Gaming performance Q9000, NP8662 XP SP3

I'm surprised that your 500GB 7200.4 gets up to 60°. My 250GB version idles at 48° and maxes at 55° under heavy load.

 

Sure, that would be fine. Should be interesting.

 

yea i cant wait, it is suppose to ship on the 15th and then i have to go outta town on the 19th i will load them when i get the time

 

I have found that it varies because when my laptop was at my friends house the idle and load temps were lower. They have a bigger space than me so that must have been why.

Also, at the moment, my laptop has been on for about an hour idle and the HDD temps are 46C but it is a cool day.

 

I know exactly how you feel, having a powerful gaming laptop is just so great and being able to have the freedom of gaming anywhere is so cool. I would expect your M17X to get a lot higher fps than my NP8662 due to the SLI and faster GTX 280M at the same resolutions.

I think I might get a 17'' in the future for the higher performance potential but I will see how everything goes. As it stands, I was enjoying a long game of Oblivion last night with absolutely no slow downs even during battles and every single other game I have tried has worked maxed out or at reasonable settings.

You will love your M17X and I look forward to the benchmarks. This thread will become even more informative.

 

@LaptopNut
What do you think of getting a Q9100 over a Q9000? price beside the point worth it?Gain only a extra .26 Ghz.
Do you think you will only get a couple extra FPS in games?
Was thinking( till I read the thread) of getting a QX9300 but that's out of the question now because of heat issues.
Q9200 ES ( only ones I can find) seemed nice option until I learned you cannot monitor temps...(BOOOO!)
So now it comes down to the first two
Well notebookcheck.com did a review on a MYSN XMG5 ( CLEVO M860TU, Q9100, and 260M GTX) and scored 10839 in 3DMARK06 and 4902 in VANTAGE with updated drivers.
Can you possibly post your scores with a Q9000 for comparison?
Just wan't to make sure if it's worth getting a Q9100 over a Q9000 ,or bite the bullet and get a Q9200 ES even though you can't monitor the temps?
I's so undecided and don't know which way to go yet......AAAARRRGHHHH!
THANKS
Nice additions by the way, very well done.

 

The Q9100 has more cache than the Q9000 but the extra .26 Ghz Clock will not make a difference in gaming to justify spending the extra. I would be very surprised if you noticed any difference at all but that's just my personal opinion. I would be very glad to be proved wrong.

Hopefully some one who has the Q9100 will eventually do some bench marks in real life gaming.


With an extra CPU clock rate You will only gain significant extra fps in CPU intensive games like RTS games but that would only occur with a reasonable increase in the CPU clocks as opposed to a small one like the Q9100. In other games, only an increase in GPU clocks would make a significant difference I think.


Take a look at this Crysis fps Benchmark (that I always post) as a good example, particularly the section 1600x1200 resolution, High Quality, look at the 1.8 Ghz Core2Duo vs the 2.93 GHz Core2Duo in terms of frame rates.

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html

Now if that was a predominately CPU dependent game then you would have seen a much bigger difference in frame rates with the 2.93 Ghz getting more fps (probably).

I would never get any CPU that I couldn't monitor temperatures of regardless. I thought there was a different type of ''sample'' that had working temperature monitors though. Ask Gophn.

In the Notebookcheck.com 3Dmark 06, they said they were using the most up to date Graphuics drivers.

My 3DMark 06 scores were 10313 but consider that I am not using the most up to date Nvidia drivers because these (much older and beta) Dox Optimised 180.84 ones give me the best performance in GTA IV compared to any other drivers, but in some other games I get less performance as seen in Street Fighter IV (72 fps instead of 91 fps).


The results of the standard 3DMark 06 test are at resolutions of 1280 X 1024 which is a slightly more CPU bound resolution than 1680 X 1050 so the 2.0 ghz may show slower fps but this is not a good gauge of real gaming performance.

A test at 1680 X 1050 would show real game performance but that is only the pro versions.

Initially I was also going to get the Q9100 until I realised that it wasn't worth the extra cost to performance ratio and given the relationship between bottlenecks, gaming, CPU Vs GPU, I wouldn't expect to see any real difference in performance in gaming at all.

 

Any idea if all ES CPU's have NO temp sensors?
I found one cheap on Ebay.....BUT it's a ES
Sorry for hijacking your thread but you seem to have the most knowledge on QUADS and NP 8662.

 

You will want to ask a forum user called Gophn about that one. I have no experience with any other Quads.

 

All praise Gophn!!

 

If it has E0 stepping, it should have temp sensors as well.

Q9100 = QGMU
Q9200 = QAVR, QAVS

 

If anyone has any suggestions of a game that I could benchmark that is highly CPU intensive feel free to let me know.

I have heard that Total War is very CPU intensive and might not even use all Cores so I might test that if the game is worth playing / buying or maybe I can get hold of a demo.

 

How about TETRIS!..lol
I hear FLIGHT SIMULATOR X is a pretty CPU and GPU intensive game.
http://download.cnet.com/Flight-Simulator-X-Demo/3000-7544_4-10570927.html
Maybe not the best game but it get rave reviews if you into those games.
Not sure if it's a very CPU intensive game but MIRROR's EDGE looks great and gives your PC a workout.

 

would you like me to run the benchmarks at 1600 x 1200 and 1920 x 1200?

 

Benchmark C&C tiberian dawn, and see how long you can play without it crashing! Nod level 11 here and it just won't work...

 

SURE.
That would be great!
Congratulations on your killer laptop.

 

Benchmarks at 1680 X 1200 should be fine, I am not sure if you can do 1680 X 1050. 1920 X 1200 would be good for a few to see if there are many differences in performance at that higher res.


I find using Rivatuner displaying fps and core usage on its OSD is the most convenient method of getting a good idea of performance since it shows within every single game at the top left of the screen.

This way, when ever you play a game, you can quickly note down the range of fps as opposed to having to start up another program separately. This is how I got a good idea of Core usage during games.

 

What OS are you running that on?

I heard Tiberian Dawn was an unofficial remake but they had to change the name after receiving an angry letter from EA. I assume you are talking about the official game that was designed for DOS or Win98?

 

i finally got the laptop! what test would you like me to run? i now have some free time to test it out!

 

Great review ... was considering the new Asus G51VX-A1 (should be released in the next couple of weeks). Has a similar configuration (Q9000 & GTX 260m) but was begining to rethink that because of the 2ghz CPU. But, now back to the quad as the CPU of choice.

Negative is that it uses DDR2 memory. Will that make a significant difference ... i.e. go with the Sager NP8662 for ~$400 more.

 

The issue with the Asus G51 is that many users have reported that its GPU can get up to 91-92C. Asus are saying that this is normal but I see it as poor cooling design since my (same) GPU, under normal gaming conditions goes to about 75-80C, usually much less. Only under severe GPU burn in stress testing can it go anywhere near 88C let alone 91C

However, some users say that the Asus G51 goes up to 92C within just 10 minutes which is unacceptable to me.

I wouldn't worry about the DDR2 RAM, it shouldn't make a noticeable difference and I have seen great performance in gaming on other laptops that had the same sort of RAM.

 

Seeing how well GTA IV and Prototype runs would be good.

 

As an owner of an Asus G51VX-A1 I can tell you it's a beautiful solidily built machine with many features that the Sager 8662 did not have. I have overclocked both the Q9000 and the 260M GPU with temps in the 80-90C range during gaming.
I compared the two models and these features sold the Asus. Dual hard drives, Backlit keyboard, Asus 2 year warranty with accidental protection, free accessories, backpack, mouse, EEEstick and 9 games included and beautiful LED 1920x1080 screen.

 

Hi LaptopNut!

I feel very lucky to have found your thread as I want to buy a new laptop like yours NP8662 , mainly as a replacement for my desktop.

I will be on the move for a few months and I need a portable solution to work/study and of course play .

I´ve been reading, what seems to me like decades, over internet about Quads vs Dual performance differences in every possible task a pc can execute.

Your thread is for me one of the most acomplished at the task of showing what a Q9000 can do, for that I appreciate your effort put at this task, because one of my primary concern was to choose the best CPU for a laptop that should perform reasonably well from now till 1.5 - 2 years from now.

I was trying to figure out which CPU will perform this mission better, a Q9000@2000 mhz or a T9900@3060 mhz , that are the two options that I´ve in mind for my NP8662.

My doubts increased last night when I cheked this web:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile...0&month=&or=0&search=&sort=sorting&type=specs

and found that they gave to the T9900 a position 3 at the ranking against a 24 postion of the Q9000 after benchmarks.

Will be very interesting and useful for me(and hope to other readers) to see how your NP8662 with Q9000 performs with two of my favorite simulators,as are very CPU intensive to my knowledge.

Flight Simulator X and ARMA2

I think there are avail of both games demos. If you need help to find the url to download those games I will help you.

If the Q9000 can execute reasonably well those games with medium-high settings that will be a very good point earned to choose this CPU.

Thanks in advance!!!

EDIT: I found that at this thread :Multicore optimization more common; an arguement for the Q9000 and future mobile i7 CPU's --> you will compare your ARMA2 results with the results of htwingnut np8662 with a P9700 cpu , so just what I need .

 

LNut, have you run Supreme Commander's built in benchmark yet?

 

I did run the built in benchmark, the results for all high and all medium settings can be found in this thread Quad vs Dual

 

Hi, Can somebody give a link this geforce 180.84 beta drivers modded.inf and also dox version too, because i have guru fire laptop (q9000, 260m...) and i liked to play gta iv better performance. Or sending it to my mail jpniemila(at)gmail.com. Please help me.

 

Bravo for your comparions, however it is unfortunately you could not compare vs a X9100, as that is often where the price difference lies, if you are buying OEM via Ebay. Also, I noticed that crossfire setups benefit massively from a higher clock testing my M17.
If I get a chance, providing all goes well, I may bench a Q9000 vs a X9100 in my M17x if AW keep thier word; but that will really depend on the games.
SFIV I noticed really benefitted going from a dual @2.3 to a dual @3.3, so it will vary,

If you're a WoW player, that also prefers single/dual core power over a quad.
Still, thanks for the testing, it is good to see the Q9000 is at least acceptable. Still I think resellers may be recommending a high clocked core; especially with a SLI/Crossfire setup, for a reason.

 

You won't always get better performance with those drivers

http://forums.laptopvideo2go.com/topic/22226-dox-optimised-180-84/

If you are running Windows 7 X64 then I recommend you use 186.81 official Nvidia Drivers.