1530 gets 4400 3dmark06 score?

In the review here ( http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4127) 1530 gets 4400 3dmark06 score using a 8600M GT with 256 mb vram. I'm not sure if that is ddr3 or ddr2, but either way, that score is way higher than any other 8600M GT. What's the deal?

 

the 8600M GT has the GDDR3 vram, it was confirmed in the thread about that review

Edit: Here is the post
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2737663&postcount=76

 

But still, the G2S also has GDDR3 vram, but doesn't get those scores. I'm impressed

 

The resolution is lower. If you were capable of running 3dmark06 on the 1530 with the standard 1280x1024 resolution, it would score 3600.

 

Okay

To the guy who disasembled it, wouldn't it just have been easier to check the clocks with an overclocking utility ? -_-

 

I highly doubt that 224 lines of horizontal resolution is going to drop your score by ~1000 points.

 

Well the generally accepted score for the 8600 GDDR3 running 3dmark06 @ 1280x1024 is between 36-3700, although I've seen up to 3800.

Soo...I dunno

 

The GDDR2 version scores 3500-3600 at default clocks of 475/950/400 on a well setup computer (good drivers, not running Vista, lean and mean).

Anything other than 1280x1024 can't be compared, which means you need at minimum the 1440x900 screen to run this benchmark and compare scores with most people. 1280x800 isn't enough resolution and it will show a higher score.

I'm guessing the main difference between the two cards will be its overclock potential.

 

How much do you think it will drop by the increase in resolution to 1280x1024?

 

We've actually tested it between 1280x800 and 1280x1024 and the change is pretty drastic, maybe not 1000, but a good chunk. We settled on the notion that the addition vertical space made much more of an impact on 3DMark than horizontal space.

There's another thing weird about that review seen here:

While the CPU in the system is then stated to be the T7500, a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo. Though that could just be a typo.

However, I got to say, the reviewer is pretty trustworthy.

 

Weren't your benchmarks run at 1280x800?

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2743054&postcount=23

 

Not sure, but I would say no more the 500 pts. If you were going from WXGA to WSXGA or WUXGA than yes the difference should be more than 1k pts (this is from my experience, anyway)....

 

So with DDR3 of 8600m confirm is there a possibility for upgrade the DDR2 8600m in my Vostro 1500?, that is if I manage to get my hands on a Dell 8600m GDDR3 version.

 

No, 1280x1024.

Actually, thanks for linking to that...that was actually a typo.

 

How did you test 1280x1024 on a 1440x900 screen? You can't change your resolution to larger than you can support.

 

That's a good question...but you can't change the resolution of 3DMark06 with the unregistered version...

 

Agreed. So there must be a way to monitor. Does nvidia monitor record resolution settings in the event log? Maybe you could monitor it that way.

3dmark has to do one of two things if it can't display in its default resolution. It either uses your current desktop resolution (which may not always be a good idea) or it decreases the resolution until it finds one it can display.

If it is doing the latter, it has to be displaying the games in a resolution that you can support. So its going to pick one that it can run. Most likely 1280x800. Maybe even 1024x768.

 

FYI I just ran 3dmark06 at 1440x900 with NVIDIA allowing software to control the graphics and got a score of 3942 at 600/500.

Then I ran it at 1280x800 and got a score of 4403. And by the way, the games looked absolutely amazing at 1280x800. They were fast and only dipped below 10fps a few times but there were video sync issues as the display is only rated at 60hz and unable to keep up.

When I ran it at the default resolution of 1280x1024 I got a score of 3911.

So, not to slam you any harder (just been trying to get to the truth), I believe that your tests, as you stated earlier, are invalid since you have no way of showing 1280x1024 and I doubt a T7250 with less memory would perform 500 marks higher than a T7500 with more memory.

 

T61p 15.4" that I had a while back ran at 3700-3800 in 3dmark 06 with a t7300 so your scores seem right on the mark with a t7500

 

You know you may be right. I'll try a screen capture later and check what size the image comes out to be. If it's 1280x800, then...I'll have to kick myself and edit my benchmark thread.

 

I just reloaded my OS and am running the latest non WHQL NVIDIA drivers and Vista has already benched a .1 point higher than before, so I'm anxious to see what 3dmark scores.

 

Alright, it was 1280x854. I am not sure why it selected that resolution, but it can't be changed with the trial version.

I guess I never look at that...I normally don't have to deal with it, coming from the desktop PC world. I am not used to such limitations so forgive my relative new-ness in the realm of notebooks

 

Haven't read any of the other pages, but I got my card 3 points higher by OC'n it 25mhz.. lol

Only differences I believe are OC'n potential.

 

I've always found it odd that 1280x1024 is the "standard" even though half the laptops out there can't even display that resolution.

You'd think we'd be better off running 3dmark at 1024x768. 16:9 machines can display it, 4:3 machines can display it, and I can't imagine ANY recent laptop not being able to run at that resolution.

Hell, even 1280x800 or a variant thereof would be better than 1280x1024 as the standard. At least then we could properly compare scores, instead of all this resolution mumbo jumbo

 

Because 3dmark has never cared about laptops. Its really only been just recent that you could start considering laptops as actual desktop replacements. Now they're bringing SLI and dual video cards to laptops. Pretty soon everyone will be using a laptop.

Now if someone can just agree on form factors, we could buy our own mother boards LCD panels and build them from scratch.

 

640k, That's exactly what I've been saying, standardize laptops with form factors. Then we can upgrade/swop with what every is available with our form factor.

"oops that video card doesn't fit, I guess I'll get a new case for it"

God that'd be awesome. We'd be upgrading all the damn time but it would still be awesome.

It isn't far off..

 

I cam to the realization that 3dmark05 actually has a default resolution of 1024x768. The 1280x1024 is new. What people aren't realizing is most notebook benchmarks are BS because most notebooks can't run 1280x1024. The entire XPS 1500 line only gets 1280x800 so to the original poster of this thread, that makes a huge difference in the results.

My DD2 8600M GT gets the same benchmarks OC'd that the GDDR3 8600M GT gets. With that said, I'd like to see what the GDDR3 could OC to.

 

You won't experience the same level of performance in real games unless you've got your memory clocked at 700mhz (1400mhz ddr) or above.