Alienware M17 has higher benchmarks with 3870's than a 9262 with 9800 gtx's?

Hey guys

Im on the market for a new gaming notebook again and I was absent from the forums for about 9 months now. But I was browsing the alienware section as well as the sager section and found that there wasnt much tinkering around with the 9262 with dual 9800 gtx cards. I couldnt find a post that listed the 9262 being overclocked etc.. The highest benchmark for 3dmark06 was 15,000+ ish and I think I read a post where someone overclocked either the gpu OR cpu or both (I forgot) and got about 16,000ish. Now I seen someone posting the M17 with dual ATI 3870's overclocked and scoring 15,000ish and close to 16k. Now I can't believe that, maybe its scoring a high score because of the extreme quad core processor? I dunno.

Now can someone clarify this? I thought the 3870's were equivilent or even lower than 8800 gtx's and that radeon cards couldn't compare with Nvidia cards. Also about 9 months ago the Dell 1730 with dual 8800 gtx's with the X9000 extreme processors overclocke were hitting the 15,000 ish mark and If I remember right was out performing the 9262's with dual 8800 gtx cards... I remember this because there was a unhappy sager user who was coparing it and testing it.

I am really interested in purchasing a 9262 with dual 9800 gtx cards ( 2 gigs of video memory!) but from what I been reading so far, its only scoring 15,000ish. Can someone clarify this please and shed some light on this, thanks

 

One of the members here has a score of 16600 or someting, with XP and around 16000 in Vista. What I remember from his sig, he has a extreme quad-qore and dual 9800M GTX.

 

E-Wrecked I think is the name of the NBR member who scored almost 16,000 with dual 3870's, its on his sig. And man thats it? 16,000 for dual 9800 gtx's? Can I get a more detailed response please for any sager or nbr vetern. Btw thanks Eivind for ur fast reply, score seems to perform the same as a crappy 3870

 

The 3870's have proved that are 3dMark players and thats it,they get high numbers in that specific bench(dont forget ofc that they are able to o/c the cpu to touch those scores) but overall the 9800 GTX'S are superior in gaming performance.

As for 9800Gtx's performance and 3d mark you should wait for Johnksss to reply since he has the best scores and spend lots of times testing and benching his 9262.

If just Clevo was giving us the chance to be able to o/c these QX9650's those scores would be much better,and an advice,before you buy any of the 2 machines make sure you take in mind how both systems perform in games and not in 3DMark.

 

Quick search yields: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=301658

Remember that benchmarks are good for an a->b comparison, but for in-game experience, there is no replacement for testing. A near 16k score for dual 3870's is respectable. I would be curious to see at what resolution and overall clocks the user was running. The D901C is still king, last time I checked.

 

9800 GTXs destroy 3870s in real game benchmarking.

That said, I'd wait for the 48x0 ATi GPUs to come out.

 

Any idea when the 48x0 series will come out?

 

March 2009 according to OCZ, but hopefully sooner.

 

i have seen dual 3870's, my roomate has them in an OCZ whitebook, get less performance in MANY games as my 8800mGTX, that being said, many people might think " well that game isnt optimized for crossfire/SLi". That maybe true, but its also true my card still outperforms his. Now I know his cards are more powerful, but it seems ATI cards NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED one hell of a processor for them to work up to par. Now...9800 gtx is about 10% more graphically pwerful than my card. I would image two cards would be about 40% at the least, now, the dual 3870's are good, but they are good in the sense, as lets say, dual 8700's, they perform well in 3dmark, but fail miserably in game. The reason the 3870's fail, is much like most older cards these days, they CAN NOT, handle SHADER intensive games...period. They fail miserably in crysis, crysis warhead, and any game shader intensive..unfortunately for the 3870's ( and hopfeully no for the 4800 series) most games are VERY shader intensive.

 

Benchmarks are just that, they prove nothing when it comes to actual gaming and so far ATI still lags slightly behind.

 

that's a big ten 4 negative. axman is running a lower resolution and not 1280x1024


updated orb link for 9800m gtx

updated link for 3870 x2

 

Yes, but fan boys get hard ons from 3dmark06 scores and make decisions that components are better because of it.


Hmm... I wonder if I were to make a graphics cards, its SOLE purpose is to get 20k score in 3dmark06, but it couldn't even run Vista Aero Glass properly, how much it would sell?

 

Yeah, I spent my ~1.9k to play games, and I definitely didn't just spend $365 on this T9800 to boost my 3Dmark scores. Now, I do believe the tests have a legitimate place in our world, but at times the number chasing gets way out of hand.

Hmm....

 

.....​

 

hummm... allot of people bought ocz whitebooks because of 3dmark06, so your probably in the wrong thread for this.

and the np9262 out performed all other laptops in games/rendering/encoding & transcoding. how do we know? because we tested them all and found out. not sure where you looking at, but search feature does wonders.

and as for benchmarking. it has it place in the world. if it didn't, then i guess all them desktop owners benchmarking wouldn't be doing it if it didn't mean that much.

now go benchmark vantage mark, since it has more to do with your graphics card than 3dmark does.

 

lol. no, i have those big numbers now.

the whitebook isn't the fastest @1280x1024 anymore... it's a sager np9262

 

that's why i bench and run them all. it is the only real way you know. so if any one ask how a 9262 with a quad will perform, i can tell them exactly how it will perform and how to get the best for their money. why? because i have done most of the extensive testing for them. benchmarks are a way of testing how fast your system can travel given the right circumstances. and not all will perform the same, due to the choice we made when we bought them. and just like now...if they come out with a faster quad chip lga775, guess what...you 9800m series gpus will run faster than they do now. so no one can say they have hit the max performance on any 9800m series card in a 9262. till they stop making quads for that version. if you over clock it (cpu) that 2.0 and 3.0 score will jump up anywhere from 2 to 6 hound points each.....so this is one of the reasons why the gtx cost so much, the more power it's given...the more performance you will achieve in gaming....meaning the cpu is slowly catch the speed of the gpus. this is why the 3870s scored high..overclocked systems. we shall see what happens when the 4870's hit the floor....

they say they have one scoring 15k stock with a p8400 or something in 3dmark 06... (the new asus)
new computer new benchmarking system...they should have posted 3dmark vantage. this shows what your computer is really made of.

 

Johnksss and everyone else here, what about the dell 1730, it seems to be a solid system and from past months before I left nbr, they were out performing the 9262 in benchmarks as well as ingame with games such as crysis. I forgot the nae of that hardcore sager overclocker here who had a 9262 who was really upet and did lots and lots of test and determined the 1730 was a better system, when both systems have the 8800 gtx cards in sli.

And last, what is the 2 gig of video memory good for? does it actually improve the graphics?

 

btw thanks for all the replies so far. one last question, is the new sager d90x system releasing in cebit in march have the same chasis or looks as the current 9262? Thanks

 

and how can the 4870's be better than the 9800 gtx? The desktop versions of both says the 9800 gtx is better than the 4870's right? I wonder whats the differene when it comes to laptops?

 

His name was Dexgo, and when, i believe he found out, that it was an BIOS issue, not so much a difference of the GPU or Sytem itself.

 

the 1730 is a good soild machine and probably was king of the hill then. i think i had a gateway at that time. and due to the xps being able to over clock it's cpu boosted it's performance. the sager was locked in at the current cpu unless you had a q6600 and pin modded it up to 3.0 ghz. but the xps is locked at 8800m gtx and x9000 so it can't gain any further than where it is now.. 15k 3dmark (reference purpose only)

the memory comes in to play when you run dual display in single gpu mode (one gpu per monitor) running high end apps like autocad

no one knows for sure, but my avitar is suppose to be a picture of one of them..but no one really knows for sure.

we wont know till they come out and have been tested by common users like our selves...

 

Alienware M17 is NOT the _M1730.

The M17 is made from the arima/flextronics w840DI (OCZ Whitebook)

 

the only for sure way to find out is to run it against your desktop computer to get your true temps. usually asus or intel boards have their own temp monitoring software. then you run these other programs against them. and i have found just about all of them programs seem to be off at one time or another. hwmonitor more than others.