CULV performance questions, I'm baffled

Hi, I guess this thread belongs in this subforum. I recently got a Lenovo U150 (again) and I've been testing it out under 7/XP. It has the SU7300 (1.3GHz) Core 2 Duo, with Intel 4500MHD IGP. One thing that really has me wondering is, in Battlefield 1942, under medium settings, it runs really bad, yet, my former 2008 Macbook (2.1GHz Core 2 Duo, Intel x3100), it ran great under medium settings. Now while I understand this is a CULV ultraportable, it scores roughly the same as the macbook under 3dmark06, and I can't understand why it's running so bad. Secondly, I also tested Klingon Academy. It ran absolutely great with my former EEE PC, but with the U150 it runs like crap.
I've tried different drivers, no effect, and the usual tweaks, no effect. Can someone shed some light as to possibly why this is happening? Is the CULV C2D really that bad???
Oh and a side note, Quake 3 based games run just fine...

 

it is clocked at like half the speed for starters...

there are probably other performance compromises as well to optimize performance /watt at the cost of total performance.

 

I suppose so, but the fact that they score virtually the same in 3dmark makes me wonder why there's such a difference in performance between the two.

 

The fact that they score the same in 3DMark tends to make me suspect there may be something wrong with that particular unit or OS...

 

The system is fine from what I can tell, it's just not a performer. What I'm thinking is, because 3dmark is a generic, pre-loaded benchmark, and the games I've tried I'm seeing such a difference might suggest that they are more cpu dependant than gpu I'm thinking.

 

Hmm, most likely right. Maybe the games you tried were extremely shader heavy or something, that stressed a particularly weak part of the GPU...not that it's all that strong in the first place...

 

You have to keep in mind that benchmarks are not always an indication on how well a system will behave in games or actual programs.

For example, people were getting low 3dMark numbers with OC-ed gpu's and yet the gaming performance was an entirely different story.

But, some good points were made.
The CULV C2D have a reduced clock speed, and I would wager that if you want to have a passable frame rate where the cpu isn't the bottleneck, a 2.0 Ghz is the minimum.

It's also possible that some other aspects in the OS itself are reducing the framerates.

Is the OS you're playing it under packed with bloat-ware?
Programs that came pre-installed from the manufacturer?
If so, remove all of them (except for ones that are used by the OS as drivers), and also check what kind of A/V you're using.
Some of those can be resource heavy.
From the free solutions that do not have an impact on the OS performance and have a high detection rate would be: Avira, MSE and AVAST 5.

Clean up the start-up of programs that you do not need and only retain for example the a/v and the touchpad drivers (everything else, generally speaking can go).

 

Hmmm. BF1942... Didn't that ran will on a 2,4 Pentium 4 back in the day?

Is a CULV 7300 worse than a Pentium 4 in pure power?

 

BF1942 should run on it no problem. I ran it on my Atom powered netbook with GMA950 without much issue. Your netbook should run it fine.

I would run CPU-Z when gaming and make sure your CPU isn't "stuck" at a lower speed for power saving (speedstep). Also, try setting your machine to "High Performance" in your power profile (just click on the battery icon in the system tray). See how that works.

Also, go to microsoft.com/directx and download the latest runtime to make sure your directx is up to date.

Finally, what antivirus are you using? Try to disable that. Microsoft Security Essentials has been a dog for me on netbooks.

 

its the combination of the slow processor and intel gma graphics chip that is the problem.

 

his new IGPU is 4500... his old one was X3100. Ain't there a noticeble difference between them?


Also BF1942 was from 2002. It can't be right that CULV would struggle for such an old game?

 

Wrong wrong wrong. BF 1942 minimum spec is P3-500MHz and 32MB graphics RAM. I hardly doubt it should struggle. It has nothing to do with the CPU or GPU. I played BF1942 on my Eee 1000h without issue and it had an Atom N270 and GMA950. His SU7300 and 4500MHD should run circles around it.

 

Yeah I don't get it either.

 

Did you check the things I noted in post #9? Not that it will help, but I'd say return the laptop if it can't perform any better, if you can.

 

Run GPU-z and see what your clocks and fill rates are.

This is of an Acer 1410 with GMA4500

 

Ok I will. Thanks a lot.

@htwingnut, I haven't upgraded the directx libraries (old games), but I do the usual tweaks, disable antivirus, unnecessary services, etc. As a matter of fact I'm down to about 150mb memory cached from a fresh reboot.

Edit: Ok, here it is, identical to yours. :\



The memory type is wrong though, my notebook has DDR3. But notice it only says 128MB, versus your 256MB. >_<
Another thing is, I know for a fact my notebook has the GS45 chipset, not GM45. I question the accuracty of gpu-z, it makes me wonder. :S

 

Even though they are old games I would still update your directX. Only takes a minute and has fixed issues for me in the past.

 

No P4 would be beaten by 7300 but fact is my old pentium 4 desktop and lousy intel GMA could play on high...

For B1942, i must completely disagree... but generally this is the problem.

Try this... this is sometimes the problem as stock OS doesn't have all the directx files...

 

I've decided to send it back, and eat the restocking fee. Thanks for everyone's replies.

 

GPU-Z doesn't recognize Intel GPUs correctly. The 475MHz frequency is still based on beta hardware reports, and it shows identical information for all 4 series chipsets, be it mobile or desktop.

It doesn't have 10 ROPs either.

 

LOL. A C2D CULV clocked at 1.3GHz would make a Pentium D clocked at 3.06GHz look bad. Matter of fact, the UL50Vt by Asus can be slightly overclocked with the OEM Asus Turbo33 Utility to get to P8400 benches. And I would hate to imagine how bad a P8400 would make a P4 look *cringes*.

@IntelUser, yea, it actually has twelve SP's, and it's supposed to be clocked at 533MHz for the GS/GM45 and I believe 400MHz for the GL/GS40.

@talin, Actually I recommend you get the UL50Vt, as it has rediculously long battery life, has switchable graphics, and is pretty powerful for it's size.

 

Ironlake(Arrandale) has 12 EUs, Eaglelake(4 series) has 10.

GM45=533MHz
GS45=320MHz(500MHz with HD videos)
GL40/GS40=400MHz

 

Ah, mmk. Intel IGP's always seem to be oddly clocked to me. What are the specs on the new "on-die" GMA-HD? I see you said Arrandale has 12EU's but with what clocks, and does turboboost apply?

 

The GMA HD has 4 versions on mobile at the moment.

SV i5/i7-500MHz(766MHz Turbo)
SV i3-500MHz(667Mhz Turbo)
LV-266MHz(566MHz Turbo)
ULV-166MHz(500MHz Turbo)

The single and multi-textured fillrate is also higher per EU clock than the 4500MHD. The desktop X4500HD used a 800MHz EU frequency and 400MHz core frequency, with laptop 4500MHD parts both proportionally lower.

I'm not fully sure but I think the GMA HD runs core and EU frequency at the same clock.

X3100: 4 ROP/clock with lower frequency
4500MHD: 4 ROP/clock for most operations
GMA HD: 4 ROP/clock for ALL operations








(OP: Ok, when you are comparing 3DMark scores for 3DMark06 or newer, you should compare the SM or the GPU scores. The new 3DMarks are really really bad. Also, 3DMark06 is representative of newer games. If you get the same problem, use 3DMark05 instead next time)

 

Wait, the GS45 graphics core is clocked at 320MHz??? Are you certain?? That would certainly explain the crappy performance, versus a system equipped with GM45. GPU-Z reported mine at 475MHz (but said it was a GM45 chipset, which I know it's GS45).

According to notebookcheck, the GS45 can be clocked either at 320MHz or 533MHz. Is there any way to be certain which mine is clocked at?



From notebookcheck,

 

It depends on your CPU FSB. Your's should have been the 533MHz since you have the 800MHz FSB, I think. CPU-z needs updating fo sho.

EDIT: What's up with that chart, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it just is throwing me for a loop!

 

The processor FSB is 800MHz definitely, while the RAM runs at 1066MHz (DDR3).
I think we're close to figuring this mystery out, thanks for all who have posted!
So to recap. I'm getting worse performance than with my old 2008 Macbook. Although it had an x3100 graphics chip, it had a 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo, vs. my Lenovo U150. IIRC, I think my macbook scored ~550 in 3dmark06 (that's why I expected similiar performance) vs. 594 for my U150. So, faster processor and slower graphics, vs. slower processor and faster graphics (maybe not in this case however).
I think there's a mistake in the chart btw, it should read double for the FSB clock under GS45.

 

Thank you, I thought I was seeing things. And if that is true then I correct myself, it should have been 320MHz. GPU-z was just reporting wrong. Makes me have side-glances at my 1410. -_-

EDIT: And of course since it was an Apple, it had the higher clock in place for the X3100. + Apple wrote their own driver for that one, not intel from what I remember, so it was really optimized for mac, unless you were playing the game in bootcamp.

 

Just in windows, using the bootcamp drivers. I just initiated a return for the U150, so I guess this "case" is closed. Now off to search for another notebook.

 

Good luck, and good investigative work boys (maybe girls?). Another myth debunked!

BUSTED!

 

Now to decide what to get next. I wouldn't mind a tablet this time around. Hmm, what do decide....

 

The GS45 chipset has "high performance" and "low power" options. With the "high performance" option, its basically GM45, the clocks are higher and TDP is higher. The "low power" option is what the manufacturer would use, because there would be no point of using GS45 otherwise. If you have a LV or ULV CPU and its a GS45, it will be a "low power" version.

 

That makes sense. Makes me wonder if it's a BIOS locked option or something.

 

Would you be kind and get your laptop back to test for us?

Just kidding.

 

Yeah sure, let me just drive back to the UPS store and kindly ask for it back.
Just out of curiousity, what system do you have in your sig?

 

This system? Oh its just a custom built desktop.

 

The processor should have been the first clue, but I missed it.

 

I just have one more question if I may? Now that it's been established my notebook had the underclocked GS45 chipset, would I see much of an increase if I got a system with the GM45 chipset? 3dmark06 would seem to suggest around 1,000 points with a high end core 2 duo processor (P8600 and above), whereas my system scored 594.
What do you think?

 

I'd say if you're in the market now... go ahead and get an i3 based system with the GMAHD. A high performance i-series core with GMAHD would be similar to a C2D notebook with a radeon HD4200.