PCMark-3DMark05/06 scores for the current laptops.

I don't think so, my brother's W3J (the notebook I am currently typing on) has T2300 CPU and the X1600 GPU is the bottleneck already (the 3dmark05 score is almost the same as a T7200 CPU,according to Chaz 06 is more CPU dependant)
While on the PCMark , the better CPU you have the higher score you get.But I think C2D will offer a higher memory bandwidth, but I don't think it's still worth the upgrade though, if you wait a couple of months the price will drop and who knows, you might even get a better laptop at that time.
Also, Pulsar do you mind filling the rest of data (battery life/price/Display),thanks.

 

Toshiba Satellite A100-155 (specs in signature)

PCMark 2005 @ default:
3823 points
Cpu:4242
Mem:2898
Gpu:2906
HDD:2889

3DMark05
@ default: 3682 | OC @ 515/918: 4574

3DMark06
1280x800@default: 1878 | 1280x800@515/918: 2330 | 1024x768@515/918: 2608

 

Acer Aspire 5112 WLMi (specs in signature)

3DMark05 = 1322
Is this score Ok for my lappy?

 

Thanks,but you have not indicated the battery cell/life and the price

 

I have read somewhere that X1300's score is about this range...
No problem, but upgrading to lastest drivers, apart from fixing bugs will squeeze a bit more performance (don't expect more than 5% form the GPU.

Edit : I upgraded the chart once more,now it's better than ever.

 

Sorry...

6 Cells, 2:30

Price: 1550€

The screen is glare.

 

Toshiba p105-s9722.
2Ghz Core2Duo.
2048mb ram 667fsb.
200gig Hdd 4200rpm.
17" 1440x900 glossy.
Nvidia 7900gs 375/500 and oc 450/600.
Finger print reader and dual lightup touchpad.

9cell battery with 2:20 web surfing battery life under full brightness and dont game on batter life cause its dumb.

3dmark 05 is 6209 and 7329 overclocked.

$2000 and $1800 after rebate.

 

Dell Inspiron E1705: Intel Dual Core 1.83GHz | 2GB DDR2 667MHz | Nvidia 7900GS 256MB | Seagate 100GB 7200RPM HD | 17" WUXGA TrueLife | 802.11G | DVD-RW | Windows XP SP2

90Watt Battery

Paid: $1150

OC'd: 450/1100

3dMark05: 6348

 

mujtaba, could you please insert my result in your table? Thanks.

 

I will do it ASAP, thanks for the help. (currently I am @ university and I will reach home at approximately 4-5 hours (the .xls file is at home and I have no laptops with me today (depressing, isn't it?) my GMT is 3.5+ which is almost 12 hours different from US) )

 

No problem, it was only a reminder...
Thank you very much!

 

I have another laptop you can add:

Asus Z84JP
-Intel Core 2 Duo T7400
-2GB DDR2-667
-160GB 5400RPM Hitachi SATA
-Nvidia GeForce Go7600 512MB (350:350 stock, no overclock, DDR2 I believe)
-17" glare WSXGA+
-6-cells: 1:50 hrs
-$1,900
-3DMark05: 3107
-3DMark06: 1670

The chart looks great by the way.
Here are a few other suggestions I thought of:
-cut down the naming - say "Nvidia Go7700" or "ATI X1700" instead of using the "GeForce" or "Mobility Radeon" prefixes.
-you could also separate the 3DMark05 and 3DMark06 scores into different columns to make reading easier.

 

Just 1 last thing before adding this data.Are the 3dmark05 scores in 1024x768?
if not please mark you laptop at this res. (the table is intended for default settings @ 1024x768)

 

Yes, they are.

PCMark was done at default clocks on everything.

 

ok got a bit better score on 06
xps1710
2ghz core duo
2 gigs 667mhz ram
160 gig hd
8cell batt 1.5hr life if lucky
7950 gtx 512 vid
blutooth
trulife screen
tv tuner
paid 2730 +tax cnd
rez at 1280/1024

3DMark06 Score 5202 3DMarks

SM 2.0 Score 2240 Marks

SM 3.0 Score 2089 Marks

CPU Score 1708 Marks

 

So,these are scores from 3dmark06 ?

 

my score and specifications are in my siggy along with driver version

 

Is the display Glare or it's matte ?The resolution, and the battery life,and the price (when did you buy it ? - can you tell about the current price,since it has MXM it's data will be useful)

 

@mujtaba:
Just one consideration about 3DMark06...
Don't you think that it would be better to have scores calculated @ 1024x768 (which is a resolution reachable by every notebook), and then at the max possible resolution (in OC or at default), to have an idea of the possibility to play at the native resolution?
For example: 1024x768 and 1280x800 in my case, 1024x768 and 1920x1200 for the XPS.

 

The main point of these charts is to compare the raw power that each of the machines will bring out.Of course,no one will play games at the non-native resolutions, but only the 3DMark scores of the same version (05/06) and the same resolution are comparable (or have any meaning) , and to gain the data on 3dmark scores on native resolutions will be a killer (at least for me), also many gamers will play their games on large LCD's.So the table will likely get out of hand.
Thanks in advance.

 

Eh? I'll game in non-native resolutions sometimes, like for instance when the game was designed without widescreen support and I have to use 1600x1200 or such. You might want people to note what resolution 06 was ran at though, if the display will not do 1280x1024 then 06 bumps it down to 1280x800 and it artifically inflates the score. Choosing 1024x768 is not an option because they are locked out in the free versions..

 

I think I need to correct my statement : "[My users with lower native resolutions] will not play at non-native resolutions" for example my bro's ASUS W3J has the native resolution of 1280x768 and nothing but the native res. will look very bad. (I meant on the demanding games on which the 3DMark score matters).

 

for the Dell Inspiron 9400 already in ur charts here are the rest of the info:

screen is a glossy WUXGA 17incher,
3DMark06 is 3977
Clock speeds are stock
and the GPU is GO7900GS

 

And your 3dMArk05 score ?
(The problem is : some 9400 laptops have 7800GTX,so I wanted to match the 3dmark05 score to make sure that the rest of data is correct)

 

its already in the chart....

 

I just received my E1705 with C2D 2.0GHz T7200, 7900GS, 2GB DDR2-667, WXGA. 3DMark05 gave me a score of 5800. Everything is stock and running Vista. Planning to flash and overclock my video card, so hopefully I can improve the score....

 

That's true. Actually the problem is that the free version is res locked.
Anyway, the score is not inflated: because in 15.4" 1280x800 is the highest possible resolution, so the monitor is at its best. To have a comparable image quality, you should go up to 1920x1200 (because interlacing on lcds is very poor). This is why a X1600 is good for 15.4" and not so good for 17" screens. When you use 1600x1200 is like 1024x768 for me. A screen with a higher resolution requires more power.

 

Looking forward to it

 

Actually I used centered output when using non-native resolutions, which takes care of the interlacing issues. The X1600 (and its nvidia equivelent) are poor GPUs for 15.4" notebooks. The 7800gtx does better not only in lower resolutions, but also can do well in 1920x1200. I hope the 8600go which will eventually be in the new 15.4" machines will have atleast 32 stream processors to be as powerful as the 7900 series.. although I bet they will go cheap on them and only include 16, making them a marginal upgrade from the current GPUs. It already looks like they will be only 128-bit memory interface parts...

 

Yes, but a 1280x1024 centered output on a 1920x1200 looks almost like 800x600 on a 1280x800 screen...
With 1280x800, a X1600 is enough. If you could do a 3DMark06 at 1920x1200, you will get a score not much higher than 3500 with an OC'd 7950GTX. With DDR2 my card scores more than 2300 at 1280x800, when OC'd. With GDDR3, I could reach at least 2600 in OC. So, where's this big difference?

 

You are almost the only living soul that has a 15.4" with a GPU stronger than 7700 (it's performance is almost equal to X1600,1700 and 7600).The reason that we are not seeing higher GPU's in the laptop is because of the power consumption and heat generation, the GPU will be forced to underclock to be cooler or the will (literary) melt through the laptop.

 

You are right, it is quite a waste of screen space. In reality, I actually do not use 1280x1024 at all besides with 3dmark06. Most games can do 1600x1200 (but not 1920x1200) so I will use centered timings as to not get a stretched screen but still be able to play a non-widescreen support game. I don't believe in the hacks out there for most games as they are almost useless if they don't let me change the FOV and adjust the game interface along with the resolution.

The difference is roughly 30-50%. I tend to use the advantage to run max details or increased resolution & AA/AF level. Seeing as you are overclocking yourself, you can understand why I want more performance than a 7700go/x1600 was designed to offer.

My 7800gtx is undervolted due to the laptop motherboard not supporting the 130w power supply. It is underclocked because it uses a smaller, single heatpipe cooling solution that was designed for 6800 series cards. If these two design issues were addressed in an updated M75 or such, then it would have no problems running even the 7950gtx. However Dell has obviously decided that DTR GPUs only belong in 17" machines now. Oh, and the GPU core shuts down if it hits 107C, which seems to be below the melting point of the plastic the chassis is made of, so it has not "melted" through the laptop.

 

Just as I said literary (just joking ), I know it would never melt through, but...
Yes, and it seems that it's impossible to make the cooling efficient enough to carry all the heat.
Please Go Here :
http://laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=693
and Here :
http://www.laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=541
The TDP of Mobility Radeon X1600 is 17Watts while the TDP of GeForce Go7800GTX is 68Watts (somewhere I read 65Watts),The difference between 68Watts and 17Watts is 51Watts.This TDP difference is equal to the TDP of Mobility Radeon X1600 + a Core 2 Duo CPU.So I don't think just redesigning the Heatpipes would help...

 

Interesting points. I think I can safely say with my undervolts and underclocks my 7800gtx go is operating somewhere in the 30-35W TDP range. I base this on the fact that my temps run approx 15% higher than it did with the Quadro 1400go, which was said to have a 28W TDP. I think a redesign could definitely improve the heat dissapation. I don't have a picture of my quadro heatsink, but I have seen pictures of larger X1600 heatsinks in other laptop like the Asus S96J!

 

mujtaba, just a correction: my card has DDR2 memories. G1 should have DDR2, too.

 

I think I read it somewhere,I'll look it up later.I'll correct it ASAP.

 

This is a great resource, thanks for the comparison table mujtaba.

 

Corrected the mistakes,added some clarifications.

 

3DMark 05: 7024 with an XPS M170 and a 7800GTX overclocked to 440 core and 1150 memory.

 

(points to sig)
Stock clocks are 500/600. Gain from over clock is 10% on both 3dMarks.

 

Please specifiy the CPU and ram specs,GPU memory (256/512?),screen property and battery info.
Elminst,Magnus : Thanks for help

 

Samsung NP-X60 plus (as supplied):
T7200 / 1GB 667MHz / 120GB 5400 / ATI X1700 / 256MB VGA Memory Clock 445.5 MHz VGA Core Clock 405.0 MHz / glossy 15.4" 1680 x 1050 / GB£1,1000 / PCMark05 = 4,555 / 3DMark05 = 4,150 / 3DMark06 = 1,831. XP Pro

Samsung NP-Q35 (as supplied):
T5600 / 1.25GB RAM 533MHz / 100GB 5400 / Intel GMA 945/950 / 128MB shared RAM / glossy 12.1" 1280 x 800 / GB£800 / PCMark05 = 3,059 / 3DMark05 = 447 / 3DMark06 = 106. XP Pro

John

 

Thank you very much, I will add these and a couple of other laptops

1- The review on the site says 256MB of V-Ram
2 - Please specify your battery life and number of cells [Your display is Glossy I take it].

EDIT : Updated the list, now it also has X2300 and X1900 equipped laptops.

 

Congratulations mujtaba, this thread is now a sticky. I normally don't like having 4 stickies, but this thread has too much valuable info in it.

 

Scores of the FSC Xi 1546 laptop with OC'd (core 450/mem 500) X1800:
3DMark05 - 6151
3DMark06 - 3304

 

Sorry but the full data for Amilo Xi 1546 already exists.
EDIT : Oh, you provided OC data, sorry for not getting it

 

Fujitsu Siemens Amilo M3438G
-----------------------------
Pentium M 760 2GHz, 1GB DDR2-400, 2x100GB Raid0, GeForce 6800 Go

3DMark 2005

@ 325/600 (stock) - 3763
@ 390/660 - 4334

3DMark 2006 (1440x900)
@ 325/600 (stock) - 1812
@ 390/660 - 2075

 

My XPS M170 has:

Cpu: PentiumM 2.13GHz

RAM: 2GB Corsair Value 533MHz

Display: WUXGA 1920x1200 glossy display

GPU: Nvidia go 7800GTX 256MB DDR3 OC'd at 440 core 1150 memory.

 

Thanks I will include that info

 

hi mujtaba, great to see this thread!

there is just one thing i miss from your chart, price/performance ratio column... but no biggy, we can extrapolate that info quickly from your chart.

and one more comment if i may... i'd recommend you to make a .GIF chart not .JPG chart, first, it will be smaller in size, and second, there won't be any JPEG artifacts, which make table look a bit ugly....

keep on the good work! and others as well who contribute precious information for having this table actual.