m17 Benchmarks and Screens :)

i was wondering if some of you lovely m17 owners would like to post some benchmarks and game screenshots as well as what FPS you are getting in your games, im very interested in the m17 but i want to make sure that it can handle all my games before i go for one. Also is a 3870x2 better then a single 8800m GTX in games? what kinda FPS improvement if any can i expect?

thanx

 

Of course. but i'm going to work in a little.(this always happens )

but here is mine scores. of course keep in mind my hdd is read time is 13MB/s so my performance is could be better. My games will pause and my hdd light would be bright as it is loading everything.
i'm using 9.1 the bad drivers. people recommend 9.2 or 8.12 or the beta for windows 7. but i'm just toying around for now until my hdd and my quad comes in.

 

Hey there,

Are you interested in benchmarks by single 3870 owners or dual 3870's?

Also the same question when comparing vs the 8800gtx..

 

Single 3870
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=352766&page=7

 

i cant get warhead to run great at all. later more people will chip in and post what they have. also a 3870CF is alittle fast than a single 8800mgtx.

Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9400 @ 2.53GHz @ 2527 Mhz
CPU ID: Intel64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Physical memory: 3.99 GB
Display adapter: ATI MOBILITY RADEON HD 3870 X2 512 MB
Video Processor: ATI Radeon Graphics Processor CrossFire Secondary (0x9509)
Driver version: 8.573.0.0 (20090113000000.000000-000)
Motherboard: Intel Rev1.W840.028

==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 3502, Recorded Time: 92.69s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 221.83s, Average FPS: 15.79
Min FPS: 7.58 at frame 72, Max FPS: 26.61 at frame 2839
Average Tri/Sec: 6966767, Tri/Frame: 441306
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.18
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 217.29s, Average FPS: 16.12
Min FPS: 7.58 at frame 72, Max FPS: 27.87 at frame 1284
Average Tri/Sec: 7480203, Tri/Frame: 464136
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.12
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 216.46s, Average FPS: 16.18
Min FPS: 7.58 at frame 72, Max FPS: 27.87 at frame 1284
Average Tri/Sec: 7553214, Tri/Frame: 466866
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.12
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

//////////// Summary \\\\\\\\\\\\\

03/05/2009 07:17:47 - Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate

DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: ambush @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 7.58 Max: 27.87 Avg: 16.15 ]

 

for dual 3870, sorry if i didnt mention that and i did say 3870x2 (which i thought was dual 3870 cards) and compare them against a SINGLE 8800m GTX

thanx for the benches dondadah88

 

No problem
dead space(maxed) there is no benchmarking tool for dead space. but i get 62 frames per second more then average. it barely goes higher. and the lowest i seen it was 55. very playable. left 4 dead(maxed) was 60-100 fps. i dont remember the exact amount.

 

great thanx, i have both of them, though im not sure what i get but i max out as much stuff as i can, excluding things like vsync and AA. do you multu core processing on L4D? as i had to turn that off as it just made everything very stuttery no matter what setting i used

 

oh no i turned multi on i didnt try it with it off. and i do max out everything except for aa and af in demanding games. dead space and L4D those were on. for crysis those were off. i never turn on v-sync only when i'm playinga very demanding game.(but that was on my hp there's no need to on my whitebook. unless your getting 300FPS and there's alot of tearing.)

 

thats really strange. any idea why it would be so poor with it on?
any way im debating if i should stick with a AW CPU and get RAM and HD's now or get the basic RAM and HD's and get the CPU first - the CPU, RAM and HD would not be from AW, they are too expensive

 

no v-sync is great but i like to see high numbers. i only use it on demanding games so i dont jumo between etc 10-40fps.

but if you have the patience to go though all that. then do it. if it is going to save you money and have better performance in the longer run. go right ahead. i would get everything crappy. except the 3870(CF them) and the 1200p screen and the light up keyboard. everything else you can upgrade. ram is way cheaper. for about 100 maybe more you can get 4gbb of ddr3@1333fsb. and hdd your know the prices. and cpu

 

yeah i was thinking of just getting the skull cap design, i know it costs nothing but its look and i want everyone to know the dual 3870's and the light up keyboard, shame you have to pay for warrenty as i will be changing the CPU and i heard that voids the warrenty, which is a joke. i will then get the other parts my self, i know someone that can get the qx9300 for like $600, thats less then half what it would have cost to get it from alienware and then i just need to get the ram, think ill go with 4gb - the 4 gb sticks are really expensive for me at the moment and maybe when they become cheaper then i'll upgrade and finally 2 x 500gb hard drives

 

that sounds great to me. are you going to get the 1920*1200 screen? and just keep the cpu. when you change it out and "if" something happens pop it right back it. i'm getting a quad also and i cant wait. my 1st extreme

 

yeah going with 1920 res
what quad you getting?

 

Qx9300. i want because it's a quad that can go over 3ghz in a laptop. Just the Name Extreme ups and keeps the value of the laptop. and it's the best out there right now. also the ati's depend so much on your cpu because it's clocked so low, any cpu upgrade will make a difference.there's talk about a newer one coming out but i'm not to intreseted in it becauseit's not to different. that i know of.

what are you going to get the cheapest one now and upgrade to what?
i think even the x9100 can do some damage to. but i want the best. Lol.

 

im thinking of getting the basic package with things like 1920res, dual 3870, TV tuner and bluetooth and then get the ram, HDs and the CPU my self, but im on a limited budget so i have to be careful

 

the 9300 simply rocks in this notebook nothing else imo compares.

 

but with the fact that it cant be overclocked - would it still be worth it?

 

man you are for sure set on not using the "other" bios lol. well no then it cant be oc'ed a source i spoke with said it is not at all for sure either aw will ever release a oc'ing bios. he said he has heard nothing of this (he works for dell and he is usually accurate with his info to me) at this time except rumors online. nothing at all official from anyone at aw.

 

im very forgetful
just trying to see if i can afford to get m17 + qx9300

 

It should rock. cause with what i'm doing now if it wasnt for my hdd i think nothing can slow this down. i cant wait for mines.

i understand about the limited budget. what you have now is great. i think the next thing you should upgrade is the ram then the cpu and then the hdd.

i wonder how the x9100 would perform. i dont see alot of people with it.

do you think the 12MB cache on the quad would be useful?

 

the x9100 works well in this. but imo its more of a benchmark chip. the quad for sure plays everything much better even if its not utilized yet fully i have both and have used both in the system