G50VT Performance Thread (Sorry not for G50V)

SEE SECOND POST FOR GAME RATINGS AND COLLECTIVE RESULTS

G50VT-X5 with T9600, Vista x64

Far Cry 2 - Ubisoft Tool Ranch Small
1280x720 GPU @ 600-800-1500 on DOX 185.85, Graphics All HIGH
DX9, Game Performance HIGH, CPU @ 2.80 Ghz - Min 32.69 Max 56.41 Avg 38.94
DX10, Game Performance HIGH, CPU @ 2.80 Ghz - Min 28.28 Max 55.44 Avg 36.03
DX10, Game Performance VERY HIGH CPU @ 3.20 Ghz - Min 27.92 Max 55.85 Avg 36.57
1366x768 GPU @ 600-800-1500 on DOX 185.85, Graphics All VERY HIGH
DX10, Game Performance VERY HIGH CPU @ 3.00 Ghz - Min 18.93 Max 39.99 Avg 25.92

Devil May Cry 4 - DX 10 Internal Test Using FRAPS
1280x720 GPU @ GTS on 179.14, Graphics Super High w/ C16xQAA
T9600 @ 2.80Ghz - Min 33 Max 84 Avg 48.65

GRiD - 24 Minutes of LeMans tested with FRAPS
1366x768, GPU @ GTS on DOX 185.85, All MAX w/ 16xQCSAA - Min 29 Max 59 Avg 42.5

 

Game Rating System - Dont expect this to be perfect!

Games rated based on performance of at least their medium setting or higher at a resolution of around 720P if not higher. Games test are considered to be modern, hard to draw a line but Doom 3 is a good idea of the bottom.

Games any G50VT Owner can play and enjoy
Crysis, Warhead - Acceptable to Good - Recommend P8400 and GPU Clocks/Drivers
Devil May Cry 4 - Great - Any G50VT
DiRT - Good - Any G50VT
Far Cry 2 - Good to Great - Recommend P8600 or Better CPU (Not Required Though)
F.E.A.R., Extraction Point, Perseus Mandate - Excellent - Some sections perform less
F.E.A.R. 2 - Acceptable - Recommend Good CPU and Overclocked GPU
GRiD - Great - Modified X5 can max with AA @ Native Res
NFS Pro Street - Great - Any G50VT

Games G50VT Owners should AVOID
GTA4 - This needs no explanation, G51 Quad Core owners should have a decent go at it.

 

This thread is nice, I want to join . I have some games to share. But sorry for not very detail FPS, I just use FRAPS to show FPS on my screen to have some info, no benchmark at all.
All games are played on G50Vt-X3, T9400 undervolted to 0.9875V (which means downclocked to ~2.4GHz), 9800M GS with stock clock and nVIDIA 185.85 driver, no overclocking at all (just some underclocking by RMClock )
Call of Duty & Call of Duty: United Offensive (very old but good games )
I use GnS Affinity to force it run on 1 core.
1680*1050 (use custom mode), all max out: running crazy at 350-400 FPS.
Now, I use v-sync to force FPS stays at 60 (to stop my GPU reach its max temp like in other games).
Call of Duty 4
1680*1050, all max out with 4xAA: really smooth at around 40-60 FPS.
Call of Duty 5
1680*1050, all max out with 4xAA: it share engine with CoD4, but I have lower FPS like 35-55, still very exciting.
World in Conflict (GPU eater here )
1680*1050, High quality setting, game's own benchmark: somewhat playable at 13-103 (the benchmark's report), average is 22.
Counter-Strike 1.6
1680*1050, all max out with 4xAA, I host a server with 17 bots, me and my two cousins: smooth, FPS stays at 130+.
Counter-Strike Source
1680*1050, all max out with 4xAA, I host a server with 17 bots, me and my two cousins (we played both of them that day , our small LAN Party): smooth with 70+ FPS
I mainly shoot and run so that I put very little attention to FRAPS number .
Sorry for showing only old games, but I just want to join . I play game just for fun.

 

CoD really runs that good? I wish i had never bought it for console and then got both for pc....

World in conflict isnt a GPU eater, like GTA 4 at times its a CPU eater my minimums went up greatly with overclocks, havent tested on the new cpu should be alot better now.

 

GTA4 Runs on my G50V-A1 GPU overclocked to 780core 1944mem & CPU @ 2.93Ghz@ 1680x1050 at about 30 fps.

 

Makes my cpu 100%, is playable prob about 20fps -25fps I would say. Farcry 2 runs great though.

 

With my T9600 clocked to 3.22Ghz I get anywhere from 25 to 60 fps in actual game play BUT it does at many other times dip below 24, while driving and certain effects going on.

If you ask any of the real reviewers and people who benched it for the public its a horrible thing to run on a dual core and the GPU almost counts for nothing. If your overclocking the GPU for the game know that your just blowing steam, the GPU gets choked because the CPU is too busy to send it anything to process.

That fact that it can easily drop into unplayable speeds at any given time makes me give it the thumbs down, a review using 13 processors against the game at some insane res and insane settings showed how CPU intensive it is an that quad core = win. Remember the game was designed to run on a triple core 3.2 Ghz ppc processor or alternativley a 3.2 Ghz PPC with 7 SPE Vector Processors.

 

You can add any Source-based games as being Great or Excellent. I don't have any numbers on hand, but they feel super smooth with everything maxed at 1680x1050. I'll try to update my post later this week with some numbers.

 

Yup, all but TF2 which is CPU reliant.

HL2, HL2: Ep1, HL2: Ep2, HL2: DM, Portal, and Left 4 Dead
1336x768, completely maxed out. 8xAA/AF. Stays above 120FPS.

TF2
1336x768, completely maxed out. 4xAA/AF. 30 - 120FPS.
Average 40 in firefights, 90 mild shooting.

 

That is just insane. Screw that game.
Oh, and GREAT THREAD!

 

hmm.. those CS:S frames seem fairly inaccurate. I get way better FPS than that on my stock x6

 

Do you mean my CS:S? I think mine is lower than yours because I host a server with 17 bots (medium) and 3 player. Bots eat a lot of system resource.

 

ohh gotcha, then i will give my performance then
ASUS G50VT-X6 Game Performance
Specs:
Stock Hardware
Windows 7
DOX 185.85 nvidia drivers.

Counter Strike: Source (1680x1050, High Settings, HDR on)
Video Stress Test with 4xAA on
ASUS "Normal" Mode (2.53ghz): 206.08 FPS average
ASUS "Turbo Extreme" Mode (2.79ghz): 201.68 FPS average (ran 3 times, and all 3 times it ran 201.** FPS which is 5 lower than "Normal" mode)

Video Stress Test with 4xAA off
ASUS "Normal" Mode (2.53ghz): 216.27 FPS average
ASUS "Turbo Extreme" Mode (2.79ghz): 237.06 FPS average

Thats a pretty significant improvement with AA off in my opinion.

The only game I play is CS:S and it's the main reason I bought this notebook so I could play matches while I travel back a forth.

 

The more people you have on a server on some games the more it drag down the frame rate. I personally havent played it but based on what I know of the game and what you all have said it goes into the top of my rating system either way.

BTW I uped my voltage to 1.15 and got 640-800-1600 out of it. As nvidia guru pointed out in another thread the shaders and core are on a 2.5 multiplier if you go outside of that its less stable. Prior to this (and the voltage) I couldnt get past 620 without instant issues. This seems to be on the edge of what my card will put out, I havent touched the ram.

I also had luck with undervolting the 600-800-1500 to 1.07 or whatever it is. It turns out Exostensa's stock voltage was lower then myne, my stock voltage was the same as the gts voltage not only that my chip doesnt mind the gts clocks at his stock voltage so a little tiny bit cooler.

 

YEAH... ive been playing it since early beta. I still would say I dont dip below 100 fps.. 70 is pretty low

I think benching a game with 17 bots that eat up your Processor is a very unrealistic benchmark. Especially since CS:S is known to be a CPU intensive game.

 

I said that I just play for fun and watch FRAPS for info, didn't I? But I think when G50Vt can push FPS to that high, we can sure that CS:S is no match to it. Anyway, I suggest use v-sync to limit FPS to save GPU power. With CoD, no v-sync, my GPU temp just peaks to 78C like in other heavier games. But with v-sync, it's temp just rises a little.

 

I force VSYNC through nvidia control panel, it doesnt seem work well through far cry.

From my testing its caused no performance decrease just a 60 fps cap and in older games saves the gpu some work and heat.

 

I just got 100% in GTA4 (woohoo!) with a P8400. Framerates were generally a little below 30fps, but after the GTS flash things went from half frustrating to something workable. My CPU is definitely the bottleneck in this case, but I'm more than happy to run GTA4 on a laptop I paid just $1k for.

 

The only reason the graphics card even makes a difference is because its able todo what little of its job it can in between being choked faster then before. As a test between 13 cpu's and 2 GPU's showed there was little difference between a desktop 9800 and a GTX 280 due to the cpu issues.

A 4 GHZ Core 2 Duo would just about suit GTA4 into actual playable speeds 100% of the time. But in truth a QX9300 is where its at until the nehalem lineup comes out.

Before the cpu swap i got 30 fps avg in the benchmark (btw the benchmark is FAIL) in 800x600 and 26 in 1366x768, this goes to show you how not involved the graphics card is with the performance.

 

Just picked up GRiD earlier today and tested it out.
Managed to run it completely maxed, 4xAA at a average of 55fps, minimum of 45fps.

 

Update the first and second post, Benched Devil May Cry 4 listed as great, but possibly with drivers will run excellent will test later, on stock drivers at the moment).

I added counter strike for a moment, and then looking at it and half life 2's requirements its not worth adding, game should run on my pda lol. By age doom 3 is just as old but its alot more demanding in comparison. HL HL2 Counter strike will obviously play and thats not what the threads about.

I am looking for more benches on CoD4,5 L4D and such before I add. Dont want to give a rating based on one persons word.

 

Yes I am very interested in hearing about L4D FPS benchmarks as well.
I have read posts that range from 40fps constant to this one which says 120+, and the machines have always been the g50vt-x5.

 

After going in a bit more, I've gotten 30 in extreme firefights, where zombies are swarming, cocktails around, and getting blasted by that fat zombie (can't remember the name.)

Generally stays 90+ with swarms though.

 

At max settings?? I'm about to buy this laptop, so tell me everything and then some.

 

Yup at max, 8xaa.

 

I tried to bench L4D last night using Fraps, but nothing was in my benchmarks folder. I pressed F11, the counter went green, vanished, then went red after pressing F11 a second time. All sounds normal, but there was no benchmark information anywhere. Unless the results are stored somewhere else in Vista64?

I'll try again with the newest version of Fraps.

 

You have to select what you want within fraps, check the minmaxavg check box.

 

Selected that box, and the fps box too.

 

Still no luck? Latest version is 64 bit native libraries no problems here, even though it hooks see if F11 is tied to a game. ALso try right click and run as admin.

Add Grid, tested it with the 24 minutes of lemans using fraps, maxed everything.

 

Just tried it in admin mode, no luck. Also tried binding the averaging key to F8 instead, but nothing either. The weird thing is that it takes screenshots and movies just fine... I will find something else to benchmark and add to the list.

 

Using ClutchX2's score system:

[PROTOTYPE] 1680x1050, 2xAA, High, 3 (Good, bounces between 25 and 60 fps, but doesn't fluctuate badly)

Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway 1680x1050, no AA, all settings on medium-high, 3 (Good)

X-Men Origins 1680x1050, 2xAA, all settings on high 4 (Great)

TimeShift 1680x1050, 4xAA, all settings on high 4 (Great)

 

The Sims 3 1680x1050, 2xAA, all settings on high, 2 (Acceptable)

SEGA Rally REVO 1680x1050, 2xAA, all settings on high 4 (Great)

 

You say GTA IV should be avoided, but what settings and FPS do you run it on?

 

GTA IV is a poorly coded game; its not that your comp sucks.

If you really want to enjoy GTA IV, either get a quad core CPU, or get an XBOX 360, which runs the game just fine for only $350.

 

I have to slap anyone who will tell me its playable on their T9900 or less, and as of yesterday anyone who tells me world in conflict will run on their celeron maxd out lol.

GTA 4's graphic settings have little todo with performance, theyll increase or decrease performance by 1 fps per setting in any direction, so all settings down may gain 20 fps total and that might be every fps you will be getting lol. The problem is UNTIL every ai and physics calculation is complete per frame, that frame can not be displayed and it will NOT skip calculations. The AI and Physics if i remember are not really among the adjustables or much the patch does add some gpu options.

WIth GTA 4 patched on the P7450 overclocked to 2.4 Ghz, @ the follwing settings i got thing like:
AUto settings, mediumish @ 800x600 = benched 30 fps, game horrid
Same settings in 1366x768 = benched 26 fps avg, about the same in game
ALL SETTINGS MIN @ (1164ish?)x640) = VERY GLITCHY GRAPHICS still low but if you stand still occasionally over 30 fps min, if you drive its in the 10's.

With T9600 overclocked to 3.22 Ghz
Auto Settings, Mediumish @ 1280x720 = 18 to 60 fps. Often playable, also often very choppy. Much improved but still looks worse then console and plays worse.

Alot of the people playing this on lesser dual cores arent even checking the FPS and admit it themselves, they call < 23 fps in a firefight playable. Part of the reason its so playable is its GTA, you have things like auto lockon. In an FPS you would be ready to kill yourself.

-------

I picked up world in conflict and world in conflict soviet assault (have the benches on a peice of paper havent posted them yet).

All T9600 with 1366x768.
2.8Ghz, Very High - Min 10 Max 55 Avg 26
3.2Ghz, Very High - Min 15 Max 56 Avg 27
3.2Ghz, High - Min 19 Max 78 Avg 36
3.2Ghz, Medium - Min 19 Max 118 Avg 52

As you can see lowering the graphics bring up the Max and Average and if i Gave you more comparisons you would also see the cpu speed affects both a little with the minimums and all the frame drops during cpu intensive work.

Game has an option I LOVE, not just vsync you can actually tell it what to frame cap at, the only option that makes any sense is 30 fps (theres options for 20 and 15.... WHY?). During Training cap'd at 30 fps @ 2.8 Ghz it was a constant 30 fps min max avg. The first mission afterwards where the cpu actually gets used I was getting 17-21 fps! It has the same issue as GTA4, though is much more playable.

 

Is that 26FPS while standing still?

 

Nah the built in benchmark tool which pretty much doesn't test your system at all, not even close and that was the average at the end of the test, pretty much that frame rate ud get sitting still looking at a wall though lol or driving very slowly in a tunnel. Did I ever link you to that benchmark where they tested 13 processors against 2 video cards at the same settings, they said the difference between a 9800 and a 280 was negligible and it really showed how much the cpu played into it.

 

Hmm, when you have all settings low, does that include view distance and such?

 

Yes, even with the draw distance to minimum, it still draws REALLY far, I swear farther then san andreas to max lol. Encounter plenty of visual glitches lots of what i would describe as a shading plane in the near distance and on flat surfaces making it hard to see driving up a ramp sometimes.

 

Clutch, after all the work you're doing reviewing the G50VT(x5) would you suggest that I get the G51 with a killer GPU and sheisty CPU, or the G50 with a slightly better balance? Otherwise the Sager 2098 is in my top choices (2.4 GHz, but ATI Radeon HD 4650)

 

If your not gonna touch the cpu, then it almost wont matter, except the G51 has an led backlit display and backlit chiclet keyboard if thats you then go for it the GPU is better but in the upcoming world of games it will be useless on a P7350.

If your going to upgrade the cpu mind as well start with a better gpu. Really all in all because their coming out with a 1000 dollar base model then I would say go for the G51. I was not expecting a release model under 1200.

 

Six, one is reserved for use by Cell OS.

 

I have just installed Call of Duty 2 and played a little. It seems odd that G50Vt cannot handle it properly. I max out setting (native resolution), 4x AA. FPS never passes 70. It usually stays at 41-55, sometimes it drops to 21, which causes sudden lags.
My lappy is on stock setting, with little underclocking by RMClock. I already installed Patch 1.3 which makes CoD2 multiple-core ready.
Edit: I install CoD2 on my desktop, and it work great, FPS jumps to 95-121 so I have to use V-Sync to force it stays at 60. My desktop specs: Athlon64 X2 3800+ (2.00GHz), 2*1GB DDR2-800, 512MB 9600GT. 9600GT is not much stronger than 9800M GS, but my Athlon64 X2 3800+ is inferior to T9400.

 

Maybe a driver issue. What OS does each machine have?

As for the video cards, in terms of performance the 9800m GTS is faster than a 9600GT, just not as fast as a 9800 GT.

 

If you wish to get techinical 8, one disabled, one reserved by the os, leaving 6.

 

I don't overclock my lappy, so it's just 9800M GS, not GTS. Both computer are running Vista (I love Vista ).
Maybe I found the reason: resolution. On lappy, I play on 1680*1050, but on desktop, I only play on 1024*768. The difference in resolution cause a huge difference in performance.

 

well there we go.

Although you should be getting much higher than 70fps in CoD2. I get between 45-60 in CoD5, a game that is 4 years newer.

 

I got the same FPS in CoD5. I don't know what happens with CoD2.

 

There's a bug in CoD2, turning on multiGPU will give you a tremendous FPS increase.

This should get you more info on it and how to use it.

 

You mean turning on "Optimize for SLI" option? Although SLI only exists in my dream?