What's more powerful? More fps?

What would I get higher fps with?

1) Core2Extreme OC to 3.2Ghz
Nvidia 8700m GT

2) Core2Duo 2.6Ghz
Nvidia 8800m GTX

Thanks. I am asking b/c I found this company called MicroWorks and I am return my current laptop for one of these. (Any one heard of this company)

 

1x 8800m GTX = 2x 8700m GT

 

So the graphics card is more important then the CPU?

 

for gaming, yes

 

8800 is most definitely better. are you getting the m570ru/sager5793/or equivalent? if so, that's a great laptop.

 

core2extreme is not worth it... the penryn 2.5ghz option would be wayyy better...

 

the 8800m gtx is a very powerful card

 

Well. I own the alienware (check specs) and I have the option of returning it still. So I saw a notebook on MicroWorks that has thoose options. I do like my current laptop though, so I most likely going to wait a few months then upgrade the graphics card to the 8800gtx.

 

i, personally would return the alienware. i'm sure what you mentioned is the m570ru and it is a MUUUUUCH better value and arguably better in quality. not as flashy though, which some people like. i'm sure it comes with better handled warranty and better tech support.

 

I have only recently become aware of PCMW but I like what I see. Now another company other than Asus with 8600m GT in a 14.1. I need to spend more time to familiarize myself with them. Looks like they have high end. Did notice warranty seemed expensive.

Yea for gaming GPU matters more. You pay more than most people think it is worth for the Extreme.

 

Yeah I mean it's obviously something I really have to think about. Thanks for the input, but just as a side note the tech support with Alienware's Roswell support center is (I'm going to say it) out of this world. They are really kind and know what they are talking about. They even called me back once to ensure my problem had been fixed. So I do have to say Alienware A+ support.

 

from what i've read though it's not consistent. it's up to you though. like i said the m570ru is a better value for similar performance. you'll be saving quite a nice chunk of cash. and depending on the config of m15x, you might be able to get 2 for what you spent.

 

FALSE statement for sure, the 8800 is better but not nearly double.

The new Asus G70 has the 8700m and its right behind the current 8800m scores.

The 8800m will definitely get you more fps in most games, there are only a handful of games that press the cpu harder than the gpu, but since they are both high-end cards. I would take into consideration alot more than the information given on just cpu/gpu.

Cost?
Build Quality?
Looks?
Other options like ram installed, operating system, bluetooth, optical drive, hard drive?
Screen Resolution?
Warranty?

When you balance out everything the answer is alot more clear and accurate.

 

The 8700M is right behind the 8800 what? GS? GTX? I would find that hard to believe. BUT, I also find it hard to believe that 15 years ago I thought a 2400baud modem was super sweet!

 

According to Alienware the 8800GTX has double the power as the 8700GT. (I heard the 8800GTS lies in between the two.)

 

ViciousXUSMC you are right, that was a false statement, 8800m GTX is actually more powerful than SLI 8700m GT.

 

isn't there a thread or two that debates that? and it basically boils down to the 8800 is about the same performance as 8700 sli?

 

lol I definitely don't want to start a debate. everyone please ignore my words!

 

Isnt that what he stated? 8800m > 2x 8700(sli in other words).

 

not trying to start a debate. just trying to reiterate that the performance is approximately the same. the 8800 gtx i would think isn't twice as powerful as one 8700. the real world performance puts it 25-75 percent better. and 2 cards in sli doesn't make it twice as powerful right?

 

i noticed that ">". i think the general consensus is closer to "=". some people think it's 2.5-3 times as powerful. there might be a game or two that might back that up. i'm going by averages/overall. if it really was 2.5-3 times as powerful, the 8700 really wouldn't be worth buying considering price/performance ratio.

 

I meant SLI in the first place, I apologize for the confusion.
btw just for the record i never used ">"

 

i know what you meant. that's what i meant in my previous post, too.

 

I got the ">" from this :
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=252588

THat got 8.5K with a T9500. Many folks with T9300, even T830 and the 8800m have broken 9-10K

 

now that is a sick looking laptop!! how come no ones ever recommended it to me?!?!?!
edit: oops, just noticed it is a new model lol

 

There is nothing wrong with a debate as long as its in a good manner, thats what the forums are for! A debate is a means to get to the truth in a matter.

So first let me start with this, SLI is not nearly the same as doubling the individual power of a single card. SLI drivers have come a long way in the last year or so but there are cases when SLI has given nearly the performance of just a single card in the past.

So even with improvements I am sure that SLI is still not 1+1=2 if you get what I mean.

Also considering the heat & space restraints in a laptop, I would not be surprised to find a 8700 SLI setup downclocked from the factory to help maintain heat problems.

Next it still doesnt change what I said about the two computers here in this topic, the difference between those gpus and cpu is not great enough to make a decision based on that alone, all the other componenets in the laptop need to be taken into account, and of course the cost.

I got hands on with that new gateway laptop at best buy last month the cheapest 8800gts model out there I think only like 1300$ However I would NEVER use that laptop over my c90s with a 8600gt, the screen was a lower resolution (and it was bigger too) the keyboard didnt feel good, it had holes in the area where my hads sit to type for the locking mechanism on the lid of the laptop, the cpu was weak and pathetic.

So sure they are going to sell alot of those (and already have) because its cheap and has a 8800 in there but the laptop as a whole was not good in my opinion.

So I have a source of the 3dmark06 scores for the 8700 in the G70, I will link to it in a second. I just need a valid source for the 8800m GTX scores to compare it to.

edit: nvm i was beat to the g70 link so dont need to post it again.

 

a vaild score of 8800m gtx? my rig scored 9135 with a slower CPU, don't know if this counted.

 

Yeah it counts, 3dmark does test both cpu & gpu but the gpu is definitly the main part where your score comes from.

So anyways I guess the debate is closed,

2x does not = y
when x = 8700m
and y = 8800m

and also for SLI
SLI does not = 2x
when x = any video card.

 

but 3dmark puts the 8700 about 5-15 percent slower than the 8800gtx. real world slams that and puts it @ ~25 percent minimum. and i don't think anybody was questioning the 1+1=2. i think everybody knew that in this thread.

duh, or maybe not. reading too many threads and forgetting what was said.

 

Simple GF8800MGTX is better than GF8700M in SLi in most cases because of the inefficiency of SLi and the limitations as to what can use it. Also remember that while SLi increases the Shader and Texture power of the GF8700, it's still stangled by slow 128bit and small amount of memory.

More often than not the GF8800M GTX will outperform the GF8700M in SLi.


But regarding the OP's question really IMO the important issue is, it's far easier to upgrade or OC the CPU than to do anything to the GF8700M to make it anywhere near equal to the GF8800M

 

Let me try and express something very clearly to all of you. I do think it is being misunderstood. So here I go with a simple example of why using numbers and percentages can be skewed. Let us say I lift 80lbs? Well now I go to 100lbs? That is a 25% increase? Correct? Well I decide it is too much, therefor I drop back to 80lbs? Well that is a 20% drop? Yes/no? So I am still 5% ahead correct? Looks like it but you can clearly see I am not. People need to look at perspective much more. After that lesson as long as Grimmster does not tell me I am stupid. I would agree with most above. Sli at almost best is maybe 30% overall.

 

grimster got you too huh? he reminds me of thing or the incredible hulk with a disposition for anything except what he knows, wants or likes.

anyways, powerpack, i think when sli first came out nvidia touted it at up to 27 percent more performance. that exact number could be wrong. but yeah, there's no way there would be double performance sli anyways. drivers for one.