CPU speed and ATI

I've heard that ATI cards are CPU dependent and with more speed, the ATI cards perform better. Why is this the case? Also how well would dual ATI 3870's and 4850's perform with a 2.26ghz processor? At what speed would ATI cards perform well at?

 

The more speed the better with ATI.....and with Nvidia really, but just more so with ATI.

Define "well." Mine ran "well" at 2.26.

 

Never noticed a difference with my 4870 when I oc from 3ghz to 4ghz.

Not saying it isn't true just not noticeable....

 

@ 2.26 the Cards would still run any game out on Maxxed

and when you get a faster CPU they will run better maxxed lol hope that helps

 

Is the X9100 worth getting even if I don't plan to OC it? Also does having a faster CPU generate more heat? I've heard some board users mentioning that the x9100 having heat problems.

 

the x9100 is the hottest CPU you can get but it doesn't overheat

it gets a little warm but thats it

if you want speed and coolness try a 9700 or 9900

 

The ATI cards like a faster GPU as the drivers are a little more CPU dependant, especially when it comes to Crossfire (which ATI do seem to have recognised and are working on); the X9100 does get toasty, but if AW are fitting yours that's not really your issue!

The 4850s play well with a P8400, but perform better again with the X9100. Take a look in my thread at the OP and you'll see what I mean, this is especially relevant in CPU limited games (they DO exist)...SF4 bench went from 130-140fps @1280x720 to ~190-200, just from a CPU change (and mild overclock)!

The main issues with the X9100 seem to be a couple of hot ES chips, and also the awkwardness of getting a decent contact with the M17 CPU cooler as it's a little awkward to get perfect contact as you dont have free movement on the cooler because of the way it slots into the chassis [not to mention slightly interesting air flow hole design choices ].
Took me about 10 reseats. That said; whilst my machine runs hot; it is within design tolerances; the chip is rated up to something a little crazy like 105 degrees, however the northboard tends to get hot because it uses the same cooler.

ATI cards ATM seem to seem the largest differences in speed up to about 3Ghz, going higher won't net you much in the way of GPU gain, all I can say is my rig at 3.3 plays VERY nicely for a laptop, especially one that costs ~£700 or so less than a relatively equivalent M17x in the UK, even if you were to do similar upgrades.

If you're not planning to overclock, then the T9900 would be a good choice; as the TDP is lower (35w vs 44w) it'll run cooler; whilst still being pretty damned fast, IIRC it retains the same cache as the X9100 too.

Despite my frustrations with getting my CPU seated properly in relation to the cooler, Im really happy with the laptop overall, and gaming temperatures are MUCH lower than IBT stress (IBT stress will put the NB in mid 80s now, whilst gaming never really sees it above the late 60s/low 70s, but linpack is designed to stress the CPU and to some extent the NB/RAM)! Be aware Im running my CPU overclocked which is increasing the temps too, I'd be dropping some degrees at stock

Only thing Im waiting for now is 4GB DDR3 SODIMMs to be come affordable! (as in not 10x more expensive than a 2GB SODIMM)

 

Well as far as I know, Alienware doesn't offer a T9900 option for the M17. I may get the T9600...Maybe. It just depends. How hot could the X9100 get? Or does it depend on what game I'm playing? Say for instance I'm running Crysis on very high. Also how hot will the 4850's get? What's the temp danger levels for the x9100 and ATI 4850's?

 

what's your situation?
where are you located?
what are you going to do with our notebook?
how much are you looking to spend?
do you need/want/ or would like crossfire?
why not the m17x over the m17?
why not the np9850 over the m17?

just wondering i can't really help unless you provide more information on what's going on.

 

alrighty here goes.

I plan to use my notebook mostly for gaming and some school. I plan to spend no more than about 2400 or so, but that's an extreme limit for me. My plan is to try and spend less, though I am aware that this is AW we're talking about and well AW isn't cheap lol. If I get the M17 I want crossfire. Likewise, if I get the M17x, I will want SLI. Right now I am conflicted whether I want an m17x over M17. When I configured what I like, the price was pretty close. However If I choose a better CPU for the M17 it comes out more expensive. I'll need to reconfigure again to make sure though. As for the NP9850, it was around where my price limit is. Plus I like what I see in both AW models.

I doubt this is enough to answer what i need, but hopefully we can come to a good conclusion on what is good for me.

 

have you considered the m17x with
260m sli
1920*1200 lcd
and the stock cpu. it can overclock to 3.0 and moo brought it up more but i'm not sure if it was stable.

 

^^ Ya that's a very good build. What advantages does a 1920x1080 have over 1440x900? Also is 260 SLI better than the 4850 with crossfire?

 

stock for stock the 260m sli should beat the 4850 Crossfire.

we need more testers to verify it. so your not missing out on much. if any one would be better it's less then 5 percent.

i recommend you to get 1920*1200 anyday over the little 1440*900 lcd. what are you using now for a res?

what does the price come out to also to see if there's any little thing you can do like blueray.

 

1900 res doesn't have a advantage.... you can just fit more on the screen and game @ higher resolutions

 

it's better for viewing webpages. and games look cleaner. i'm at 1280*800. i wish i had a higher res right now.

 

Well the price comes out as $2,249. With BR its $2,399 so yeah it goes to the max of what I am willing to pay. So actually, I think the m17x is cheaper. With those configures.

 

nice how do you think of this rig now compared to the m17.

but now what config would you of gotten with the m17 to make sure your going to be happy with dropping that kind of load on a laptop.

 

I definitely like the M17x spec-wise better than the M17. With the M17, it would have been more expensive if i match it with the same specs as the m17x.

However, if I decide on a m17, the specs would be less but it would be cheaper. On top of that in order to save money I would need to buy it with 2gigs of ram and buy 4gigs off of newegg. Even more to add to this I would need to drop BR and possibly 1900 res. If I keep 1900 res I might be able to keep the rig under 2 grand, which isn't too bad, but I figure if I plan on getting a good rig i may as well go with the M17x at $2400. Still not a bad price if you ask me.

 

ok. i'm glad that you made your choice and you seem more confident in your decision then before. good luck and let us know how it works out.

 

I do have to say that I can tell that ATI cards are a little CPU dependant from what I can tell. I get about a 10-15% FPS increase in CoD4 from overclocking from 2GHz to 2.5GHz.

I've never had an opportunity to use a 1920x1200 monitor-never mind in my M17-so I do actually wonder if it's worth the extra money. I might get one at a later date if I can.

 

1440x900 vs 1920x1200 is like night and day, especially for desktop. Once you use high res, you typically dont want to go back as it's much sharper.

 

is there anyone in the deerfield il area who has m17x and is a tech person and would not mind helping me

 

In that case I might upgrade to 1920x1200 come christmas, but only if they can send the new screen to me so I can put it in, due to the fact I'll only be in the UK for two weeks (I wouldn't trust them to get it back to me in that time).

 

Anyone actually used a cooler on the M17? worth $70? I'm still not comfortable with my temps

 

Aint that the truth! Same with going to a faster system, you don't want to ever go back to your slower one!

 

1920x1200 since 2007 before that had a 1680x1050 LCD I just wasn't quite happy with; my old CRT was the legendary Samsung959NF, which'd do 2048x1536, or 1600x1200@85Hz hehe

I really hate low res these days lol