The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Ati x1600 with low 3dMark?

    Discussion in 'Gaming (Software and Graphics Cards)' started by conejeitor, Oct 12, 2006.

  1. conejeitor

    conejeitor Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    28
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Hi Guys,
    So, Martynas got this Acer laptop, with an Ati x1600. However, in the 3dmark 2005 She/He just got 2406.
    All the other laptops that I checked with that card had at least 3000. I wonder why. I'm guessing is in the laptop RAM, or may be the x1600 with only 128 Mb is crap?
    What do you guys think?
    (I'm worried cause I'm planning to buy one very similar, so thanks a lot for any help)
    These are the specs of her/his laptop:

    Model: Acer Aspire 5112WLMi
    * AMD Turion 64 X2, TL-50 (1.6GHz, 256Kb x 2 cache)
    * ATI Xpress 200 (I think this is the motherboard)
    * RAM: DDR2 1GB (512x2 533MHz)
    * Video: Radeon x1600, 128Mb DDR2 (with up to 512 hypermemory), PCI-Express x16
    * Sound: Realtek HD, 2 stereo speakers
    * HDD: 120GB, 5400 RPM, SATA
    * LCD: 15.4", WXGA, Acer CrystalBrite (Glossy), 200nit, 16ms response
    * CD: DVD+-RW, Super-multi, Tray-load
     
    conejeitor, Oct 12, 2006
    #1
  2. Pitabred

    Pitabred Linux geek con rat flail!

    Reputations:
    3,300
    Messages:
    7,115
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    206
    It is probably the 128MB of RAM that the X1600 has that's hamstringing it. Most of the benchmarks for the X1600 here are for cards with 256MB dedicated or more.
     
    Pitabred, Oct 12, 2006
    #2
  3. TwilightVampire

    TwilightVampire Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    362
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    The 128mb x1600 is bad in 3DMark. Its real world gaming performance however, is actually not so different from a "real" ( ;) ) x1600
     
    TwilightVampire, Oct 12, 2006
    #3
  4. zadillo

    zadillo Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    421
    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    106
    True, although it still sounds kind of low even considering. I think the MacBook Pro with the 128MB version of the X1600 still benchmarks around 2800, and that's with a significantly underclocked X1600.
     
    zadillo, Oct 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Notebook Solutions

    Notebook Solutions Company Representative NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    461
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    ONE VERY IMPORTANT THING

    My friend also had an Acer with your same specs. His harddrive was installed as FAT32 instead of NFTS. This setting impacts your performance! Follow my instructions:

    Ok, the X1600 with 128 MB isnt a very good card but 2460 looks like a very low score. I recommend formatting your notebook (Acer has a lot of programs on it that use your memory). While formatting choose NFTS (not fast, fast does not check your HD for errors).

    After formatting, reinstall the newest drivers (you can also try Omega). It takes a lot of time, but it fixes all the programs.

    Charlie :)
     
    Notebook Solutions, Oct 12, 2006
    #5
  6. conejeitor

    conejeitor Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    28
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I found out that in that Acer, the x1600 might be working at 64 bits instead of 128. I wonder if that is true, and if that is responsible for the low 3d mark, which would be a shame.
     
    conejeitor, Oct 12, 2006
    #6
  7. Kitch

    Kitch Newbie

    Reputations:
    1
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    I've been playing around with the Performance/Quality settings in the CCC and I can get from a low of 2235 when set at "optimal quality" to a high of 2914 when set at "optimal performance".
    As far as frames per second go, the settings that give me good results in 3DMark05 are less than optimal for PassMark's 3D tests.
     
    Kitch, Oct 12, 2006
    #7