Do higher 3DMark scores mean better performance?

I have been laptop shopping on and off since October and have been researching to try and make sense of it all. There are still some things that I struggle with when I evaluate options. This is going strickly on my mindset of gaming performance with visuals not far behind.

Take a HP dv4000 which has the ATI X700 128MB gpu that will produce 3DMark05 numbers around 2500. The native resolution is only 1280x800. The Dell E1750 could have a Geforce Go7800 that will do 3700+ in the same test but with a screen with 1440x900. Then you can have a M170 that displays a 1920x1200 but with a 7800GTX this machines 3DMark05 scores are in the 6600 range.

My logic behind this question is would'nt a lower score laptop with less real estate be close to a higher scoring laptop with greater screen res in game performance? I will also take into consideration that a WUXGA+ would have the greater detail since the pixels are more, but I am talking the gaming aspect. This of course is assuming all these machines other stats are close, 2.0ghz CPU, 2GB of RAM, etc, etc. I also understand that there is a difference between a 15.4" with 1280x800 vs a 17" with 1920x1200 but try to focus on my intent.

Please help me understand whether or not my "performance" theory is idiotic and I would have been better off trimming my toenails instead of trying to reason this question.

 

3DMark05 is run in a standard resolution of 1024x768. The native screen of the notebook does not have anything to do with that, test unless you specify the program to run at that.

Yes, higher resolutions do cause the performance to drop, due to a lot of factors, including the GPU has a lot more area to render, and the fill rate, which is how many pixels it can shade at one time [basically].

If 3DMark is run at the same resolution on a bunch of cards, and one gets a higher score, yes, that denotes that the higher-scoring card has better performance.

Keep in mind though - you can't use synthetic benchmarks to judge all the cards, they're more of a thing to see where a certain card falls on the "High-end" or "Low-end" in my opinon.

 

I understand that they use 1024x768 to get the number score but I was just using this number to base my theory off.

But you are saying that the benchmark is not a good indicator when comparing stats they way I was?

 

Not really understanding your question.

 

I think kreidel asks if the weaker card on a lower native res produces the same FPS as the stronger card on higher native res of the LCD.

I guess there is some logic behind it. And the answer is most probably yes.

Cheers,

 

Exactly what I mean...thanks for clarifying things. I even reread through my post and was confused

 

Yeah, and english is not my first language! So I guess I'm a careful reader.

Cheers,

 

Yeah, I got it now. Thanks Ivan. Hard to believe that your native is not English!

I'd agree . . the higher end card playing at a higher resolution would still probably be faster - there will be anonomalies, but that seems to be generally correct.

Any cards in particular you want to compare?

 

I guess I am really thinking HP dv4000 or the Compaq version which I like the looks better, a Dell E1705 with a 1440x900 screen. I am worried the Dell will be alittle on the cheaply made side although I am extremely careful with stuff. I would have loved to get a Sager 5720 or maybe even a 9750 but those seem to be the worst made laptops ever as far as quality control goes. It seems like it's Russian Roulette with Sager, you know it's going to break or have problems but is it when it first arrives or 2 weeks later? I was wanting a smaller laptop but it appears there is nothing below a 15.4" that is worth replacing my desktop with.

 

Woah - the Sager 5720 is far superior to the Dell. I have the 5320 Sager - it is the 15.4" version of the 5720. The build quality is very good. I have owned HP's, Acers, Dells, Toshibas - Sager tops them all. Definitely better than a Dell. I know you said quality control . . but still, just thought I would confirm that the Sager doesn't have poor quality. Did you mean poor quality control as in a lot are defective?

Yeah, Dell's have declined in recent years, although the value aspect is hard to deny. The lack of build quality is more apparant on the lower end models. If you are going for the best bang for your buck, the Dell E1705 take the crown. I would say the build quality is 'average'. You might want to see if there is a Dell kiosk set up somewhere in your area, maybe you can see it in person and judge for yourself.

EDIT: Hey guys, 8000th post!!!!

 

Congrats on 8k!

I have been reading the Sager forums and it seems like you have to overlook alot of things(hissing noise, screaching noise in BF2, FEAR, Low benchmarks, etc) and then you have to be ready for the fact it might not work at all or if it does it won't for long.

I agree with the Dell being more crappy than ever but they have a good return policy. I am sure they outsell Sager so I would expect to see alot of problems with lower quality builds like Dell.

 

Yeah, I think it just has to do with the simple fact that you hear a lot more of the bad rather than the good. I know people who have had Sager notebooks for a long time. . .Sager has been in business for over twenty years, so they are pretty well established.

I post occasionally over on NBF [in the Sager section only though . .heh], since a lot of people over there have Sager's. Get some more insight about the various models, issues with them, performance, etc.

Sager has a 30-day return policy vs. Dell's 21.

Cheers

 

I agree more will complain then compliment but it seems for the low numbers of these sold there are alot of vocal people vs. more mainstream laptops.

I read up over at NBF also and get most of my information there. I like this site better