Why so little difference in performance (see fps tests) between low-end and high-end xps 15?

Ran 3d06 tests on two units. Very surprised how well the low-end unit performed compared to the high-end unit. I know 3d06 test is not demanding and is artifical, but results surprising in the fps comparisons.



xps15 #1 i5-460, NV420, 1920x1080, 4gb, backlit keybd $685 w/ 1 yr in-home war
xps15 #2 i7-740, NV435, 1920x1080, 8gb, backlit keybd $959 w/ 1 yr in-home war

........................xps15 i5-460......................xps15 i7-740
........................NV420M..............................NV435M
........................1920x1080 LCD....................1920x1080 LCD
3dmark06................6155.............................7421
SM 2.0...................2504..............................3053
SM 3.0...................2289..............................2784
CPU.......................2912..............................3287

GT1-Rtn to Proxycon...20.37fps........................25.27fps
GT2-Firefly Forest.......21.37fps........................25.67fps
CPU1-Red Valley.............94fps..........................1.08fps
CPU2-Red Valley...........1.44fps..........................1.60fps
HDR1-Canyon Flight.....22.38fps........................27.43fps
HDR2-Deep Freeze.......23.40fps........................28.25fps

 

I would call a 20% increase pretty significant, what did you expect ? triple ?

 

420m and 435m are same card, with different clockspeeds.
Both OC well.

Artificial benchmarks also are not always indicative of reality either.
Some of the latest games like BC2 or BO love a quad core.
Same goes with Adobe CS5 (assuming you use the lappy for more than just games).

But that i5 and 420m aren't shabby either, not extreme, but not horrible. Still better than the base i5 MBP that runs $1700 for $1000 less.

 

i would think its because not many applications can use 4 cores. Im going to run the test on my sxps 16 and see what i get.

 

ProcessorIntel Core i5 Mobile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Processor clock2394 MHz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graphics CardATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating system64-bit Windows 7 (6.1.7600)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memory 6134 MB

3DMark Score7939.0 3DMarks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SM2.0 Score2918.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HDR/SM3.0 Score3617.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPU Score2738.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Game ScoreN/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GT1 - Return To Proxycon22.33 FPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GT2 - Firefly Forest26.31 FPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPU1 - Red Valley0.89 FPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPU2 - Red Valley1.35 FPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HDR1 - Canyon Flight33.24 FPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HDR2 - Deep Freeze39.1 FPS

 

I should note i had 5 internet explorer windows and 2 large downloads running on utorrent at the time.

 

Your 3DMark Score of 7939.0 suggests you do not have a 1080p LCD.

An xps 1645 (i7-720, ATI 5730) with 1080p LCD had a 3d06 score was in low 7000s. An xps 1645 (i7-720, ATI 5730) with a 900p LCD had a 3d06 score in low 8000s. Are other members getting similar results?

Thus, the xps 15 (i7-740, NV435, 1080p) had a slightly higher 3d06 score of 7421... than its xps 1645 (i7-720, ATI 5730, 1080p) counterpart in the low 7000s.

Back to original question... the fps differences between the low-end and the high-end xps 15s did not seem impressive, considering the difference in cost.
Did others find this to be true?

 

I wonder if it has to do with the proper utilization of all 4 cores if the i7?

 

Yeh, when using 4 cores the i7 can't achieve high clocks (max 2ghz or sth)

 

Me personally, I don't find the difference in FPS to be all that great. yeah it makes a difference when gaming but if you think about it, the human eye can barely detect the difference between the 5 FPS , but when the FPS are low to begin with is when the FPS will definitely stand out.
I guess that's why your testing these particular Laptops.
What also can affect the FPS and overall score is the driver that is supporting the graphics card.
Though 3Dmark6 is mainly testing Direct9x, It's still an overall good benchmark to use for comparison against other like GPUs. It's not really a good benchmark for the CPU as you can tell with slight difference in scores. 3DMark11 has better CPU benchmarking, but the shareware version only allows testing in 720p which isn't really applicable for the configuration your testing (1080p).
Overall opinion, neutral. price difference is only applicable if your looking for the cheapest laptop with basic capability. But to judge on 3DMark alone really isn't a viable way to choose a laptop. Too many variables like preference, application, product life ETC...

Rooster

 

Before starting this thread I was under the impression the high end unit tested would be "reasonably good" for gaming. Dell certainly implies this use, and charges over $1800 msrp for this configuration. Yet, when the high-end unit is compared to the low-end "basic configuration" unit (which incidentally cost half as much, or $927 msrp) I am left with disappointment in the L501x series after reviewing the 3d06 fps results.

Perhaps the first xps 15 with "real gaming potential" will be the "high end" SB units (L502x series) due soon.

Am I alone in this disappointment in the L501x series (for gaming)?

 

Again, I think it's a mistake to judge a laptop just on a 3DMark6 score. It's not testing all of it's capabilities that other Benchmark tests (from Futuremark or Unigene for example) can shed light on.
No the L501x is not a true gaming laptop. But to be judged on what, 5 fps difference? Not a good reason to disregard the laptop. It is capable for what it was designed for, Multimedia, and some mild gaming. I would be upset if I were a L501x owner and say the 3DMmark6 score was 1000 pts below average but for the difference stated, it's not the big of a deal breaker.
Even the high end L502x shouldn't be considered a true gaming laptop. the increase in the CPU, GPU isn't going to be much of difference than whats out now. My opinion.
I may be misunderstanding your intent of what your question is.
Is the L501x a bad choice for a laptop. NO.
Is the L501x a gaming laptop. NO
My opinion is that it's a "jack of all trades" laptop, somewhere in the middle.
Is $1800.00 mrsp too high. YES
Would I consider purchasing the less expensive laptop? Probably not.
I won't base a decision on one benchmark test that wasn't that bad to begin with.
But all those answers still doesn't and shouldn't be considered solely for deciding which laptop is better.
Rooster

 

Rooster is right, this is a solid gaming laptop as long as you don't expect that it performs up there with a loaded m15x.

It is an outstanding media laptop, Adobe PS CS5 & LR3 fly on this machine.

Jack of all trades. Better value than a MBP 15" by a longshot (which I came from).

 

If you want, we can judge performance by Futuremark PCMark 05 or Futuremark PCMark Vantage. The disappointing results are the same. Very little difference in performance between the low-end and high-end L501x units. And the new high-end L502x series makes both L501x test units look like "toys".

And rumor has it the new L502x units with i7-2820 SB CPUs will retail for approx the same pricing as the current high-end L501x unit tested (approx $1800).

Once you review the results below, why would anyone want a high-end L501x (like the unit tested) when you can own a new L502x high-end unit for (hopefully) the same price?

The test comparisons come from the review (see link below).

Futuremark PCMark Vantage
SB i7-2820 + HD3000....................16077
ASUS i7-740+GTX460M...................6899
ASUS i5-460+GT425M.....................6870

FutureMark PCMark05
SB i7-2820 + HD3000....................13629
ASUS i7-740+GTX460M...................8005
ASUS i5-460+GT425M.....................7106

"...the new i7-2820QM checks in 43% faster than the i7-740QM..."
Intel?s Sandy Bridge i7-2820QM: Upheaval in the Mobile Landscape - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

Why don't you run real world apps like Creative Suite or a game that utilizes quad cores to the fullest extent instead of just synthetic benchmarks?
They don't tell the whole story, especially 3dmark.

 

I have used "synthetic testing" to compare many Dell models/configs over time....xps 1530, xps 1730, xps 1645, xps 15, AW m15x, AW 17x, etc. The results usually support the "real-world gaming" conclusions reported by others.

To repeat....the "synthetic testing" shows the high-end L501x config with a minimal 5 fps improvement. This tells me....

(1) The high-end L501x config is (a) not worth twice the price and (b) it is not significantly superior for gaming.... to the low-end "basic" L501x config.
(2) And neither L501x config appears to be a serious gaming laptop.

Please share your "real-world gaming" results that cast doubt on the above "synthetic testing" conclusions.

I anxiously await the high-end L502x config to determine if I agree with the conclusions reached in the link below. The L502x may be the first xps15 config that is a serious gaming config.

"...the new i7-2820QM checks in 43% faster than the i7-740QM..."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-bridge-upheaval-in-the-mobile-landscape/3

 

I really don't understand the reasoning for you to continue this line of questioning. If you just base your choice on numbers alone, then you deserve to get what you get.
Choosing a new laptop is not a "numbers only" decision. If this is just an opportunity to bash Dell for releasing the XPS series too soon, then your point is mute. That decision was a business decision and I don't blame Dell for that. They had most of the components for a great laptop and with the economy the way it is, they chose to release the models with what they have.
You will never have the most update laptop. never. There is always an upgrade or an improvement just around the corner.
If 5 fps bothers you that much, grows some nads and step up to the 17'' series.
Rooster

 

You miss the point for starting this thread.
Originally I purchased the low-end config.
Then thinking the high-end config - at twice the price -
would be a "signifcantly better" gaming config I returned the low-end system and purchased the high-end config.

I am not so sure that was a good decision.
The "high-end" config only seems to be marginally better as a gaming system.
I started this thread to see if other owners felt the same way.
I included the 3d06 test results as one measure of this belief.

The discussion then turned to
"Is the upcoming high-end L502x config worth upgrading to, for those of us that have high-end L501x configs and are not satisfied with the gaming abilities?"

If I have confused you, that is not my intent.
It was never about bashing the L501x configs.

 

Thank you and I apologize for my previous post.
As you can probably tell, I am slightly "overzealous" when it comes to defending the XPS line and I let my personal feelings interfere with my posting and I, again, Humbly apologize if I have over stepped my bounds.

As to the L502x quandary, that question may be mute due the recent recall dealing with the Sandy Bridge processors. From the site that I read, they are having a problem with SATA control degrading to quickly.

Rooster

 

I can understand being an advocate for the xps line.
I too believe the Dell offerings are among the best available at any one point.

As to the Intel announcement, I view it as only a delay in the production of the new SB L502x line.

It doesn't change the purpose of this thread.

To sum, my questions are:
1. Considering the $1800 price, are there other high-end (i7-740, i7-840 w/ NV435m) xps15 owners unsatisfied with the gaming capabilities of their system?
2. Did Dell marketing and/or reviewers oversell its gaming capabilities?
3. Will the new SB L502x line (when available) provide us with serious gaming options? And if not, must we look to the AW M15x-R3 (SBvers)... if we want a 15" LCD display?

Hopefully we can get a spirited discussion going.
Such a discussion will help many xps 15 owners and future buyers make better buying decisions (after hearing from the many knowledgeable forum members).

 

Thank you for clarifying...
I paid roughly $1900.00 in Nov 2010 for my config that's in my sig. I personally am extremely happy with it's performance especially in gaming.
I am not a "gamer" per se, I do enjoy graphics heavy games (Mass Effect 2) and recently became addicted to StarCraftII( graphics are beautiful) but neither have been known to tax a "gaming system".
When I purchased the laptop, the sales pitch was that it is a True Multimedia laptop. Which I have to say, it hasn't disappointed me. But do I consider the XPS line a "gaming" laptop replacement.The answer is No.
To me a gaming rig has to have at least two Massive GPU's to be considered a gaming laptop. the Alienware line covers this niche.
As to the 15" screen I do have a question as to why choose a 15" over a 17.3" screen? I am not saying one is better than the other but for viewing habits I would think that a larger screen would be of benefit.
Yes right now a 1080p screen is not offered but is in the aftermarket and will be available for the L702x line.
Just curious....
As to when and where Dell advertised that the XPS line was a gaming laptop, I would be interested in seeing this. From the time I started my research into my current laptop, there was only a general mentioning that gaming could be done, but I don't remember Dell emphasizing the Gaming laptop replacement. I would think that they would be stepping on their own toes since they do own Alienware.
Rooster

 

As to positioning the xps 15 as a gaming system, I did a quick search on google (see below) and came up with the following.

1. A reviewer implying Dell called it their new gaming system.
Complete with "Dell XPS 15 Gaming Laptop Image Courtesy Dell"
2. A member discussing "Dell wants your feedback on the XPS Gaming Certification, discuss your ideas now!"

Admittedly this is not Dell Marketing literature calling the xps 15 a gaming system, but it seems clear Dell left that impression with reviewers and others. Maybe other forum members have more direct references or can provide examples where they were told by a Dell employee (tech support, etc) the xps was a gaming system.


--------------------------Reference #1---------------------
Google “xps 15 gaming”

Dell XPS 15 15.6-inch Gaming Laptop PC
By Christine McKee, About.com Contributing Writer

Dell XPS 15 Gaming Laptop Image Courtesy Dell

Nov 21 2010 - Recently, Dell unveiled three new XPS laptops. The first laptop to be reviewed was the Dell XPS 17. Today, we're looking at the Dell XPS 15 for gamers who require mobility at an affordable price.

Dell XPS 15 15.6-inch Gaming Laptop Review

-------------------------Reference #2----------------------
google “xps 15 dell calls it a gaming”
#
dell xps 15 - Dell - Search - All Dell.com
Today 15/02/2010 i had called Dell xps tech support... (Forums) ... Dell wants
your feedback on the XPS Gaming Certification, discuss your ideas now! ...
search.dell.com/results.aspx%3Fc%3Dus... - Cached - Similar

 

I prefer the 15" model for mobility. I also wanted the very best LCD screen, which was the AUO17ED 1920x1080 LCD screen only offered on the xps 15 models.

Although some owners have opted to replace their 720p screen in the xps 17 with an aftermarket 1920x1080 LCD screen, I decided against this approach for the following reasons:
1. Dell warranty concerns. Yes, Dell says their warranty is still valid for the xps 17 EXCEPT for the aftermarket screen, but I was concerned they would deny repairs (citing the repair was somehow related to the replacement of the original screen).
2. Concern the aftermarket screen for the xps 17 would not work correctly. I am sure you have been following the difficulties forum members are having finding a 1920x1080 screen for the xps 15. At first it was thought the B156HW01v1 panel was the replacement, then it was the B156HW01v4 panel, and finally it is thought the B156HW01v7 panel is the correct aftermarket panel.

 

In reference to Dell's warranty dealing with the display, I have it on good authority(a former dell customer service rep) that Dell would just refer to the manufacturer of the screen to cover the screen, so it's not really Dell that would be involved.
As to the difficulties of dealing with screen replacement, the story has been different for the XPS 17 and so far all have been success stories in replacing the display.I can only attest this to superb instruction and information supply. Sourcing the display has been a hassle, but as the demand increases, the availability of the display should become easier to find. We have it narrowed down to one supplier and they are willing to sell to individuals without bulk and the price isn't unreasonable.
I know this is off topic to your original questions, but since I did ask the questions you answered, I thought it best to respond with my opinion as well.
I do see merit in your original questions and hope that more will respond in kind.
Rooster

 

I think most people bought the xps 15 as multimedianotebook with a bit of gaming power. Which was confirmed by the first reviews that came out for this product.

Before I bought my configuration (i5/gt420m/1080p) I did not know anything about hardware specs at all but after a little bit of research in this forum and reviews it was clear that:

for gaming i5 = i7 (at least not yet, not worth the extra price)
photo/video editing etc i7 > i5
gt435 is a higher clocked gt420, not that much better
both cards are not strong enough for smooth full hd gaming
8gb RAM is not needed for gaming and dell RAM price is ridiculous

So with a little research before the buy I don't understand why you expected so much from the higher end XPS15

 

^this

The whole point here is the combo cpu-gpu.
The gt435 is a carbon copy of the gt420 with higher clocks, hence the boost in performance.
The i7 is somewhat better than i5 so ill not call it even, based on specs and benchmarks is around 3-5% faster.
If you take in account all of this then you get a marginal 10% improvement over the low end version, which is exactly what the benchmarks shown.

The problem here is a dell flaw into choiching the wrong components for a 15" laptop. There are other 15" laptops at the same price (asus g53) that offer better gpus with optimius as well (gtx460m) that are ten thousand better than any new xps 15.

Lets face it: the lineup is poor and the performance is not even comparable to a gaming laptop in the same price range with a proper gpu.

Also guys try to be neutral/impartial when you discuss something. Playing the advocate doesnt help and it just defy the reality of things. Its a bad move tagging the xps 15 as a gaming laptop with mobility because it isnt.
There are clevos 15" that last year ran gtx260-gtx280m-fx3700 and althought these cards are dx10 they beat the crap out of a gt435m.

 

I wasn't tagging the xps15 as a gaming laptop. Quite the contrary.

What I said was the **hype** spoke of the xps 15 as a decent gaming laptop. Several owners say they are pleased with its gaming capabilities. I am not one of them.

Other than my gaming concerns the high-end (i7-740qm w/ NV435M) xps 15 is an impressive laptop. Outstanding audio. Unbelievable 1920x1080 R+BG LCD for a 15" laptop (AUO17ED panel). Very Portable. No overheating or throttling issues (finally).

I prefer the xps 15 to the many other Dell laptops I have owned recently (xps1730, xps 1530, xps1640, xps 1645 w/ ATI 5730). Throttling and/or overheating were their flaws.

 

And im not saying you did, nor your assumption lead to that way.
Im sayin that its the whole Dell fault to promote a laptop with media and gaming capabilities while it cant be really a gaming laptop.
I double checked italian ads and still they tag it as "gamer laptop".
This is misleading and not true, thats all.
It can play games, yeah, but if someone searches a good balance for the same price range go for clevo or g53 asus. Same specs, a proper GPU, awesome cooling system, robust build and NOT DELL. Thats important.

 

I highlighted what I thought is a contradiction to your own statement that the review should be neutral and impartial, where you seem to be favoring asus as an example and also infer that the difference is "10,000" times better?
practice what you preach.
Being from the states, I never ran into an ad that Dell published stating that the XPS line was a dedicated gaming laptop replacement. Again, I bring up the fact that Dell owns Alienware and it would just be bad business to sell against oneself. As to proof of this , there has been only references to a third party stating that the XPS 15 was a gaming laptop, and, yes Dell should have stepped in but chose not to.
I cannot speak for the European market and I would be surprised if Dell was the one who actually advertised the XPS 15 as a gaming laptop.

This does require for research
Rooster

 

No worries, i outlined whats the problem with dell italy, promoting a thing when it isnt.
About being impartial, i am.
You need to examine the context: the discussion was leading toward the fact that the xps 15 is a gaming laptop, this in conjuction with the original op question, being the gpu score difference.
I adviced the asus laptop because i was doing a price/performance comparative just to make an example how the industry moves, and what offers instead of dell.
Also its nonsense imho saying that the gt420/435m are good cards for gaming because they arent and they are not intended too. The xps line is a business/home multimedia laptop therefore it should be considered as it is.

About my position,note that i dont own an asus, never had and never will because i dont like some design/chioiches they make in their laptops.
If we're comparing g53/g73 series prolly i will highlight some other products that are better than those in the same price range.

As for information, dell italy sucks. Its badly managed and their support is nothing but one of the worst i ever experienced. I saw people trash talking about hp, on the other hand theyre awesome here.

Also, as a final note, i do own different dell systems as well plus my personal favourite xps m1730 and i still think they are amazing machines, so i shouldnt be so neutral. But if theres something better in the same price range or if something is wrong then its my right to correctly evaluate the situation without being on dell side.
That said, all is purely imho. I hope its more clear now.

 

Definitely XPS 15 isn't a gamer laptop, but it is clear Multimedia as in many parts of Dell.

Beyond that, I played CoD MW2, SC2, Dirt2, CoD BO, Crysis and others, and most with High Settings, no problem.

That is, although it is a multimedia notebook, defends very well in the aspect gamer.

Before I bought my XPS, the other option I had was the Asus G53.. I do not know how it will be in USA or Europe, but here in Argentina and I think in all of Latin America, Asus does not have a good technical service, so that makes Dell is one of the best options.

In my opinion, the XPS 15 is a "Multimedia" laptop, with high performance for current games.

 

Fair enough... I can accept that.
But I would like to bring up a related topic that's been mentioned but never discussed in depth about the capability of the laptop and laptops like it. "Multimedia".
This nomenclature shouldn't be taken lightly and should be the focus of this laptop discussion. IMHO, this label infers that the laptop handles with above average performance, many types of media which also includes games. This was the direction that,at least in the US market, Dell represented this laptop. Not as a gaming laptop, but a "jack of all trades" laptop.
As I understand, the initial complaint was a 5 fps difference between a "low-end" Dell laptop and a "high-end" Dell laptop during a graphics benchmark test. I will reiterate that is not true test of either laptops just do to the fact the both are offered to different markets and each were equipped accordingly. Yes the price for the "high-end" laptop is excessive, but as we have all learned (hopefully) with a little research and patience you can purchase a laptop with most if not all the abilities of a " high-end" laptop for much less than quoted.
But to consider any laptop with Nvidia GeForce GT 420M or 435M graphics card a "gaming" laptop would be incorrect. I have the 445M with 3GB RAM and it is only considered a middle of the road card and I, in no way consider my laptop a "gaming laptop".
I guess I would have the originator of this line of questioning to reconsider what his definition of a gaming laptop is and then compare the answers that have been posted so far and then evaluate if the question still has merit.
Rooster

 

It is important to differentiate the gaming capabilities of an xps 15 (a) with the 1366x768 panel vs. (b) with the R+BG FHD 1920x1080 panel.

The xps 15 with the 1366x768 panel has 50% less pixels. Hence it should be a better gaming system. This is not in dispute.

question #1.....
Is it possible the "gaming hype" was directed at the 720p model? and
the "multimedia hype" was directed at the 1080p model?

question #2 (original purpose of this thread)....
How many owners of a high-end xps 15 (w/ R+BG FHD 1920x1080p screen) believed they were buying a gaming laptop, capable of playing many of today's most demanding games, at native resolution, at respectable fps rates?

Some responses posted so far do not state whether they consider the R+BG FHD 1920x1080 xps 15 a respectable gaming system. Instead, they focus on whether the NV435 is a decent gaming GPU. It may be to owners of the 1366x768 xps 15 (where the NV435 has to manage 50% less pixels during gaming), and not to 1920x1080 xps 15 owners (like myself).

Question #2 still has merit.... doesn't it?


A bit of a digression - I wanted the R+BG FHD panel over the 1366x768 panel because of reviewer and owner praise ("one of two best LCD panels currently available" b/c of its vibrant and saturated colors, color gamut, better viewing angle, and so on). Important concerns for gaming and "other multimedia" applications.

I wonder how many xps 15 owners passed on the R+BG FHD 1920x1080p panel to improve the gaming capability of their system? Just curious.

 

There is potential and merit in this discussion and I would like to see it continue with more interaction from more readers who are actual XPS 15 owners.
From my own experience with posting on the XPS 17 thread and creating a thread for graphic driver comparison for the XPS 17, I have posted questions in the same vein as you have and usually get a decent response. Might I suggest advertising your query in the thread for XPS 15 owners to drum up more responses? I will do the same in the threads I have mentioned just to see If I can get you more data for comparison. With your permission I will copy your revised question and post as stated.
would this be OK with you, crystallakegary?
Rooster

 

I agree. The questions you, I and other readers have raised are important questions deserving a wider audience.

More discussion will help current owners better manage their system expectations. Or help current readers better understand important considerations before making a buying decision.

By all means, let's help our fellow (newbie) readers by engaging in a spirited and meaningful discussion. Hopefully we can motivate and engage our more experienced readers to offer their insights and experience in these discussions.

While the original discussion initially focused on the differences between the NV420 and NV435 GPUs (as measured by their mere 5 fps differences in "synthetic gaming" tests), the expansion of the discussion to include the differences between the 1366x768 vs R+BG FHD 1920x1080 panels in terms of their suitability in different situations, was critical to making this a more meaningful discussion. So was the need to discuss how different readers define a gaming laptop, or the "gaming" vs "multimedia" concepts in selecting a suitable xps15 config.

Below I googled some info from the NVIDIA site and the notebookcheck site regarding the NV435M GPU and its suitability for gaming and other multimedia applications. Of interest are the gaming performance results shown on the notebookcheck site (in addition to the “synthetic gaming” test results). Feel free to include any of this info in the new threads.

----------
Great performance AND great battery life.
With NVIDIA® Optimus™ technology you get great battery life and performance whether you’re watching a video, surfing the web, or playing a 3D game.

GeForce GT 435M

------------
In our tests, the GT435M handled demanding games of 2010 like Mafia 2 or Battlefield: Bad Company 2 with medium details and WXGA resolution settings. Less demanding games like Fifa 11 or StarCraft 2 (single player) can be played in high details without stuttering.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 435M - Notebookcheck.net Tech