High Res. Gaming

Hey guys.

I was wondering if anyone here was running games at 1440 x 900 with the 8600M GT? I will be purchasing a new system within 24 hours and wanted to get some feedback on this..

I will mostly be playing Flight Simulator 2004, how well will it run on this high resolution? Is anyone running FS2004 or FSX even with this card and this res?

As for the processor, I will be purchasing the T7250 alongside.
Thanks in advance.

 

My bro runs a desktop 8600GT, with a similar performing AMD running 2.2GHz. Running any games before 2005 at about ~ 100fps (@ WXGA+).

 

Good lord please stop. You don't need top of the line to run every game. Of course being a reseller your going to want people to spend more money so that you make more profit. If the only advice you can offer people is to get 8800GTX's and the max processor then you don't know what your talking about and your only going to make your company look bad in the long run.

 

if the 8600m can run games like bioshock.... it can absolutely play Flight Simulator 2004 with everything maxed.

 

the difference between the 8600m gt and the 8700m is about ~1k 3dmark06 points you know that right? and the difference between the laptops in terms of price is 1000 dollars....

you willing to pay 1 dollar for every point of 3dmark06? didnt think so.

for the question though... I run my games on 1280x800... and i chose my screen as WXGA on purpose so i can run games on native res... Gets higher fps even on newer games.

but like the guy before me said for older games... dont even worry, the 8600m gt will have you covered.

 

you won't have much luck with FSX at 1440x900 with an 8600m gt

 

I'm impressed, I posted this little over 30 minutes ago. Thanks for the comments guys. From what I've read the difference between the T7500 and the T7250 is not really noticeable and I'm on a budget.

So for gaming would you recommend me getting the 1440 x 900? or the 1280 x 800 then? At least for Flight Simulator 2004, as one of you mentioned it could run everything maxed out, but on this high resolution or will I need 1280 x 800 in order for it to do so, while still remaining smooth.

 

I would go with the 1440x900, but then again I do photo/video editing and I like to see more. Fonts aren't too small for me.

17+ Screen min 1680x1050 / 1920x1200 optimal
15+ Screen min 1280x800 / 1440x900 optimal

Those are just IMO.

 

id go for the 1280x800 because its easy on the eyes and less demanding for the gpu. allows me to run games maxed out on my native resolution.

 

What you really should do is go to a local BB (Best Buy) or CC (Circuit City) and check out the laptops there with the same screen size and native resolution. See if the font's are too small or not and if you like the screen size. That would be the best option for you if it's at all possible.

 

Well, I currently own one with a 1440 x 900 resolution, and I love it, and a close friend of mine has one that is 1280 x 800. Either is fine with me. However they are both 14.1 inch notebooks. I don't know how well this resolution would look on a 15.4 inch screen. Though if Flight Simulator will run perfectly maxed out in 1440 x 900. I would go with that, if not, I would step down to 1280 x 800.
It's all about FS!

 

That's why I suggested going to a store and comparing You should look at it before you spend the $$.

 

Hahaha, it's a little difficult for me, I'm not in the US right now, and I won't be back until January.

 

Mine would be 15+ Screen 1680x1050 optimal / 1440x900 min
It helps me pwn my friends in older games like the specialists(half life mod) and ut. It also scaled to 720p for newer ones good imho

 

I think I'll go with 1440 x 900 then. I have this image that on a 15 inch screen 1280 x 800 would look like 800 x 600.

 

Getting a native res of 1280x800 gives you a sharper image because you will be able to play most games smoothly at that rez. Getting a higher res will just scale down the picture and make it look fuzzy. Now some people don´t have a problem with this, personally I do.

But if you want a laptop that would last longer get a 8800m GTX instead of the mid range card the 8600GT is with it´s indeed crippled 128 bit bus. The 8600GT is a low res card, no one can deny that.

 

there is no 8800mgtx on a 15 inch except in the alienware which will likely cost in the 2000+ range

not to mention it will porbbaly have crap battery life too and run hot as hell

 

not only that, but there are no 8800M's on the Inspiron 1520's.

 

Just let you know: Stop comparing a laptop card (8800 m GTX) with a desktop card (8600 GT),especially on a laptop forum which would makes more sense comparing laptop cards.

OP: I am using 1280x800 right now and i am very satisfied with it, and referring to prior advices: you should really check out the resolution at a local store.

 

You people who claim the 8600m is a low res card are misinformed. I play most of my games at 1680 x 1050 by just overclocking it. Games like gears of war, cod4, and the Orange Box at max or near max settings. Personally I don't like lower res screens because the 8600m is capable at running most games (especially with an overclock) at a higher resolution. Gears of War was a fantastic example. The jump to 1680 x 1050 res made my jaw drop. It looks simply amazing at a higher res.

And your also misinforming the person. If you have a higher res screen and use the higher res there is no fuzziness. Personally on my C90's screen I or my roomates don't notice fuzziness when we scale down the res.

 

This is false...

My x205s 8700 cost $600 more than your Dell.

Nevermind that $600 also accounts for all-together better components (trust me, we have all sorts of Vostros at my workplace) Not limited to but including:
-FAR better screen (quality)
-Larger screen (17")
-FAR better speakers


It will score a LOT more than 1000 points more than the GDDR2 version at 1280x1024. (you are comparing your obviously 1280x800 -and overclocked- score against non-overclocked 1280x1024 scores...)

Note my 8700 at 1280x1024 beats your 8600 at 1280x800 by over 1200 points... and you have a better processor to boot...
(3dmark06 has a processor-only component and thus biases for better processor by significant chunks ~= 200 points per rank roughly at 1280x1024)

Not that the Vostro is a bad laptop... its just not in the league of laptops with 8700GTs.

The 8700GT is an overvoltaged and 30% faster 8600 core that ships with GDDR3. It will be roughly 30% faster than an 8600 GT with GDDR3.

Yes, indeed that means that an overclocked 8600 with GDDR3 will score around 1000-1200 points less than a similarly overclocked 8700 at 1280x1024.
However, they don't sell 8600s with GDDR3 for $500 as far as I know.

All that being said, the concept of an 8600 being incapable of 1440x900 is just not right.
It depends on the game and the other settings as well.

Some games will bring even a desktop 8800 to its knees at 1440x900...

 

The 8600GT isn't a joke...
It's a nice mid range card with very nice performance.
It runs the latest games (cod4, orange box, bioshock,...) on highest settings
except Crysis ^^ (crysis runs on mid with few things like water on high)

 

8600GT is also the best possible card for 15" in many countries if you don't have a credit card and are limited to intra-bank transfers for payment.

Sure it gets humiliated by the newest games at any resolution above 1280 but it doesn't mean it's completely crippled as a card.

 

except its
- 2 inches thick
- weighs a ton
- its a toshiba

 

I'm finding it often funny how not so long ago, everyone was talking about getting an 8600M GT, and recommending that same card even.. and now they seem to be neglecting it..

How well do you think the T7250 would do for games? I know it's a matter of preference, but I have to pick beween 1280 x 800 and the T7500 or 1440 x 900 and the T7250... what do you guys think? Will the T7250 do the job well?

 

The GPU is the main bottleneck so T7250 should be no problem for the vast majority of games (Crysis, World in Conflict and Supreme Commander are more dependent on the CPU however).

 

and core 2 duo will do fine, dont worry about the clock speed.

as for the screen my personal preference would be 1440x900, but thats because i crave detail and need a higher resolutions....but if you want to run most of your games on higher settings the 1280x800 will be just fine.

its all about what YOU want

 

-Better LCD ? probably cant argue with you on that. Its a lottery with dell as to which screen you get. So this point is valid.

-larger screen is a benefit to you? well not to me... shorter battery life and the laptop is as big as a brick... why bother with a 17inch laptop? get a desktop instead then... if its going to be huge and bulky that you cant even carry it around comfortably.

-far better speakers? well your speakers might be good but the vostro i got has the best speakers i ever heard in a laptop. I cant get above 50% sound because these things are so damn loud... i swear they just rock. I have owned 2 laptops previously (asus and apple) and i can say their speakers are crap compared to this.

-The final and the funniest part of all: so you say your card beats mine by 1200 points or so (not far from what i said) but the price of your laptop was not 1000$ higher but 600 $higher than i claimed, right? well in my opinion that 1200 point gain is NOT WORTH the more than half a thousand dollar upgrade. Do you understand that you can get an 8800 GTX (if you got a desktop) for ~500$ ? This is the second best card offered on the market ! The only card better than that is the ultra which runs for 700$..

A performance boost of 1200-1400 points for 600 dollars is a rip off... no matter which way you look at it. I know you might think "but omfg deus ex, you cant compare desktop and laptop cards performance wise and cost wise !" i know that buddy, so lets compare some notebook cards shall we?... Lets Compare the 8400GS and the 8600m gt price and performance gains -thats a good bang for the buck.

8400 gs can get around 1500-1700 points (all on 3dmark06). (up to ~1700 if oc'ed). The 8600m gt can get 3500-4300 (depending on the card and OC levels. Stock are about 3700, could be lower if old drivers are used) ....

So, comparing stock average speeds, (3650-1500 = 2150 point increase) All of that for $100.

Still think your $600 , 1200-1400 point increase was a good investment? haha, thought so.

You got just over half the performance boost for 6 times the price,... (in terms 3dmark06 gains and the price of moving from one card to the other)

 

FYI
Size and weight haven't been a problem for me...
Perhaps you should go outside and exercise if you cannot lift 9.2 lbs.

I can lift this with one hand very easily and its infinitely better than the 15" mini-jet-engine and egg-cooker it replaced. Nevermind the full keyboard which makes extended usage easier and more comfortable.
I'll take a cool, comfy and quiet 17" over a hot, loud, and cramped 15" any day of the week.

That and my Toshiba will destroy your HP in performance, and cost a little over $100 more for a 17" screen and superior hardware. (the HP's video card is roughly an 8600 DDR2)
I like mine better, you like yours better... you purchased so you didn't have to strain yourself lifting 9.2lbs, I didn't have that problem so I went with as much performance as my budget allowed.

 

Can we all stop waving our E-Peens and get back to the topic? I would point the OP to the " Can my Notebook run it" Thread.

 

You hit the nail on the head on what I was about to say.

I hate when resellers do what the guy just did.

 

9.2lbs... if that's heavy for you, I suggest you and Crimsonman get together and work out.
I carry my 9.2lb laptop pretty much everywhere, between server rooms and into training sessions and meetings.

A desktop 1440x900 17" wide screen is 6-8lbs all by itself, nevermind the shuttle-PC which is 12-16lbs with a decent video card in them. That's over 20lbs...
If you think 9.2lbs is heavy, try carrying around a shuttle and 17" widescreen... nevermind weight, can you say unwieldy?

I think perhaps you are not being very practical.

The Vostro speakers are tolerable, and certainly better than the G1S's speakers, but nowhere near the x205's speakers for quality. I get the feeling your experience with a few laptops doesn't really compare to the glut of them I deal with at work. FYI, my employer has a deal with Dell and I have tested no less than 20 of the 17" and 15" Vostros now. On top of this I am a semi-professional musician.
Methinks I have the upper hand in experience and comparison seeing as how I have actually had both sets of speakers next to each other and am paid to make music. (classical vocals, concert percussionist, classic pianist)

You missed the part where you were comparing apples to oranges...
My score is at 1280x1024... yours is at 1280x800.

yes, and If I was purchasing for a desktop, likely I'd go that way... but then we have the 20+ lbs issue going and you think 9.2lbs is heavy.
Remember, I carry this everywhere.
I'll likely buy one or two for my desktop when I renovate it here in the near future...

Hi, time to test your setup at 1280x1024. (external monitor)
I bet you get a 3400 or so like the rest of the people with 8600GT with GDDR2 at that resolution.

5400/3400 = 159% of the performance
1600/1003 = 159.5% of the price
Looks like I got what I paid for...
Oh and my purchase was some time ago... the x205 sells for 1449 now.

Read above for real numbers and yes, I think 159% performance boost for 159.5% of the price is a good investment considering half of my purchase was picked up by my employer and I could delay the purchase of desktop components for awhile AND game on a laptop.

 

To Answer the OP's question: Jalex, have a card in my desktop of very similar power to the 8600GT and I run FS2004 maxed out at 1440*900 and get 37 ish fps on the ground and 70 odd in the air. It's eminently capable of running (for example) heathrow pro with mesh, real life traffic at 100% etc. This is with AA and AF set to 4x.

FSX - I have no idea but it is rather more demanding.

 

That really makes me feel a lot better, thanks. Same to all of you for the comments and feedback, I will be ordering my new system in the next couple of hours.

 

True but fsxlooks great on my wsxga+ screen at a wxga+ resolution with everything but the weather and the traffic maxed out...

 

I'm sure it does, however how are the frames?

 

so what, we know you laptops better, who cares.

because it suits YOUR needs doesnt mean it serves everyone elses. he can figure out for himself what he wants.

 

Put the 8800 in something less than the size of an 18 wheeler and don't overcharge and I'll consider it.

Until then the 8600 is fricken awesome, the only joke is spending way too much on an 8800.

 

you missed the point i was trying to make... i compared the cost of my upgrade from 8400gs to 8600m gt to your upgrade from 8600m gt to 8700m. Even if you did get the same 3dmark06 point increase as me from the upgrade you paid 600$ for it while i paid only 100... that means you paid 6 times more. You did end up with the better card, im not arguing that but im pointing out that this choice is not cost efficient.

 

The 8600GT is a great card for low res gaming, like 1280x800, try to go up in higher resolutions and the card starts to struggle and especially with AA and AF turned on. If you go with a 8600GT only for gaming then get 1280x800 so you at least can play in native res for a while.

 

It is amazing how sidetracked people will get over arguments that can't be won due to a simple difference of opinion and squabbles have nothing to do with the OP's questions; you're just wasting everybody's time. What is more, some of the posts here make incompetent statements; if you don't know, don't post.

 

Man, you really don't know what you're talking about, you're a ******* retard. STFU and GTFO, i hope you(and all Eurocom employees get banned so all this misinformation stops. like the other guy said, you give your company a bad name, and such a bad name for me, that i'll never buy from you or your company. Xoticpc FTW.

another company i see here talking BS is pcmicroworks. i hope these are the only people, cause this forum is great but if people like these keep signing in then... it will be all over. spam, misinformation... etc.

 

Ok i wanna explain something here about those 600$ difference... It's not only the video card that is better... The x205 also have HD DVD, Better Speakers, 2 HD 120Gb each (240GB total vs 160GB), Better WIFI (a/b/g/N), HDMI port, and to be honest, cooler desing... So at the end, I think he got alot more than you for what he paid... Even by itself, the Video card performance boost worth the 600$

 

On the other hand that Eurocom guy is right, if you want to keep playing games for another 3 years a 8600GT won´t cut it. Now of course a 8800M GTX won´t probably be in a 15 incher so there is no other option than a 8600GT.

But of course any notebook GPU will struggle in 3 years time, that is the same for desktop GPU´s. You can bet that the 8800M GTX will struggle in 3 years time too, the 8800M GTX will struggle even today with games and the card isn´t even released yet

 

Guys, lets not argue about who made the best purchase. Everyone has their own needs and preference. If you take pride in your laptop,good for you. But that doesnt give you right to spam the post with unrelated material.