**Official 3Dmarks Thread**

If you want to rant and rave about "OMGSH I got 1 more marks score by upgrading from 300000.11 to 300000.111," or about your 3dmarks scores or how you OC'd it, then put it in here. ALWAYS run it in 1280x1024 resolution. if you cant, tell us. if you OC'd it, tell us.

NOTE: IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE YOU WITH SOME CRAZY A$$ SCORE, YOU BETTER POST A PICTURE.

So if you say your X3100 got 3000 3d06 marks, we wont believe you with out evidence. in that case, we just wont believe you

 

LOL, you actually made one? I might as well make the "Official Unicorns v Horses Thread".

 

yeah, half of the threads here are how coll their 1 FPS went to 2. So why not. they can argue and post but they dont have to have it all over the forum

 

Here's my benchmark for 3dmark 05 for my modest notebook using 163.44 drivers @ default resolution.
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1143/16344ei8.jpg

is a score of 3154 expected from a notebook like mine?

 

Ran 3DMark06 the other day on my Vostro 1500 and got a score of 3300.

 

LIES! no screenshot!

 

thats a legit score, ill edit it

 

This is a good idea but we'll have to see how it works out. Thanks for putting time into this forum.

 

3d mark 06 score on my 1600m 512mb DDR 4753

 

damn thats good

 

3595

Specs:

 

Important notes for 3dmark06:

-You must list the resolution. Default is 1280x1024, but if you aren't capable of 1280x1024, it picks 1280x800 or so... you cannot compare 1280x1024 results to 1280x800 results... its nowhere near fair.
To get a fair comparison you really should find a way to run it at 1280x1024.
If your screen is like mine and thus cannot run 1280x1024 natively, you should find an external screen and use it as your main.

-You must list the laptop brand and stats, most specifically the processor.
3dmark06 biases 150-200 points or so for each processor rank in the C2D series in the T7x00 family, so realistically you should be adjusting the score if any comparisons are to be made.

-You should list what was overclocked and to what degree. Just give the MHz/GHz ratings for the processor and GPU if overclocked.

 

3DMark05 = 5757

1024x768

[/IMG]

 

That seems kind of low for 3d05 and that resolution, but what do i know?

 

dont' ask me either. i just ran the test. is there things i should shut down before i run the test?

 

3d06 = 3376

native res = 1280x800

 

vista - cat 7.2 - stock 440/445 - 1280x800


vista - cat 7.2 - oc 525/445 - 1280x800

 

Your faith in humanity has been proven wrong.

 

i'm running the free version so i can't change the resolution. and i play my games in my native resolution of 1280x800.

 

3dmark06 = 3030... 8600gt... vostro 1700... default settings

 

That seems extremely low.... wtf?

 

Nope, that's just about right, if not a little high. 2900-3000 is the usual score for that card.

 

Is 3595 a good score in 3DMark06? No OCing

 

thats pretty normal 3600-3800 is good

 

Sager NP5960
3dMark06 - Average 6500 default settings

 

I have never seen 6500 at default on a single GPU... I smell 1024×768

Go 7950GTX (575/700): ~5300
Go 7950GTX SLi (575/700): ~8400
Go 7950Ultra SLi (630/800): ~9050
Go 7950Ultra SLi (645/846): ~9200

Just waiting on AW to update BIOS to allow CPU overclocking, maybe then I can break 10k at 2.66GHz (In a heavily air conditioned room of course lol).

(All scores are averages, record score is 9239 OCed)

 

ALL 3dMARK06

NO OC WITH XP (575/700)

1280x800 - 5801
1600x1200 - 4529
1920x1200 - 4209

Lit OC (595/815)

1920x1200 - 4361
1280x1024 - 5551
1280x800 - 6061
1024x768 - 6551 - BEST RESULT (i can made it better with more oc and a clean install of xp)

video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J28yv1DknoA

proof: page 1 and 3
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=160986&page=3

Iv already made other tests but i dont take any pics only got the results

VISTA 64BITS

1280x800 - 5706
1600x1200 - 4501
1920x1200 - 4154

VISTA 64BITS - With Battery only and PowerManagement set to BATTERY

1280x800 - 5209 (LOL i can play at MAX settings DiRT in train @ this res)
1600x1200 - 4148
1920x1200 - 3701 - WORST RESULT (with all set up to reduce power consumption)

If you want proof i made the tests again in vista...

Regards.

 

Let's keep it under control in here please, no need for arguing.

 

System in sig
1513 3DMARK03

 

Sorry......

 

No one ever said I wasn't running SLi, the sager I have for some reason is the slowest out of all the other SLi 7950GTX's but it costs the most. I didn't know that when I bought it.

 

Really? you got 6500 on a Clevo D900C? Thats unbelievable because thats too... low lol, you sure you're not running at a higher resolution? That score looks about right for 1920×1200... The Clevo/Sager is the fastest "laptop" because of its desktop CPU...

 

He has the Sager 5960, which is based on the Clevo M590KE I believe. It only has an AMD Turion which could partly account for the lower scores.

 

just for kicks, here is my desktop:


www.XtremeSystems.org/forums

my laptop is coming though.

 

Odin pretty much nailed it.

I wish I had the D900C. I wouldn't mind doing a trade + $ for one even though mine costs more.

 

What specs do you have specifically? I don't think having an AMD processor alone would make that much difference (unless it's single core maybe?). Have you tried updating your video drivers?

 

The first SLi laptops were simgle core Turions with a 7900GTX in the 19" Clevo and 7900GS in the 17" Alienware/Arima. I think the next revision of the 590 had a Turion X2 and 7950GTX? I wonder why Alienware never updated the mALX to that version...

 

Specs:
-AMD 1.8GHz Turion 64 X2 Mobile Technology processor TL-56
-nVIDIA nForce4 SLI chipset (CK804).
-20.1" WSXGA+ (1680x1050) LCD TFT
-2GB RAM DDR2 533 Dual Channel
-Dual/SLI nVIDIA GeForce Go 7950GTXs
-100GB 7200RPM Hard Drive x2

I have tried many different drivers including the ones that Clevo has and LaptopVideo2Go but never broke 7000

 

That's interesting, I'm guessing it's due to the chipset's SLI implementation, the early SLI notebooks weren't particularly great.

 

Or we're overestimating the Turions capabilities, what're your scores with SLi off?

 

Around the low 5k's

 

Can people stop posting results with non-default resolutions?

 

Holy crap, I think the processor had something to do with it in that case,

Ichigo, if they want to post let them, its a 3dmarks thread, as long as they post the non default res,let them be

 

Not really, the low 5k's is pretty normal for a 7950GTX with a Turion. What's not normal is that it only increases 1200 points with SLI.

 

i thought he was saying a 5k difference, okay, i get it

 

yeah ichi, we're keeping this thread alive lol

So it was your theory after all crim, the SLi bridge in the 590 is just bad, which explains why the mALX with 7900GTX's couldn't stamp its on paper superiority on the m9700 with 7900GS's...

 

Heres a pic for proof
I know you like them CPU scores

 

shboyles has reported the following 3dmark scores on his new x205-sli3 notebook using stock drivers, stock clocks, and 1280x1024 resolution.

8600Gt in NON-SLI mode scored just at 3700 in 3Dmark06 (1280x1024)
8600GT in SLI mode scored 6530!
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2539133&postcount=18

 

Justin from XoticPC reported 8103 in 3dmark06 on the Sager NP9261, Q6700, 2048 DDR2-800, 2x nV GF 8700M GT w/512MB SLi Driver version 156.55, 200GB 7200RPM SATA300, Windows Vista Ultimate x64

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2531538&postcount=46

 

Ouch, the Clevo only has a 100mark improvement over the XPS 1730?