T5450 VS T9300 Crysis (Vista) Benchmarks

Lots of interest in the first generation Penryns. Today I got mine so posting this
for any interested and to consolidate various benchmarks.

This proves to me that Crysis is somewhat GPU limited, not the reason I bought the T-9300.

For Crysis fans I would venture that the stock P6831FX is a bargain @ $1250

Crysis 1.1 internal benchmark_gpu DX9. Vista Home Premium

Stock P6831FX with T5450
Auto settings medium with anti-aliasing off, no OC. 1440X900

==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 66.51s, Average FPS: 30.07
Min FPS: 17.30 at frame 1940, Max FPS: 40.91 at frame 74
Average Tri/Sec: 25425868, Tri/Frame: 845573
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.08
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 68.81s, Average FPS: 29.06
Min FPS: 17.30 at frame 1940, Max FPS: 52.42 at frame 67
Average Tri/Sec: 24815264, Tri/Frame: 853792
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.07
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 68.96s, Average FPS: 29.00
Min FPS: 17.30 at frame 1940, Max FPS: 52.42 at frame 67
Average Tri/Sec: 24774954, Tri/Frame: 854205
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.07
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 69.11s, Average FPS: 28.94
Min FPS: 17.30 at frame 1940, Max FPS: 52.42 at frame 67
Average Tri/Sec: 24712958, Tri/Frame: 854018
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.07
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
This run with the T9300 with same settings as above.
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 56.65s, Average FPS: 35.30
Min FPS: 26.24 at frame 1957, Max FPS: 43.90 at frame 80
Average Tri/Sec: 29854914, Tri/Frame: 845697
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.08
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 61.83s, Average FPS: 32.35
Min FPS: 18.39 at frame 154, Max FPS: 55.29 at frame 89
Average Tri/Sec: 27615084, Tri/Frame: 853699
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.07
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 53.83s, Average FPS: 37.15
Min FPS: 18.39 at frame 154, Max FPS: 55.29 at frame 89
Average Tri/Sec: 31742490, Tri/Frame: 854397
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.07
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 53.82s, Average FPS: 37.16
Min FPS: 18.39 at frame 154, Max FPS: 55.29 at frame 89
Average Tri/Sec: 31778262, Tri/Frame: 855082
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.07
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Gain Min:1FPS - Average:8FPS - Max:3FPS
This works out to about $100 a frame per second on the high end on
the second run

 

Interesting benchmarks! A T5450 isn't particularly powerful compared to the T9300 so it doesn't surprise me that the T9300 achieved a few more fps. I think you'd see very little (if any) difference between a T7500 or T7700 and a T9300. Crysis is still very much limited by the GPU.

 

Now we have to figure out how to unlock those extra pipes and make GTXs out of our GTSs.

I winder if there are some easy to identify laser cuts on the GPU die.

Unlikely that a pencil trick will work here, but worth a look when I tear mine down.

 

World in Conflict.

• 
  T5450 Avg fps 26 Lowest fps 12 Highest fps 56
  • 
    T9300 Avg fps 36 Lowest fps 14 Highest fps 77
    • 
      T9300+OC Avg fps 40 Lowest fps 16 Highest fps 92

 

Keep in mind World in Conflict utilizes the CPU much more than a FPS game like Crysis does. Most RTS games, in fact, do. Supreme Commander is very largely dependent on the CPU.

Therefore, you'll notice a much greater increase in fps for RTS games than FPS games because RTS games use the CPU much more.

 

that proves what most people are saying... an 2.4 ghz C2d proccesor is Overkill for games

 

Now any FPS gamer that bought a pPenryn just for the extra power needs to ask theirself - is it really worth $100 bucks a frame? LMFAO

Great results.

Definitely you would see gains in CPU intensive applications though.

Really, I think Penryn is just a more optimized C2D chip, nothing more.

 

Actually it was $102 per frame, lol. But this thing flies doing video encoding!

I can, at this point, only bench my ancient T2400. Almost three times as fast encoding a DVD to a PSP.

The cost of a T7700 and the T9300 are both around $320 so what the heck The better chips are coming later this year?

 

I think that's true, but that optimization comes with less heat and longer batterylife, so it's all good

 

If you have team fortress 2 or something, could you do a test there, that game seems rather CPU limited and I would like to see how big a difference the processor upgrade is.

 

Snowsurfer, do you have any team fortress 2 benchmarks?

Sorry, I'm in the middle of "Vista-izing" my video encoding suite.

 

TF2 and other Source games have a lot of physics processing, which relies heavily on the CPU. Even so, you'll really only notice a substantial if you switch from a really crappy CPU to a Penryn, and not from a T7xxx to a Penryn.

 

this proves to me that for non gamers, paying premium for cpu is not beneficial, well I already knew that without any benchmarks

 

These results have nothing to do with 'non-gamers'. Games have always been known for not relying on the CPU but instead the GPU.

 

Sure, I have the game, just need to install it, just saw the post so I'll post later.

 

Yeah, I really wanna see this comparison for Starcraft 2

 

Nice benchmarking results! The T9300 is really great for the price!

 

Best bang for the buck, it runs super cool too, idles at 31c, and around 46c underload, very happy with it. Using the Antec formula 5 silver.

 

Can anybody post some benchmarks with the game "Live For Speed"? There is no onboard benchmarking test on the game itself, but could I get some average FPS?

 

Some COD4 screenshots 1440x900 highest possible settings. The nuclear weapon going off and the top sniper shot is as low as the frames went.

 

Nice screenshots! Sorry if I missed it earlier, but what GFX card do you have?

 

8800GTS 512

 

Thx, COD4 is on my got to have it list..

 

i know this is half way off topic but is it possible to install an HDDVD rom in this p6831fx, i figure HD on the laptop bluray on the ps3 and i have the best of both worlds

 

Call Gateway, maybe they can sell you the one they put in the 171XL. (I think I'll try that my self). Here are some P-171XL reviews http://computershopper.com/reviews/gateway-p-171xl-fx-edition-laptop-review and http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review4893.html

 

Thanks. 10char

 

Toshiba just announced HD-DVD is a dead format, so I'm not so sure that's a good idea:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/16/toshiba-pulling-the-plug-on-hd-dvd-already/

 

buy a drive that can play both HD DVD and BLU RAY

But HD DVD is dead anyways.. decline in production is coming up

 

Hey guys, thanks for all the benchies on the 9300, you've convinced me to take the plunge! I have a couple of requests though, if it wouldn't be too much trouble... the two games I play the most are Unreal Tournament 3 and Company of Heroes. I have a feeling that massive gains will be seen in CoH going from the 5450 to the 9300 (I doubt as much will be seen in UT3). If any of you have those games, would you mind benching them real quick? Please? It'll be a couple weeks until I get mine, and I'm itching to see what kind of improvements I can expect in those games (CoH especially)!

Warner

 

It looks like it was more around a 5-7fps gain on average which would mean we're talking about $40-60 / frame if you were strictly talking about upgrading this for the benefit of playing Crysis.

The max is indeed only 3fps difference and the low is about 1fps but I think if you look at the average over the time for each run you will see that the T9300 must be helping the system to keep a more constant fps that stays away from min/max values.

How can we have a min gain of only 1fps and a max gain of only 3fps but an average gain of over 5fps? The answer is because when running on the T9300 the game doesn't stray too far from the extremes that you see on the T5450 but it obviously handles the entire run a little more fluidly at more constant frame-rates which allows it to gain an overall edge of about 5-7fps. I would venture to say that the stock T5450 hits near the low frame rate much more often than the T9300. And although the T9300 never goes very much higher than the max frame rate of the T5450 it most likely stays up near it for a larger portion of time.

Bottom line I would say the avg is about 5-7fps of gain over the duration of the benchmark [for this particular Crysis test only]

 

Yes, you DO gain a few frames here and there and the game runs a bit smoother. The numbers back up what you said.

The point was this game is GPU limited. You just don't see a huge jump in frame rates. And for a budget gaming notebook, the stock T5450 CPU is awesome!

 

hey everyone dont make fun of the t5450. it can outperform a p4 2.8ghz w/ht and is equal to a pentuim d 2.8ghz

 

Strategy games are the most affected by cpu power,specially games like supreme commander,you will see huge increase when upgrading the cpu

 

how much of a boost in frames per second would I expect to gain in cod4 going from a t5450 to a t8300 or t9300?

 

I'am pretty sure that a T5450 is far way better than a P2.8HT even a 3.4HT
its not comparable

 

thanks it least someone is on my side

 

Crysis has shown that it needs a pretty powerful CPU also,but the GPU is still the bigges bottleneck.

 

Dont be surprised to see no difference for doing such an upgrade. FPS is normally only bottlenecked by the GPU as long as u have a cup thats better than a Pentium duo.

 

I know it's been asked, and maybe the OP just does not have it (SHAME ON YOU SIR, SHAME ON YOU! lol). But I would love to see a TF2 comparison (even a rough one). I know someone mentioned source games etc.... But there is something up with TF2 in particular, that is really making it cpu intensive.

 

For a game like counter strike source, which is mostly CPU dependent, how much FPS would this set-up get with all high settings?

Would it run as smooth as a desktop? I am looking into purchasing a P-6831FX and upgrading the CPU to a T9300.

:O

 

Call of Duty 4 already runs flawlessly on 1440x900, extra high, don't know why Bungles would want more...

 

I have experienced both processors. I waited several months before upgrading my T5450 to a T9300. I was more than happy with the t5450. It is much faster than my previous desktop processor (Pentium 4 3.0 HT) and equal if not faster than my brothers Pentium D. The only games I noticed any " slowdown" was in RPG's such as WIC, the Vehicle CTF levels of UT3, or when there was a lot of action on Cyrsis. These games or situtations all rely heavily on the computation power of the processor.
I moved out of the US and away from Newegg so I upgraded while I had the chance at decent shipping prices. The T9300 has provided a few more FPS, even in games like COD4. However, the biggest difference is that there is far less fluctuation in FPS in highly active gaming scenes as I described above. The FPS is much more stable overall in every situation. It also runs cooler than the t5450. Overall it is worth it for longevity reasons. However, if you will only have this laptop for another year or so, it is probably not worth your while. This is a 3 year investment on my part.

 

It's a 3 year investment for me, to say the least. Is the T9300 really worth it, over say a T8300? Or even down in the T7's?

 

I previously owned a G1S B1 with with a T7700. It was a nice processor, but ran on the hot side in that laptop. The battery life was less than 2 hours.

In 6831fx the battery life actually improved when I upgraded from the T5450 to the T9300. Before On "balanced" I got 2-2.5. Now I get over 3 hours.

In regards to the 8 series, it can be had for a bit cheaper and is only lesser in overall speed and cache. For me it was worth the price difference to have 6mb of L2 cache. I guessed it would be beneficial over the next few years of new software and games. The speed is a just an extra perk. Overall, I justified 318$ at Newegg, as money worth spendind at the time. Good luck on the purchase!

 

if it was for xp, you wont see even 1 FPS difference.