Am I Being A Baby? Are 3D Mark Scores the Holy Grail?

Ok...I just had my bottle and I think I wet myself...but.....just bought a Sony FX series with the 8400GT. 3DMark06 is around 2500. I see that if I had the 8600 I could get around 5000.

I spend most of my computer time online and writing. But I also play some games and do a bit of HD video editing.

Thought about the new ASUS G1 but not crazy about the 1600 resolution. My eyes can see it fine but it's still a pain in the butt for all the web surfing that I do.

So I guess I'm wondering if I'm being a huge baby about the extra 3D scores. Will my video editing and gaming really see a huge difference? This sony was 2K and I know I can pick up the ASUS with that. Or isn't there a Toshiba with the 8700 card?

If anyone can yell at me and tell me that I'm being a little brat I would greatly appreciate it. I guess I just want the best performance for my money.

Anyway, here comes my mom with some creamed spinach and corn. Yummm.

Thanks in advance for your help!

-Seth-

 

lol u won't get up to 5000 with a 8600m GT

 

well, even 4000 would be a nice increase....

 

The 8400mGT should be fine for casual gaming. Don't expect to be playing Crysis on high settings, though.

 

The Sony FX has a smaller screen, so 3dmarks will be higher with a diff card...

 

There was this on the G1s, which is pretty good:

 

That's the GDDR2, right?

How'd they get that? Massive overclocking?

 

Well, it's at a low resolution, and it's overclocked.

 

Ya, it was overclocked and at a lower resolution. The G1s, currently, has the fastest 8600GT, apparently GDDR3 instead of GDDR2.

 

8600m GT (not overclocked) 4300 high 3500 avg 3DMark 06 link http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-8600M-GT.3986.0.html

Doesnt 3DMark adjust scores for settings?

 

No, 3dmark does not normalize the scores in any way. If you perform it at 1024x768, you'll get a much higher score than if you run it at 1600x1200.

 

3DMark is NOT a true test of real life gaming performance. All it can do is give you a very basic idea. Sometimes you can get higher or lower scores with it, and have poor performance in games or high performance in games.

The only real way to test it, is to play things.

 

HD Video editing, does that even utilize the video processor at ALL?

Most editing programs (photo, audio, video) use the CPU to process data, they don't utilize the GPU at all.

Ok, so if I'm right that's one worry out the window.

What games do you play?

The 8400GT is a nice card, its probably a better bang for your buck than an 8600GS because they both have 16 stream processors.

If you are talking Crysis level of performance, then you need to keep crying. It might play it, but it will be on low settings low resolution and low FPS.

If you are talking Counterstrike, UT2004, Command and Conquer: 3, then you are FINE!

 

Thank you all for the information....Flight simulator is what I play most and I seem to be able to run it at a decent pace with medium density. I believe that the CPU does most of the work but the nvidia 8 series claims to help offset some of the work with HD video.

I guess it just bugs me that for the same money I could have a better video card. But I just couldn't live with the higher resolution, at least not for all the web surfing I do.

I guess I'll keep checking if there's a laptop out there with the 8600 card and either the 1280 or 1440 resolution. If anyone know of any, please let me know.

Thanks a bunch!

 

Dell Vostro?

 

heres a good review on the FZ
http://www.laptopmag.com/Review/Sony-VAIO-FZ-Series-Notebook-PC-VGN-FZ180-E-B.htm

 

If we're gonna post reviews, then here is another one
http://www.trustedreviews.com/notebooks/review/2007/06/05/Sony-VAIO-VGN-FZ11L/p1

The Compal IFL90
http://www.powernotebooks.com/specs/PowerPro/j10-15.php

You didn't pay 2K for the FZ, did you?

 

Yea....I paid over 2K because it was $500 extra for the 2.4 chip...But I can send it back...

Thanks for the Compaq suggestion...but I really would like the HDMI out, which the Sony has...

 

Just keep in mind that not all 8600M GTs come with the GDDR3 700MHz version. Otherwise, with the 400MHz version, you're only looking at 3000-3200.

In any case, I wouldn't worry about 3DMarks anyways. If the card'll play your games fine, comparing 3DMark scores with other people seems somewhat pointless.

Unless you're on a 3DMark team or something.

 

Er, no. 3dMark scores are basically just e-peen bragging rights.

They don't reflect real-world performance. The only thing that matters is real-world performance. Sometimes, by sheer luck, 3dmark and the real world agrees on a system's performance, but that's only accidental.

 

Don't take the 3DMark06 Scores too literally. They are just that a baseline. And using 1024x768 resolution vs the standard 1280x1024 resolution bump's the score up quite a bit. My notebook can hit 12k 3DMark06 at that low a res.

 

Sure, there is (will be) the HP 8510p then...
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/321957-321957-64295-321838-3329741-3355678.html

 

Thanks Dreamer....checked out that link and the machine looks great! I wouldn't mind XP either as Serious Magic Ultra II still does not support Vista. I guess I'll keep checking that page!

 

It's kinda sad that the Sager 2090 comes with the crappy version of the 8600M GT =\