*OFFICIAL* M17x Benchmarks RESULTS *Part 2*

Yea sounds like my CPU, if I took the CPU above 1295 FSB with a multiplier of 10 it would crash. But at 1295 it was fine. A few times I got it to 1300, but not too often. I lost a lot of sleep trying though with various combinations of FSB and Mult

 

lol you can only change Mult with QX9300 right? With my chip I can't change multiplier.

 

Well crashed at windows load at 10.5x and 1333 for 3.5 GHz

Was able to get upto the CPU test in 06 at 3.4 and 3.39

Think I am just going to stick to 3.33 for now, got some things I need to play around with, my 06 score is just too low

 

Yea with the QX you can change both the FSB and multiplier which adds for more customization.

 

does the bios have a temp sensor in the bios. one for the cpu?
and what is the bsod code you guys get?

 

Oh. I got bsod a few time when benching but never look at the code

 

yep, those codes are important in the dt world

time to see if they mean anything in the laptop world. you guys should start keeping track of them...should be like 5 maybe 6 codes
124 = cpu
101 = cpu
7f = memory
1e = memory
0a = memory

 

Learned another thing thank you johnksss

 

np. we are here to help each other

 

i try to do what i can.

 

If one were to get a QX9300 with intent to overclock, how much would you consider a good and acceptable O.C. for the CPU? Should I consider myself lucky if my chip can do 3.06 for day to day use and run fully stable? Or should I look for a CPU that could pull a few more MHz?

 

Hey Kade,

If you do have a good QX9300, you can run stable 3.2ghz

 

I was running 3.33 for a while just fine, but was outside to help mitigate potentially higher temps (still 1.1625V though)

 

Thanks for the input, Rengsey, and Scook. Helpful, as always.

Thing is that I am not looking to bench. I'll be running the machine in a decent, warm environment. So far, I haven't had any issues with regards to temperature readings. M17x is cool.

I just wish to have a quadcore for the obvious benefits of having a quadcore, but also speeds of above 3 GHz for decent SLi scaling.

I am looking to get a QX9300, and there are some ES versions for a low price. Unfortunately, I heard from some of the owners that the chips do not overclock stable beyond 3.06 GHz.

 

You should PM DR650, he will have a QX9300 for sale pretty soon.

 

Thanks again, but I am based in UK. (Should've probably mentioned that earlier.)

 

I apologise for the double-post, but I require another favour from other M17x users with ATi xfire 4870s.

Have a go at running the Crysis GPU benchmark at 1920x1200p using standard DX10 very high settings. No overclocking of CPU or GPU - everything at stock. I would be most interested in results from dual-core users, but contributions from quad-core users will also be appreciated.

Thanks again.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/search.php?searchid=4401430&pp=20

 

Don is having a QX9300 for sale too

 

Yeah, that didn't work for me before the post, and it didn't work this time. I always get "Sorry - no matches" error. I did get a few results with 'Crysis, 4870', but only found one post where NickBarbs was amped about doing the test once he got his M17x, which was quite a long while ago.

Maybe the benchmark's lost appeal. I know it was the hot thing to test back when the M17x was new, but after that, the general leanings were your futuremark benches and what not else.

Anyway, it would be nice if we had a more up-to-date run with the latest drivers, so my request stands. Xfire owners, doing Crysis benchmark at very high and 1200p, using stock clocks.

I've spoken with Don, but both of us have certain practicality factors to consider, especially given that I am not in the same country.

 

hummm...it doesn't work for me either now...lol
damn!
it was a search of this thread using crysis as the search term...then just go through the links.. they're are a few in here...but who has time to go through 2600 post to find them...lol

 

Right on. . .

Most of the original benches were 280/260m users.

 

yes... until mandrake got the first 4870 machine...then the benchs started to change.

 

Well, I need someone with the same GPU setup to do Crysis Very High, stock runs.

 

I've only got Crysis Warhead on my machine never bought Crysis

 

Maybe you can use the warhead benchmark tool. I just got rid of the whole game yesterday, but please, even those results will say something.

 

warehead is a bit harder on scoring and then depending on which tool you use...it will affect the scores drastically....

 

This is Crysis with GPU@stock and [email protected]. Got an average of 31.70. Haven`t a [email protected] yet. Really need to go to bed now. Too tired. Damn much work. G`d nite..

 

why not get the crysis demo?

 

next time you run this...
make sure you go into the game first and set everything to very high @1920x1200

then run that tool again....

 

WOW um...I just tried this on my T9600 and GTX260m SLi setup and... well...i'll show you:


edit: resized picture

0_0 that was fun!!

And this is vantage, btw...which is why I thought I did pretty good...

 

Well done!

We have a 9800m GTX SLi owner in the M1730 ranks who got a score very similar to yours from tweaking his machine and overclocking his cards.

 

Thats a nice score for a SLI 260m.

 

Thanks for posting the results.

Hmm. Any reason why he should go into the Crysis menu and change those settings?

Also, that is a good point about Warhead, but any information is better than nothing. The Warhead tool, the one that is floating around on the net, can be used as a means for testing. I'd go by the general difference in results between the Crysis and Crysis Warhead tools - tends to be about 2-4 FPS in favour of the original Crysis when it comes to benchmarking.

 

well...when we first started benching crysis and warhead. we found that a few of the bench mark tools were flawed. one tool had a 4850m doing better than a desktop 4870x2.

and with the crysis benchmarks..they go by what the game is set to, not what you set using that tool. so for the sake of everyone benching..we asked that they do this first as to not flub any scores. it was also asked that you used the in game benchmark that comes with crysis. lots of write ups on this around here at nbr.

the benchmark tool that looks like the crysis one has issues as well.
the one from hoc seems to be closer to how the gaming performance is in game. there is a 10 to 12 fps difference when running veryhigh. the one that's messed up had mobiles on the same playing field as desktops.

this is only if your interested in the real scores...if this is unimportant...than disregard and grab one that gives you the highest numbers...

just that allot of us already went through these things...the new folks usually don't think there is a difference....

 

Good morning,

Crysis Benchmark Tool with all @ very high + Game settings all @ very high, 1920x1200, DX10. CPU @ 2,53: AVG FPS = 31.51

Crysis Benchmark Tool with all @ very high + Game settings all @ medium, 1920x1200, DX10. CPU @ 2,53: AVG FPS = 31.64

Conclusions:

1) No difference between CPU OC`ed (31,70) or at stock (31,51)
2) No need to worry about the game settings if you run the benchmark tool as they do not influence the benchmarking result.

BTW: mittel = middle, sehr hoch = very high

Remarkable comment, johnkiss. Congrats!!!

 

<--- it is, isn't it? you didn't even know they are differences..

Good morning,

Crysis Benchmark Tool with all @ very high + Game settings all @ very high, 1920x1200, DX10. CPU @ 2,53: AVG FPS = 31.51

Crysis Benchmark Tool with all @ very high + Game settings all @ medium, 1920x1200, DX10. CPU @ 2,53: AVG FPS = 31.64


which tool did you use?
.29
.31
1.01
1.05
also..is that stock crysis?
patch 1.1
patch 1.2
modded config files?
by the way, great scores though!

 

Allright, back from two weeks of Eurotripping. Saw the polling thread, will head on over there, but any new earth-shattering updates on the benching front? I hear there is a new BIOS??? And any of the new systems shipped out yet and gotten benches up? Allright, time to pass out.

 

check out the score in my sig

 

score in the sig says 16853....weak

 

shhh, working on that one lol

 

Allright good to know. Any info on what the new BIOS does with 280's in SLI?

 

I did not see any noticeable difference for it. Just lowers DPC Latency for quad owners, still get spikes though

It also runs 4870s in CF better than A02 did aparently

 

hahaha you guys crack me up. Preatorian, the bios came out like the day after you left. I'm gettin in on some sweet i7 action as soon as the new cards of the M17X R2 are out

 

Thanks again, for posting the scores.

And John,
It's interesting to note that with a mild but good overclock, your SLi 9800m GTX almost matches these results. Hell, your minimums were actually better!

 

Yeah, quite impressive.... almost 0.15 FPS

Latest Benchmark-Tool 1.05, Patch 1.2, no no modding....

 

Got some 4870s on their way to me. Let the fun begin!

 

Nice, maybe now your scores won't be so weak

 

scook your getting the 4870 also????

 

ya are you getting them from dell or somewhere else?