HP Pavilion dv5t Full Benchmarks (Warning: LOTS OF PICS)

HP Pavilion dv5t Benchmarks & Gaming Performance
By: Charles P. Jefferies

Welcome to the full benchmark review of the HP Pavilion dv5t. This article will focus entirely on the performance of the dv5t. Please see the full dv5t review for information about the notebook itself.

My dv5t has the following specifications:

• Intel Core 2 Duo P8400 processor (2.26GHz/ 1066MHz FSB/ 3MB L2)
• 15.4-inch WSXGA+ Infinity display
• Nvidia GeForce 9600M-GT w/ 512MB DDR2 dedicated video card
• 2GB DDR2-800 RAM (2x 1GB)
• 160GB 5400RPM hard drive
• Broadcom 802.11b/g wireless + Bluetooth
• Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit
• High-capacity 6-cell Li-ion battery

The video drivers used for all benchmarks are Nvidia 177.72 via http://laptopvideo2go.com/. I did a clean install of Vista using orev's excellent Clean Install Guide in the forums prior to benchmarking.

System Performance Benchmarks
This section of the benchmarks focuses on the overall performance of the HP Pavilion dv5t.

Windows Experience Index (WEI)

The WEI is not the most reliable benchmark, but is a somewhat useful tool for comparing to other Vista systems. My HP dv5t makes a nice showing here – the maximum score for each category is 5.9. The dv5t features DDR2-800 memory, which no doubt assisted in the 5.9 memory score. For some reason, the dv5t is held back by the video card, though I have to question this as I have the 9600M-GT, which is very powerful.

Overall System Performance using PCMark Vantage

Futuremark's PCMark Vantage is a new benchmark exclusively for Windows Vista. It stresses every component of a computer to its limits, especially the hard drive and CPU.

Processor Performance

wPrime 1.55

wPrime is a multi-threaded CPU test - it is similar to SuperPi but has a few more features. It is a much more accurate benchmark for dual-core CPUs. Please see our big comparison thread here.

SuperPi


Settings:


3DMark Vantage is a Vista-exclusive DirectX 10 benchmark.

Real-World Gaming Performance
Synthetic benchmarks are just that – synthetic, not real. This section of the benchmarks focuses on the actual in-game performance of the HP Pavilion dv5t using several of today's most popular and demanding games.
Results are measured in Frames Per Second (FPS). The minimum FPS for a game to be playable (not choppy) is 30.

All of the games were run in DirectX 9 mode (if applicable).

Crysis

Crysis is by far the most demanding 3D game available today. Gamers will be pleased to know that the HP Pavilion dv5t with the GeForce 9600M-GT video card is more than capable of handling this game.

I benchmarked Crysis using the Crysis Benchmark Tool 1.05 Final from Guru3D.com. The game version used is 1.21. I used all high and all medium settings during two runs. The benchmarked results are as follows:
High Settings:

Medium Settings:


Benchmark Results Chart:


Using high settings at a 1280x720 resolution is not playable, though medium settings is smooth and fluid. Note that this game is strangely playable at 22 – 25 FPS, so anything above that is smooth. The game still looks beautiful at medium settings. The graphics in this game can be tweaked down to the smallest details, so I imagine it would be possible to get this game looking even better with a minimal impact on performance.

Screenshots:





Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Call of Duty 4 is a popular online first-person shooter. It has a large online gaming community and is quite demanding on a computer's hardware.
Prior to benchmarking, I patched the game to version 1.7. The following settings were used for benchmarking. They are a mix of medium and high; these settings push the dv5t to its limit while keeping the game visually appealing and playable.

I benchmarked the first two levels of the game using FRAPS.

The 9600M-GT is a practical card for playing this game, given it can produce good framerates at a relatively high-resolution and settings. Those looking for more playability can turn the resolution down to 1280x800. I ran the benchmark at a higher resolution to show that the 9600M-GT could do it.

Screenshots




Unreal Tournament III

Unreal Tournament III is the successor to the ever-popular Unreal Tournament 2004, and is like it in many ways. This game is resource-hungry, and likes a lot of CPU power.
Prior to benchmarking, I patched the game to version 1.5. I benchmarked the game at the following settings:



I benchmarked two levels of the game using FRAPS.

The 9600M-GT makes an impressive showing in this game. I was able to play the game at the highest 1680x1050 resolution at medium-high settings. Being able to produce mostly playable framerates at this resolution is impressive, given the 9600M-GT is a mid-range graphics card. Usually, only high-end graphics cards like the 9800M-GT can play games at 1680x1050.
I actually play this game at a 1440x900 resolution, which is noticeably more fluid. Again, I only ran the benchmark at 1680x1050 to show that the 9600M-GT could do it.

Screenshots:





Conclusion
The HP Pavilion dv5t with the Nvidia GeForce 9600M-GT 512MB graphics card is a more than suitable machine for modern gaming. It has no problem with medium-high details in some of the most demanding titles available today. All games I ran on this machine looked fantastic.
Overall system performance is excellent thanks to the latest Intel Montevina platform technology. Performance-seekers will not be disappointed with the HP dv5t.

 

Thanks for the benchmarks. Good to know that the dv5t can handle Crysis just fine.

 

Awesome benchmarks. You might want to fix the second and third thumbnail images, they have WEI thumbnails but actually lead to PCMark and wPrime scores

 

Your 3DMark Vantage score seems kind of low. I pulled P1966 on my laptop with SLi turned off and the card overclocked to 700/900. I don't exactly think that the 9600 GT should be that slow should it? Yes I do understand that my 8600 GT overclock is one of the highest but I believe that a 9600 GT should be a little closer seeing that it's stock core clock is 530 MHz. I don't think a 170MHz boost would really add 700 points to 3DMark Vantage, right?

-J.B.

 

Thanks - my copy + pasting links had to go wrong somewhere.

Hm. What are the full specs of your machine? Processor, mainly.

 

wow nice.
Crysis looks amazing even at medium!
Since I have the dv7t, I'm guessing my performance on the 1440x900 res would be a bit lower than yours but oh well.

 

Why is that?

 

Nice Review CHAZ!

You stole the "LOTS OF PICS" thing from me, but I still love ya... heheheh lol

 

That was another awesome review/benchmark chaz. However, I am wondering if maybe it would be a good idea to lower the settings in COD4 and UT3 to get better FPS for online multiplayer. For COD4 i know it really depends a lot on the map as to how much FPS you are getting, but should I be aiming for an average of 60 FPS in COD4 multiplayer?? 60 FPS is supposedly what the console version is locked at so i figured that is considered perfectly playable online. Also, for such a fast paced game like UT3 should i lower the settings to get 50-60 FPS? I guess my real question to you is what FPS do YOU plan on using for these two games and what settings are you going to use to achieve those. I know im probably being a little bothersome about all of this, but i only ask because I love playing online first person shooters, but i dont know how to find the balance between image quality and game speed to the point where the game still looks nice but doesnt slow me down to the point where I am murdered continually (though it could be because i suck )

I would rather be making all of the kills than observing these games in all of their graphical glory. for instance right now im running COD4 at 960xsome low number...i know not good. I have shadows, depth of field, smoke edges, ragdoll, and bullet impacts all turned off, as well as the water quality on lower and lower # of corpses. with these settings i get anywhere from 50-100 FPS where it usually sits around 75 or so.

So my question is, and anybody should feel free to chime in here with their opinions, what FPS should i be looking for in these two games and what settings should i apply to achieve them?? maybe we could get somethin goin where we post our settings and recorded FPS along with the overall online experience and playability as online play seems to me needs the most tweaking for performance vs. quality.

Here is my setup which i have posted previous times in the dv5t forum:
This is a dv7t by the way (the dv series is awesome!)
Upgrade to Genuine Windows Vista Ultimate with Service Pack 1 (64-bit)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T9600 (2.80GHz)
17.0" diagonal WSXGA+ High-Definition HP BrightView Infinity Display (1680 x 1050)
4GB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm)
512MB NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT
640GB 5400RPM SATA Dual Hard Drive (320GB x 2) with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection
[For BrightView Infinity] Webcam + Fingerprint Reader
HP Color Matching Keyboard
Intel(R) WiFi Link 5100AGN and Bluetooth(TM)
High speed 56K modem port
$100 OFF Blu-Ray ROM with SuperMulti DVD+/-R/RW Double Layer
HP Integrated HDTV Hybrid Tuner
8 Cell Lithium Ion Battery
3-year HP Accidental Damage Protection with HP Pick Up and Return

I know a lot of that info doesnt matter but it was just copied and pasted from another spec list so ya. lets get these settings going so we can actually enjoy these awesome games with our powerful new laptops!

 

Thanks. For game benchmarks, I run the laptop at the highest possible settings (highest playable, for this review) only to show what the machine is capable of. For everyday gaming, I don't have the settings that high since it's a little sluggish for my liking.

60FPS is not a realistic goal for the dv5t in CoD4 unless you lower the settings dirt low. I would say make the settings so you stay in the 35 - 50 FPS range. In the end, you just have to tweak it to your liking.

Normally I game on my desktop - it gets way over 60 FPS in most games at the highest settings. On the laptop, I shoot for 40FPS. I go for resolution over settings - for example, I'll take 1440x900 and medium over 1280x800 at high.

That's a ridiculous machine, by the way, nice specs. I'd be interested to see your 3DMark06 or 3DMark Vantage results to see how much of a difference that 2.8GHz processor makes over my 2.26GHz.

 

My Toshiba X205-SLi4 consists of this:
Intle C2D T8100 2.1GHz/3MB cache on a PM965 chipset
3GB (2+1GB) DDR2 667
Dual 8600M GT GDDR3 graphics cards in SLI (I disabled SLi and overclocked the single card to 700 core/900 memory)
2*160GB 7200RPM hard disks
Vista Ultimate SP1 32bit with NVIDIA Forceware 177.79 graphics drivers

-J.B.

 

with the 3dmark06 scores its not much of a difference. the cpu gives an extra 200 points and puts it at 4170 or so. as you know the GPU is what really makes 3dmark benchmarks so since we have the same one there shouldnt be that much of a difference.
Ya i just got done playing COD4 on my laptop and i was getting anywhere from 45-80 FPS. however i was only playing at 1024x768 and once again had the shadows, depth of field, softened smoke edges, bullet impacts and ragdoll all turned off, as well as the water detail on low and the number of corpses lower. there really isnt much of a difference with those settings off and for online play i dont think you need them and they should boost you a good 20 FPS. I think these are the settings i will stick with because right now it seems very playable online and i did really well. this is with all of the other settings on high too so im really liking it. I am finding out how powerful this machine really is. Im gonna find out how well i can play crysis next and UT3. I also play the orange box games and BF2. thanks again chaz for your help with this forum

 

I'm thinking the difference is due to the clocks. The 9600M-GT stock is faster than an 8600M-GT stock. Since they both have the same amount of shader units (32), whatever one has higher clocks is probably going to be faster. I don't know if the 9600 has any added features like more transistors, etc, over the 8600 . . . something to look into.

The real advantage with the 9600M-GT over the GeForce 8 series is that it is built on a smaller process, and therefore can run at higher frequencies and consume less power.

 

Hi everyone, this is what I obtained on my dv5t machine with the following specs
* Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 processor (2.40GHz/ 1066MHz FSB/ 3MB L2)
* 15.4-inch WSXGA+ Infinity display
* Nvidia GeForce 9200M-GS w/ 256MB DDR2 dedicated video card
* 3GB DDR2-800 RAM (1GB+2GB)
* 250GB 5400RPM hard drive
* Intel 5001 wireless + Bluetooth
* Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
* High-capacity 6-cell Li-ion battery

 

Chaz, how did you take screen shots in crysis? and were you able to open up console in crysis?

Btw, very nice and well written Gaming Benchmark review

 

@ Chaz: I just ran 3DMark Vantage again at stock 475/700 without SLi and this is what I got:




-J.B.

 

excellent performance review!

FLACK MASTERRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! l0l0l

 

Lol, thanks.

If there's any additional benchmarks you'd like me to run, please let me know.

 

actually, i am thinking - when my dv7t comes in this upcoming week, im going to run most of the apps that you ran on my dv7t - just so we have something to compare against.

correct me if im wrong but i think the only difference between our machines is the screen size and processor. if so, it would be a nice comparison.

i am not really into games but i want to see what my $ bought me in terms of performance. ;]

 

The 174.74 drivers are best in games by about 10 - 15%.

The 177.92 is the slowest driver in the last year.

 

im using 176.37 and its da best one... abt 5% better than 174.xx

 

Ok, I used 3DMark06 to get a result on the new 178.13 drivers, and I got 4468 on the 1280x800 resolution, which I think is really good.
If other people get some results, do post them pls.

 

makes me wana buy one !!

 

I'm running crysis on the DV5-1157 with sub par preformance...
Crysis is in all medium settings, anti-aliasing disabled, and res is set at 1280x800 In the game, ive enabled FPS from the console and it says im getting anywhere from 11-18 frames per second... Running the game in high priority (Windows task manager) gives me an extra couple of frames on top of that...

Under the hood theres the P7350 C2D (2.0GHz 3mb cache, 1066 FSB), 4GB DDR2 (800mhz) and the Nvidia 9600M GT (DDR2)

Im have windows vista 64 bit SP1 installed, and running 64 bit version of crysis. To improve preformance ive done the basics and disabled transparency, windows sidebar, and a few background services.
Ive also patched crysis to the 1.2.1 version and installed the latest nvidea driver (7.15.11.8043)

Can anyone tell me what im doing wrong? Any help is greatly apreciated

 

You should definitely be getting better performance than that. Where did you install those video card drivers from? I suggest getting new ones from LaptopVideo2go.com if you didn't already:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=258626

I have a P8400, 2GB RAM and the 9600; at 1280x800 I can run the game with 20+ FPS on medium with the game's 1.21 patch installed and the Nvidia 177.72 drivers.

This is a good tune-up guide for your notebook:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=166532

 

That tune up guide you linked chaz covered the laptop power plan, which got me thinking that perhaps it affects more than just the screen brightness, and it did!! So changing that helped a bit...im getin roughly 16-22 FPS under the same settings... Still does anyone have any other sugestions to further boost preformance?

 

Dear Chaz,

I hv just bought a DV5-1015tx preconfig* P7350 (2.0 GHz), 3GB DDR 2, 9600m GT DDR2 as compared to your P 8400(2.26 GHZ). Will this recession in my Processor affect much in gaming performance like Crysis where hardly it will produce 22 - 28 FPS avg from your config ?...
I have deposited half the amount for the Lappy. !!!.. is it worth going for the Preconfigured version ??.. P.S : Budget is a constraint..

 

^i dont think that it will affect the performance by a really large margin...

 

Thankss.. mate...

Just in second thoughts.. i went through most possible threads given by you and it came up that 9600m GT DDR3 will produce 15 - 20 % faster results....

Now, given the pros of DV -1015 TX , i found out Acer 5930 Series also.. with 9600m GT DDR3 and Centrino 2 platform with 2.2 gigs.

Also.. some of ma mates explained and insisted its possible for a Graphic card update in Acer, whereas not possible in HP.

Can u help please ??? .. i have held up all of my mates for your comment.. !! Thankss in advanceee....

Also ... can u suggest me... some lappy's wid 9600m GT ddr 3.. in Toshiba , HP, acer ? Thankss again...

 

Odd how my dv7 with a t5800 gets 4300 points on 3dmark06 while yours with a p8400 gets 3900

 

Why is my graphics rating 5.1 and my gaming graphics 5.4? Is it because of the driver software?

 

Hey I ran HD Tune on Vista Premium 64bit, and got very similar results to urs, but my HD sounds really noisy at times...is it just a noisy drive or is something wrong with it? Its driving me nuts cause it works fine just makes noises..and its brand new 2 days old..its not LOUD but sitting in a quiet room with no outside noise you def hear it clanking away...

Pic enclosed:

 

pics are down Chaz and i needed them

 

You got a score of 3910 in 3Dmarks06.

My DV6-1264Ca scores 5899 3Dmarks06 (default setting in 3DmArks06) with a AMD/ATI combo (Turion ultra ZM-82 & HD4650 I Gig GDDR3)

It's weird, I thought that the faster Intel processor (faster than my Turion ZM-82) would compensate for the 9600m (a little less powerful than my 4650) and manage to at least 1000 points more than my setup.

It might be related to the extra RAM (I got 4 gigs DDR2-800) and Vista 64 bits (don't thing it makes a difference...)


Also, make sure you got ALL the power saving features turned OFF when you bench, I found that even when the CPU adjusts to the different work loads, it still takes a performance drop in the benchies (prolly because of the little reaction delay whe nthe CPU ramps up) in real life situation it's not critical, but for benchmarking purposes the difference is noticeable.