Urgent! Need help please.

Hello! A few days ago I bought an Acer 6920G with the following specs:

Intel centrino duo T8300 2,4 GHz , 3mb L2 cache
Nvidia GeForce 9500m GS 512mb
4gb RAM
Windows Vista home premium 32 - bit

And I was quite excited. My previous computer was an Acer 5920G and it was a great computer. So when I upgraded my mother got the Acer 5920G. I decided to control how much the new 6920G could do. So I compared the FPS in BF2 with the 5920G. They had almost the same. In some situations the 5920G was 10 fps better and sometimes the 6920G was just a little more constant. It seemed a little wierd to me, since I was pretty sure that the 6920G would be at least 10 per cent better than the 5920G. So I ran 3dmark 06 on both computers. The result was astonishing.

Acer 5920G: 3756
Acer 6920G: 3254

The processor of the 6920G got: 2000 points and the processor of 5920G got: 1800. But the graphic card of the 5920G performed a lot better then.

The 5920G has the following specs:
Intel centrino duo T7500
Nvidia GeForce 8600m GT
2gb RAM
Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit.

And today I read two reviews on the internet about Acer 6920G where they got 4100 in 3dmark 06, with the same kind of computer but with a worse CPU (T8100).

What is the problem? Ive tried with so many different drivers. But none of them seem to work though.

Please help!

 

Well a *500's spec should be lower than a *600's spec, regardless of the generation. well atleast 1-generation.

Though they seem to be the same specs:
8600m gt

9500m gs

Feels like they should play exactly the same. All I can guess is that your old laptop has had more time for its cooling pastes to sink in better.

 

Well Im not sure. At notebookcheck it says 9500 is the successor of 8600 and also that the 9500 has a 10 per cent increase in fps according to fresh benchmarks.

Do you have any clue, except for the cooling paste ;D `?

 

Check the stickies: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=275056

In particular, the paragraph which states:

Chances are your 9500 is underclocked, or your 8600 is overclocked. You might also have background apps running on the 6920 which is eating up additional resources.

 

maybe your 8600m gt was ddr3 while the 9500m gs you got has ddr2 memory.

 

Acer 6920G has higher native screen resolution than the 5920G (1920x1080 vs. 1280x800), so are you sure 3DMark is running at the same default resolution (1280x800 in this case) in both machines? The cards are about equal in performance and both have DDR2 memory. You might get few points higher with 9500M GS because of its die shrink, but nothing that would separate it from 8600M GT.

 

GS cards are the worst of the bunch i believe. GS then GTS then GT then GTX if i am not mistaken, and please someone correct me if i am.

try running futuremark 05 and see what you get.

from futuremark:
http://service.futuremark.com/hardw...4&popularChipsetIds=366&popularChipsetIds=355

 

Sure, but we are not talking what prefixes make Nvidia cards worse or better.
And to correct you, G cards are lowest. However different card generations can't be compared this way. You have to know their exact specs and differences in architecture. 9500M GS and 8600M GT are about equal as already stated.

 

Ok. First off. The 6920 is the upgraded version of 5920 in the Acer gemstone series. Which means that it is equipped with newer and stronger hardware. Acer doesn't deny that. Both cards are DDR2 and I doubt that the 8600 is overclocked. I reinstalled the OS on the 5920(with the 8600) and the system then got 2900 in 3dmark 06. Then I updated the drivers, and suddenly the 2900 turned into 3700 which is remarkable! Now, the new computer 6920 had 3100 3d marks with the original drivers. Every driver I've tried from laptopvideo2go.com and omega makes that score worse. Only Acers driver made it better, and highered the score to 3250 3d marks.

The native resolution on the 6920 is 1900x1080. On the 5920 it is only 1280x800. In 3dmark 06(free edition) the resolution of the 5920 was 1280x800 but on the 5920 it was 1280x1000 due to the higher native resolution I suppose. But 200 pixels shouldnt make that big difference, Im sure of that.

Also, one guy here stated that the *600 GT always should be stronger than the *500 GS reagrdless of generation. That is not correct. Just try to compare a 6500 GT with a 8400 GT.

But, the 9500 GS should achieve a higher score in 3dmark. Ive called Nvidia and Acer.

 

Sorry to tell you this, but *500 GS is usually lower then the *600 GT by ONE generation, 6500 GT and 8400GT are 2 generations apart, not one, compare the 7600 GT and the 8400 GT, then youd be making sence...

Secondly, you are a victim of marketing, sorry but this is what happened.
The 9500M GS = the 860M GT , simple and easy, nvidia has the right to do that, its their products, the difference?

The reason they did this was so that more laptops would have higher end cards in them, because even though the 9500M GS is the same speed as the 8600M GT, they are selling it to many companies as a less pricey card...

So calling Acer and Nvidia will waste your time, do some research before purchasin, the 9500M GS is the 8600M GT with a nicer name, thats it...

 

First of, it's not 200 pixels, but 286720 pixels instead, which actually makes huge difference.

1280 x 1024 = 1310720 pixels
1280 x 800 = 1024000 pixels
1310720 - 1024000 = 286720 pixels
286720 / 1024000 = 0.28

So the 1280x1024 resolution has 28% more pixels than 1280x800 resolution. Note that the 3DMark score difference was only 15% more for the 5920G:
3756 / 3254 - 1 ~= 0.15
Of course there's no direct analogue between these differences, but they should give you some idea, why 5920G scores better than 6920G. So again, run the benchmarks and games at same exact resolution on both machines to get any valid comparisons.