2.4GHz dual core processor! It's also worth noting that my Flashpoint results were practically the same regardless of whether I had video settings at medium or low. This leads me to believe that I would get a decent FPS improvement if I were to overclock.

 

Well finally got around to OCing the GPU on the M11X. Goal as of now is to break 7100 on 3DMark06.

Ended the night with 7077

SM2.0 Score 3274
HDR/SM3.0 Score 3498
CPU Score 1467

 

O_O Sweeet score...

 

bfbc2 wont run very well for me for some reason. the campaign works about twice as well as a multiplayer match. It doesn't really fit, I'm wondering if it has to do with the cpu calculating what that guy five miles over there is doing to the guy in front of him.

still looking into it. I suppose 20fps constant is doable though.

 

I want to see how well Bad Company 2 plays with a 7077 3d06 score. On a side note, do you guys think it will be possible to, later down the line, convince Dell to do a replacement for me (for when they upgrade the CPU etc)? I'll even give them an extra $100 if possible.

 

guys can you please make a OC guide (GPU) plz

 

Why on earth would they do that?

 

Wow is all I can say. Please post up your GPU clock speeds and what program you used?

 

You can see his oc'd gpu clocks vs the default ones.

 

lol how optimistic

 

Lol just noticed that thanks.

 

Download Nvidia System Tools, and install the Performance Tool. Then open it, and adjust your clock settings in Device settings. Have to play around with it.

 

weird stuff happening..

okay I was able to benchmark a couple runs, stock, and OC'd, did two runs. Then on my 3rd and 4th runs trying different OC options, I dropped down to 4100, down from 6400 and 6700 respectively. Is this because of running 3Dmark06 too much? Downclocking from heat? My temps are fine max GPU temp was only 60C on 2nd run. I only changed GPU clocks between runs. Blah this is bothering me =T

 

Are you running on battery?? Check your power settings. Or go into Alien FX and make sure that you have your GPU set to max settings on battery. Might want to check your power cable though.

 

benchmarking over and over can accelerate memory leakage, idk if thats whats causing it though. i ran the world in conflict benchmark about 6 times in a row and when i went back to playing the game i had red lines all over the ground and 2d trees and terrible frame rates. IDK why but i had to reinstall the game.

 

nope, definitely checked that. I'm plugged in, high performance and all. Like I said, I ran it twice with 6400, OC'd then 6700, then changed OC settings ran again and 4100, and changed OC settings again another 4100. It was doing this earlier today too and I uninstalled my drivers and went to stock and reran to get those scores above. now it's dropped down again. very frustrating. I reinstalled dox drivers and rebooted, we'll see what I score again. gonna run it again.

reran and got 6448 so back to normal. I think using EVGA precision and messing with clocks that don't seem to work seem to downclock my GPU or something.. Not gonna mess with it too much. I will try a test GPU OC run tomorrow on BFBC2 and see if it helps much at all or not.

 

You should stick with Nvidia System Tools. Thats what I use and it's pretty good.

How are the Dox drivers compared to the stck drivers? I consistantly pumped out over 7k on 3DMark06 on stock drivers. Havn't tried the Dox ones yet. Just started to think about it since I see it linked in your sig. My goal is to break 7100.

 

yo i've only ever gotten 4100 3dmarks so far, but I havent had time to mess with it because of school.

How did you fix that?

 

Aznguy, try getting a frame rate for BFBC2 with BLOOM off, DX9, HBAO off.
I think it'll surprise us all how well this thing will actually be able to run it.

 

If there has/have been a/any GTAIV benches then please someone PM me the links (I know how bloody fast these threads move and I can never keep up ).

Thanks.

 

I got some results for overclocked GPU in Battlefield Bad Company 2 benchmarking. Confirms the bottleneck of the CPU. Here goes:

Game Settings (constant between all runs - attached img): Medium detail, medium textures, low shadows, low effects, 1xAA, 1xAF, vsync off, HBAO off, bloom is off, DirectX 9; also Dox drivers (sig)
Single player - beginning of the game
run 1: started at cutscene in boat right after the beginning captions and ending after getting onto the beach (consisting of just custscenes both using game engine and I believe video)
run2: From the beach to the beginning of the tank cutscene - this consisted of entirely gameplay. Meaning I had control of the character the entire time and "played".

CPU OC: 1.6ghz; GPU: Stock clocks
--
run 1:
Min Max Avg
11 148 35.124
--
run2:
Min Max Avg
10 59 27.405
--------------

CPU OC: 1.6ghz; GPU: Gpu clock@575Mhz, Memory@875Mhz, Shader@1380Mhz; overclocked using EVGA Precision 3dmark06 score of 6773
--
run 1:
Min Max Avg
12 169 35.959
--
run 2:
Min Max Avg
14 63 27.561
As you can see min and max FPS increased but overall average FPS is nearly identical. So don't bother OC'ing GPU for this, it's just a waste of GPU life and extra heat.
--------------
all lows
run 1:
Min Max Avg
0 147 35.243
--
run 2:
Min Max Avg
12 52 28.437
---
uhhh yeah not much improvement lol. That 0 fps on run 1 area not sure why but my computer stuttered for a few seconds so I think that's why. Anyway run 2 was the same area as the other run 2's and only like 1.5FPS better.. ???
I did a run on all LOWs everything else the same, so low graphic details and low textures here were my two different benchmark areas same as above
------
now on high graphical details and high textures.. still aside from max fps, average fps is fine..
run 1:
Min Max Avg
0 133 35.251
--
run 2:
Min Max Avg
10 42 26.554

and I can certainly tell the difference between high and low.
-----------
now from a save point I walked through an area toward the beginning of a cutscene, maybe just a 15-20second walk. All runs are the same from here on down.

detail high, textures high, shadows low, effects high
Min Max Avg
22 38 31.137
--
detail low, textures low, shadows low, effects high
Min Max Avg
29 46 37.442
--
details high, textures low, shadows low, effects low
Min Max Avg
28 44 34.172
--
details low, textures high, shadows low, effects low
Min Max Avg
31 50 38.111
--
all low
Min Max Avg
30 46 37.342
---
from these short runs, it looks like textures affect the system the least while graphical details the most. I didn't bother with shadows b/c I don't care about them and I'm pretty sure shadows bogs the system most.

 

Check the Original post. It's there. The games not worth running on a PC of any kind. Poorly coded and way to CPU reliant for the M11X

 

I know that this logic doesn't make any sense, but, to me, any game that the x360 can run should also run fairly well on the M11x. But, then again, M11x's cpu isn't as powerful or specific as the x360's (at least not to my knowledge).

 

It's a tri-core 3.2Ghz so no, the SU7300 is not even close.

 

Wow - considering that COD4:MW2 runs very smoothly and looks as good, if not better IMHO than this game - gotta figure this is just a prime example of poor programming/inexperience. Can't say I'm not surprised about this from EA - considering they really don't ever optimize their code for a given platform...

 

Has anyone really OCed thier GPU till the point of display driver failure? I can put a mean OC on this GPU, but at a point, scores don't go higher. Probably related to the CPU. Just wondering if anyone has seen this. I can keep raising the clocks and still don't get artifacts. This is a strong GPU

 

That isnt a bad rule of thumb though, you are just going to see some exceptions (since it's mostly coincidence that performance line sup between the two). DMC4, SF4, Bioshock 1/2, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Just Cause 2 (demo) etc.. all run perfect at high settings.

 

BFBC2 is much much more complex than MW2. MW2 has fairly maze like boxed in levels, and no vehicles to worry about, and no destructables.

 

That's a negative assumption. Bad Company 2 runs very well on my desktop. Since I have both games, I can honestly say that BC2 looks better than MW2. IMO it's pretty darn close to Crysis levels. As for coding, just because a new game won't run well on a laptop doesn't necessarily come to the conclusion that the code is badly optimized. I mean, it's a freaking laptop for crying out loud! Give the M11x some room to breath, it's not going to run every single game maxed out. For a 11inch, it's already one hell of a laptop.

 

can't get an official score for vantage since I'm not running at default resolution but on the advanced version running it at 1280x768 on performance settings (considered custom since not at default resolution). Here are my scores. I don't get an official Pxxx score unfortunately but you can still compare some numbers I guess to chewie's although it's not quite fair.

I may rerun with feature tests just so we can have more numbers to compare since I'm not getting a real benchmark number anyway.

 

I found the same thing a few days ago when I tried running Vantage. If you have an external monitor we can compare like that. Then you can run at the default 1280X1024 and get an official P score. I'm going to save that for my day off since it takes so long to load.

 

Nice result on the bench DR650SE, I've found the gpu in these will give mad clocks before they fallover in any benching, however I found they do seem to reach an upper limit, and in my experience it was the memory speed that stopped mine clocking much higher, i'll be having another go at benching once I've put mine back together, wanted to see if a pin mod might be possible on this baby, and get the TIM changed over for lower temps ;-)

 

wanted to mention that the whole bfbc2 thing is definitely a prime example of bad scalability. They should have absolutely designed the game to be run on as much hardware as possible, of all things if bc2 relies a lot on cpu it would not have taken an inordinate amount of time to allow some of the cpu-intensive parts of the game to be offloaded onto the gpu at times, at the very least whatever they needed to do they could have gotten the game to run at 30fps on low for the majority of hardware, they just chose not to.

 

Well I figured I'd up the ante. Hows this??

3DMark06 Score: 7105
SM2.0 Score: 3267
HDR/SM3.0 Score: 3547
CPU Score: 1465

I'll give it another shot at work tommorrow.

 

impressive! hwmonitor temps shot while 3dmark runs would be nice next run please

 

OK here is a temp shot while I was running benchmarks. Notice I left the room and my laptop just about froze. When it was idle the temps started to drop bigtime. But with the cooling, it never got very high at all while running 3DMark06. I pulled it away from the AC when I got back in the room because I didn't want condensation to form on the inside.


CPU Temp Core 0 Min 15*C Max 35*C
CPU Temp Core 1 Min 17*C Max 35*C
GPU Min 3*C Max 37*C

 

Has anyone even actually benched it on the lowest possible settings? I keep seeing medium everyone, and noone doing all low at low res.

 

^ I'm benching on mediums b/c and not at lowest res b/c I don't care a bout anything less. Why bench when I'm not gonna bother playing at those settings =)

 

Because you might be surprised at how good it looks on low settings. Personally, I can barely tell the difference between Operation Flashpoint: DR on medium and low, for example. This screen is pretty sharp and has a high resolution for its size, so minor differences can be difficult to detect. However, if you're playing over HDMI on a 46-inch LCD TV, that's a different story