x1700 64-bits

Hi, a friend just bought a packard bell easynote laptop and is getting horrendous 3dmark scores: half of what they should be and crappy gaming performances... We tried to check what's wrong and everest reported a memory bus size of only 64bits WTF??? The laptop is running xp and the card is set to optimal performance... Is there really a 64bit version of the x1700?

 

Probably...and that would DEFINITELY be the cause of the problem.

 

Yes DEFINITELY i have a x1600 and there was a guy recently who i talked with in here, bought also PB and that gave him low scores aswell. I agree with GREG's statement the only thing you can do to achieve same performance as normal x1700 is to set resolution lower or same as 1024x768 disguisting but that is the only way to suck it's potential other than that im sorry to tell you that in higher resolutions the performance if not same it is similar to the x1400.

 

Could you give us a link to the notebook you bought? I'd be interested to see its specifications.

 

here you go chaz!
Packard Bell MV86-003
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=165398&page=3

 

Great, another packard bell victim. Sorry, but there's not much you can do. I phoned them up and they said that there's no such thing as a 64-bit x1700, and there's a problem with the programs reporting it, and only pcwizard reports it correctly(128-bit). Also, it seems that this is a problem with the mv86 motherboard: not only these, but the older easynote v models(the same as mv, only with core duo and x1600) suffered from low gpu performance. So it's not the video card that's at fault, but the mobo.

http://support.packardbell.com/global/item/?m=home&sn=772000550235

I know it's not the best, but not bad either.

So, if i play games in 848x480 or 1024x640 i get similar performance with the '' regular'' x1700?

 

Thats right because the card is still very powerfull but with lower resolution the low memory bandwith does not matter unless it is 32-bit :S. I can run pretty much anything on the same scale as the regular x1600 but when i push it to 1280x800 than i can feel noticaebly the major performance loss.

 

That's good to hear, because i find 848x480 acceptabale. I can even run crysis at medium-low(whitout shaders and shadows).

So this lappy isn't completely crap, as others have said. A guy with a sempron 2500, 512 mb ram and 9600 video card desktop was laughing at my laptop.

 

WUahah! I love my MR 9700 128bit woooop!



EDIT: hey wolf! almost 700 post I see

 

A "gamer" with 512Mb RAM is in no place to laugh......

 

Yeah soon im going to change my title yipee yikee yay

 

Tthe desktop he has is ridicolously weak he won even able to start UT3 engine games, while your notebook will play any game on the market but of course with lower resolutions

 

I can run the ut3 demo at 848x480 resolution, screen percentage at 100%, intense post-processing, world detail to 4(this doesn't seem to impact performance much) and texture detail to 2(setting it to 3 would make the game stutter) and i get about 30-40 fps, rarely droping to 25 and never below that.

Is this nnormal for a ''regular'' x1700 at that resolution?

 

Yeah unfortunately our GPU's are pretty outdated and match the shading power of 8400GS that is why it works worseon newer games...