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.
Wow, have midrangers gone far or what? Its interesting it feels like low end and mid range cards are making leaps whereas high end cards are only going up slightly each generation.
Sorry to poop on the parade, but half of that is probably the i7, down it a couple thousand with a normal processor and its still pretty high. I remember the high end a few years ago, as in the 7950GTX was getting around 6000.
Go check the asus forum, its all over. And w/ my CPU OC'd to the max, and GPU OC'd to the max I managed just under 12,000 marks @ 1280x1024. One member with an X1A got 12,300 with his quad OC'd to 2.15GHz and his GPU had a bit lower clocks than mine. That tells me the quad CPU is having at least 1 more core being used.
*edit*
here is a user getting 12,000+ marks with a 2.4GHz OC'd quad:
The quad CPU's do get higher scores than dual core in 3dmark06. With my T9600 OC'd to 3.2 GHz, I still get a lower CPU score than someone with a quad at 2.3 GHz.
Hm, well, Ill go look ( I guess, even though if you present an argument it should be YOU that provides proof, not me go and search for your proof ) you can explain why a system with an
Q9450 comes within 1000 points of i7-920 even though the i7-920 is not only faster clock for clock, but also uses SMT, which would make the score pretty one sided were the program multithreaded.
Honestly, you could just use logic, the program was developed in 2005, what are the chances it actually took advantage of CPUs with more than one core? Even HT was fairly new at that point.
well look at my post again I just provided proof. And it was you sir, that provided the argument that 06 is a single threaded app. I presented the counter argument.
A counter
argument is still an
argument, which you must provide proof for. But either way, either both of us are wrong or both of us are right ( in some weird twisted way ), as my point still stands with the i7-920 vs the Q9450. Like I said, were it multithreaded then 920's score should be quite a bit higher compared to the Q9450.
Ok, and I stand corrected by the horses mouth,
but the benchmark I posted ( as well as many others I can find for you ) still stands. Anyone want to explain?
NAS, those benchmarks contain the GPU part of the benchmark too. That and the weight that 3dmark puts on the CPU will smooth things out when you look at final scores.
I'm not saying you're wrong though. What I am saying is:
EVERYONE SHUT UP AND GET BACK ON TOPIC
That's a beastly score for a midrange GPU. I like the power draw of the 40nm parts too. I'm still holding on for 32nm CPU and 40nm GPU personally.
I could compromise if the new dell studio 17 added a 1080p screen option and a 40nm gpu (with the 45nm cpu). I like this though
Quad vs quad. Even if the i7 is faster clock for clock, it's not THAT much faster than a top end C2Q. Check out Anandtech's i7 mobile article, the results are the same there. i7 comes out on top but not by a huge margin vs a high end c2q.
Cant really use i7-m because of turbo mode. The dynamically changing clockspeed makes it impossible to compare( they list every benchmark as 2Ghz, but turbo mode is kicking in ), unlike the Q9450 vs the i7-920 since they are both always at 2.66Ghz.
Anyway, the CPU is impressive, but its just the GT 240. Personally, Id like to see the new GTS 250m and GTS 260m in action im comparison with the GTX 260m.
LOL, really gaming benchmarks? This card can run Crysis Pretty well for a midranger. Think about it, this is just an Asus with a T9600 look at this from GentechPC:
just another note, that 3DMark score is at 1366x768 res, w/ an external monitor and the standard 1280x1024 res it'd be a fair bit lower. Not saying its a bad card, but its still not super impressive, imo.
Actually you can compare them. When you max out the load, i7 will run at the stated speed. Turbo boost doesn't work unless 1 or more cores are not being utilized. It will shut down those core(s) and overclock the remaining one(s) that are being stressed.
The 9700M GTS might perform a tad better when it comes to higher resolutions, but it would hardly destroy the GT 240M. Both have 48 stream processors and while the major difference between the Geforce 9700M GTS and Geforce GT 240M would be the 256bit memory bus vs 128bit the GT 240M has slightly higher clocks. Now that's not enough to gain that loss in memory bus, but there are other advantages such as running under a smaller 40 nm vs 65 nm, having Shader 4.1 and supporting DirectX 10.1.
The 9700M is only 5-10% slower than the 9800M GS, which
does show that it will prove to be significantly faster than the GT 240M. The memory bus makes that big of a difference.
Well, the 240m is 58% faster than the 4570 which uses the same gigawatts as 22% of a flux capacitor when traveling only 63 miles per hour. Based on that the 240m should be about 35% of the speed of a ford taurus.
Yeah, I can spit out randomly unverified generalizations and statistics and expect every ready to accept them as fact too.
No, I'm not picking on you kevin jack, I'm just making a point.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
![[IMG]](images/storyImages/1816466_06_1024.jpg)
![[IMG]](images/storyImages/slide6-i7920xm-turbomodes.jpg)
