Laptops fails at Gaming? -plz help me figure out why!

Ok So i have this laptop...
its not amazing but its definitely built for gaming.
(specs)
---------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA System Information report created on: 01/08/2011 16:09:35
System name: NYX

[Display]
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9400 @ 2.53GHz (2527 MHz)
Operating System: Windows 7 Professional, 64-bit
DirectX version: 11.0
GPU processor: GeForce 9600M GT
Driver version: 195.62
CUDA Cores: 32
Core clock: 500 MHz
Shader clock: 1250 MHz
Memory clock: 400 MHz (800 MHz data rate)
Memory interface: 128-bit
Total available graphics memory: 2301 MB
Dedicated video memory: 512 MB
System video memory: 0 MB
Shared system memory: 1789 MB
Video BIOS version: 62.94.3E.00.05
IRQ: 16
Bus: PCI Express x16

[Components]

nvCplUIR.dll 3.3.532.01 NVIDIA Control Panel
nvCplUI.exe 3.3.532.01 NVIDIA Control Panel
nvWSSR.dll 6.14.11.9562 NVIDIA Workstation Server
nvWSS.dll 6.14.11.9562 NVIDIA Workstation Server
nvViTvSR.dll 6.14.11.9562 NVIDIA Video Server
nvViTvS.dll 6.14.11.9562 NVIDIA Video Server
nvMoblSR.dll 6.14.11.9562 NVIDIA Mobile Server
nvMoblS.dll 6.14.11.9562 NVIDIA Mobile Server
nvDispSR.dll 6.14.11.9562 NVIDIA Display Server
NVMCTRAY.DLL 8.17.11.9562 NVIDIA Media Center Library
nvDispS.dll 6.14.11.9562 NVIDIA Display Server
NVCPL.DLL 8.17.11.9562 NVIDIA Compatible Windows7 Display driver, Version 195.62
PhysX 09.10.0224 NVIDIA PhysX
NVCUDA.DLL 8.17.11.9562 NVIDIA CUDA 3.0.1 driver
nvGameSR.dll 6.14.11.9562 NVIDIA 3D Settings Server
nvGameS.dll 6.14.11.9562 NVIDIA 3D Settings Server
----------------------------------------------------------------

So like I said, not amazing, but decent.
The thing that confuses me is when i meet/surpass a games "recommended" hardware Req and still I get horrible Framerates.

For example
StarcraftII which i just purchased
(game req)
------------
Minimum System Requirements*:

PC: Windows XP/Windows Vista/Windows 7 (Latest Service Packs) with DirectX 9.0c
2.6 GHz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
128 MB PCIe NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT or ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card or better

Mac: Mac OS X 10.5.8, 10.6.2 or newer
Intel Processor
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT or ATI Radeon X1600 or better

PC/Mac: 12 GB available HD space
1 GB RAM (1.5 GB required for Windows Vista/Windows 7 users, 2 GB for Mac users)
DVD-ROM drive
Broadband Internet connection
1024X720 minimum display resolution

Recommended Specifications:

PC: Windows Vista/Windows 7
Dual Core 2.4Ghz Processor
2 GB RAM
512 MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX or ATI Radeon HD 3870 or better
----------------------------------
Fair enough, i have a 2.5ghz,4g ram, and a 512mb 9600gtm
this leads me to believe that i should be able to play SC2 at High if not with a few settings on Med at a fairly decent resolution.

Ok first off - SC2's in game default "recommended" settings
(links are Screenshots)
http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt350/Brainless906/SC22011-01-0816-30-33-33.jpg?t=1294522500

I thought these settings were a tad low for my system based on the requirements however even with these settings I get Framerates of ~30-35 with nothing but 1 building and 6 protoss probes. (the FPS obviously dropping massively when things are added to the mix [6 units fighting 6 units will drop me to ~10fps)
(btw it says "custom" because I lowered the "movie" settings because the movies were lagging so badly)

--
Screenshot of fps with 1 building 6 probes.
http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt350/Brainless906/SC22011-01-0816-04-08-95.jpg?t=1294522500
----

keep in mind this happens to most of my games, i was just using SC2 as a recent example.

Am i crazy or is my computer running under-par?
if so how can i potentially fix it?

(and yes i have no viruses, I've defragged, I've cleaned it out)

 

9600m gt is more powerful than the 6600 gt, however,it is far less powerful than the 8800 gtx. your computer is running as it should, but it is not super powerful. you are expecting way too much from it.

my suggestion: turn shadows to low, then at last resort bring textures to medium. shadows kill that level of gpu.

 

Isn't the 9600M GT actually a fairly weak card? 30 fps seems pretty reasonable for your setup. Try bumping your shader settings to low and unit portraits to low and try it then if you want more fps.

 

Your card should do just fine at 1280x1024 resolutions or lower. Expecting it to plow through new release games at 720p or higher is not reasonable. In the long list of mobile GPU's, the 9600 is closer to the middle-bottom, start treating it accordingly. It was considered a gaming spec machine 4 years ago, so you should do just fine on 4 year old titles. There are netbooks with the same power today.

 

No one figured it out? Look at what driver hes using.
195.62, man thats ooooooold. First thing to do is to update the driver.
Go to geforce.com and run the embedded scan tool to find the driver suitable for your system.
Otherwise select the appropriate fields like os version and such and get the last whql one.
260.99 should be the last whql driver. Go for it or try the newer betas, 266.35. I advice the whql thought.
After you installed the newer driver (remove the older one first,then use "customize" in the newer driver setup and check "perform clean installation") i advice to overclock your card a bit.
9600m Gt is a great card that can run at stock 9700m gt clocks; download and install either nvidia inspector or msi afterburner, and rais your clocks like this:

Original
Core: 500
Shaders: 1250
Memory: 800

Raise them to:
Core: 600
Shaders: 1350
Memory: 850

I advice to keep core and shaders linked together by using the link button in msi afterburner (therefore the shader speed can differ from what i wrote).

Youll get a pretty big boost in this way. Note that running the card overclocked raises the temperature; therefore as for the first thing you should do,just install the newer drivers.
Then think about ocing it a bit.
Had this card installed in my old 6930g and it was doing fine,i was able to run dirt at ultra @ 720p while keeping framerate above the 30ish.
Good luck

 

Thanks,
I shall try this

 

updating the drivers and overclocking might help a little bit, you might get a few frames per second out of the overclock and a frame or two from the driver update. You would still be looking at 35-36 frames per second at the opening of the game, followed by a significant drop in performance once a bunch of units are on the scene.

Set everything to medium. That will fix it. My laptop is slightly faster (330m and 2.4ghz i5), and I also run the game in a slightly higher resolution (1440x900) - but I also have everything set to medium, and I find that the image quality is fine and the performance is very good. In SC2, you really need all the performance you can get. A lot of pro's play with very fast desktop computers and low settings.

Basically, your expectations are much too high. The mobile 9600m GT is actually much closer to the minimum requirements than the recommended specs, performance wise.

 

Yah, i've only had experience with desktop graphics devises so part of this (though i may have made it horribly coy) was questioning whether or not i was asking to much from a mobile card. Obviously I am. sigh, now i just need a buff desktop (ima bit of a graphics [that is to say i prefer everything insane and pretty])

 

First, update your drivers from Nvidia's site to the newest release.

Still, something seems a little weird about your performance. I run SC2 in Windows 7 64-bit on an old Macbook Pro.

I have a 2.4 Ghz T7700 Core2Duo, 4GB of DDR2 RAM, and an older 8600m GT GDDR3 with 256MB framebuffer.

I actually play with settings much higher than yours (on average), and at a higher resolution.
Here are the settings I use in the game: here.

I get 20FPS taking a similar screenshot to the one you took: see here.

EDIT: I think the DDR2 graphics framebuffer memory be holding you back a little bit.

 

you set the settings higher, but got worse performance. the 9600m gt and 8600m gt were already pretty similar. add the gddr3 memory to your 8600m and this all seems quite reasonable.

 

My brother plays starcraft 2 on a 8400m and its playable.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the GPU could be downclocking. What laptop is this?

 

he just had some of his settings too high. nothing should be above medium.

 

Its a Sager Np2096

 

How much does it seem to bench in 3DMark06? (make sure to mention if you are benching at a different resolution to 1280x1024)

 

i had similar specs in my Dv6 and you get 4400-5000 on stock i think... its pretty useless for games on any res higher than 1280X800 or 1366X768... i got a G73 that's why.. the DDR2 9600MGT is just way worse than a GDDR3 one.. since you have sager , you should be using MXM so try getting a GDDR3 card or something newer.

Panther214

 

3DMark Score 4066.0 3DMarks at base 1280x1024
http://3dmark.com/3dm06/15269452

I get 3DMark Score 4891.0 3DMarks when I Overclock
http://3dmark.com/3dm06/15269500

Overclock details
---
Core: from 500 to 600
Memory: from 400 to 500
Shader: from 1250 to 1350

 

Score is fine since its a ddr2 card.
With mine i reached 8000pts but i was using an x9100 @ 3,6ghz with the card that was a ddr3 type,running at 625/1550/950.
So doing some maths, the score should be around 5000pts.

If you use throttlestop you will be able to push the cpu a bit more using the dualIDA. It should bump the speed to 2,70ghz on both cores.

As fot starcraft 2,with your card oced,start from 1280x720 then start to mess with all the settings starting from medium.

 

Nah i doubt it mate. The 9600m is a good card only when oced,it can perform at least 45% faster than stock clocks.
Remember that its a 9700m gt downclocked, not the opposite.

 

Exactly what can i safely OC it to?
like i said i've been Ocing it up slightly but idk how high is still stable.

currently i do this
Overclock details
---
Core: from 500 to 600
Memory: from 400 to 500
Shader: from 1250 to 1350

 

for starcraft II, 9600M GT is not weak.

But it cannot handle anything above 1366x768, even with lowest graphic settings.

 

I OCed my 9600M GT (500/1250/800) to 9700M GT (625/1550/800) frequencies without any problems for the 1+ year of usage.

Just remember for 9600M GT, you can only play at most 1366x768 medium quality settings for all new games.

edit: also compares the second digit of nvidia card numbers. i.e. 8(8)00 and 9(6)00. the bigger the digit, the better the card.

 

I think 30FPS is more than playable, to be honest. You should be able to play on the medium preset without troubles hitting 30FPS.

If you are overclocking, memory speed increases might yield higher framerates than core clock or shader clock increases, but since you managed to get healthy increases all around, you're just fine.

While I do only get about 20 FPS with settings all at medium/high, I am running at 1440x900, and I have a weaker processor. My computer gets a score around 3500 in 3DMark06. I don't see any reason you shouldn't be able to get just about 30 FPS with medium-high settings at your native resolution. Your CPU is faster than mine AND it has more cache, in addition to being a Penryn chip vs a Merom (like mine).

Considering your resolution, though, I think you may be closer to a CPU bottleneck than a GPU bottleneck.

As an experiment, try jacking up all your settings to the high preset and checking your framerate again. If it goes down only a minimal amount (say to 28FPS from 33FPS), you will know that you are closer to being CPU bound than GPU bound.

 

Mate thats the oc that ive told you to do. If you want keep it like this,thats perfectly stable.

 

You laptop is over 2-3 years old. You may wanna upgrade ur lappy for gaming. Done expect a lot from that 9600

 

set textures to medium. set effects to medium. done.

 

I had a 512Mb DDR2 8600M GT in the old Vostro. As has been said, was great in its day but it is old.

I would say you need to test your GPU OCs carefully. The 128bit DDR2 is a huge bottleneck on performance, which is why you can see pretty insane core/shader overclocks. I was able to do mine from 475/950 (3300 3dm06) up over 625/1250 (>4000 iirc) where I stopped from general fear not artifacts :/ so there might have been more headroom on the core available. Point is, you want to test your OC to see if the core is stable running at that speed.

If when you're testing it the core is only half utilised because it's waiting for the memory bus to send it data, stability is not being tested completely. So when a time comes along during a game that the core is fully utilised - your core OC is too much and hello crashy.

 

Oh nvidia always gimping their DDR2 cards futher by using rubbish DDR2.

At least ATI use 500mhz DDR2 that tends to reach 600mhz which gets you within a reasonable distance of DDR3.

Dont sager use MXM? If so you could grab an HD4650 DDR2 or 9600M GDDR3 for a nice upgrade.

 

I was playing SC2 on high settings on the setup in my signature using 1024x768 resolution (the blurring wasn't really an issue for me and the differences were negligible for the most part)... although it's possible I could get away with 1280x800 and high settings provided my CPU was faster.

Your problem is that you have a 9600mGT with DDR2... which will lower it's performance by roughly 25% in contrast to the GDDR3 version (less bandwidth to go around).

In your case, you CAN get away with an OC as it was suggested, but it is recommended you keep the resolution to 1024x768 or 1280x800 and details to medium.

 

Correct, the NP2096/JHL90 uses MXM 2.1 Type II interface. You should be able to get a 9600M GT GDDR3 or a HD 4670 GDDR3 card from a stripped MSI GX620 or EX625.

 

I think some individuals reported problems upgrading to 4670 GDDR3... though the DDR2 version was apparently successful.

If the 4670 GDDR3 would work though, I would personally opt for that one since it would be definitely faster than 9600m GT GDDR3 by default.

 

The DDR2 4650 tends to cope better with newer titles.

 

I'm a SC2 addict, and I doubt you'll be able to run the game with every thing on medium smoothly. If you really want smooth playback in intense scenes, you'll probably to drop to a low-medium combo. Hope you can get more out of it than that though... if your card was DDR3 you'd be able to roll with all Medium smoothly.