Crysis FPS and benchmark on sager 9262 8800 gtx SLI enabled

Hey dexgo, there's a 174.74 version now on http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/
I don't know if you saw it already.

 

yep the command really showed me that I was getting 22-27 fps, in 1920x1200

but at 1200x960 I got between 31-42 fps that'll do for me , thats all on high settings,
I will play around properly when I get the full game

 

Instead of freaking out dexgo, try running a series of 3Dmark06 tests with the EXACT same settings. No changes in programs etc, and with a fresh restart or maybe a break between each test to even it out.

You will see a variance in scores, that might give you a better idea of score ranges for 3Dmark06. So calm down. As mentioned before, it's a synthetic benchmark, not an e-penor contest (unless you want to make it one).

And yes, Fraps can hurt ingame performance.

 

bud. I'm far from a newb at this stuff.

I have tried the new drivers if you read my post earlier in this thread. like a page back..

and I have ran 3dmark every which way you can possibly think of.. looped and unlooped...

the simple fact is that the sm2.0 score is LOW and the sm3.0 score is LOW as well.

in comparison to other 8800m cards that are you'd think equal chips.

 

ok, i'm going to make this CLEAR.

I am not e-peening. ffs.

I have a QUAD CORE! and got 3700 in 3dmark.

people with the x9000 oc'd are getting 3000 in 3dmark.

now. my score is lower in the sm2.0 and 3.0.

so if I had the same processor as them x9000.

My score would be 500 sum odd points below.

so do you UNDERSTAND?

My card is underprefroming.

I could care less about the CPU. I want my card to prefrom the best it can compared to thers with the same card.

the peeps with the m1730 are GPU bound since they get the same score as my with a weaker processor score.

I am CPU bound. I get the same score as them but my CPU is 700 points ahead of them.

 

They are technically the same cards, but in reality there are going to be differences. I know especially in desktop cards 2 different ones from different manufacturers can perform vastly different even though technically they have the same specs. I wouldn't expect them all to perform the same in notebooks either.

Not to mention Clevo was first to market with 8800m's as far as I know so others had more development time. Slight differences are probably bound to happen.

All that said it's not a big deal unless you make it one. It's not like the 9262 isn't a killer laptop.

 

I realize that.

but until we get more than just me posting results we won't know anything.

also my CPU score is bringing up the scores.

I am not saying anything about this notebook not being killer.

I am saying there is a problem and I want to get to the bottom of it.

I am a Tweaker dude.

I don't just buy something and just leave it.

I buy it, and learn every single little thing it can do. how much why why not. etc etc.

I am hoping other post results.

I am not trying to beat the m1730. I am learning about the differences in cards, scores, and drivers etc etc.

when overclocking you have to know these things.

and 700 points in 3dmark is alot. if you gain that much it's a feat.

if you lose that much. it's not good.

 

Heres my theory...

3Dmark only has 1 proper muticore test which gives your quad a nice boost over a dualcore no matter what the core speed
But for all the other tests its only using 1-2 cores @ 2.4Ghz compared to 2.8Ghz with the x7900/x9000...

Basically I'm saying your quad is probably performing like the T7700 2.4Ghz in most of the tests meaning your even more CPU limited in 3D tests = Less points.

We need somebody with a T7700 to run 3Dmark 06 with SLI disabled to see if my theory is correct or not.

I know somebody in the Dell forum has this CPU with SLI 8800m GTXs...

 

that's exactly the opposite of whats happening.

my CPU test is high.

my GPU test is low.

my end score is high. as high as an overclocked maxed out m1730.

but my CPU score is the thing keeping me that high.

if I didn't have it my score would be way lower. say 700pts or more.

my sm2.0/3.0 score is low and that's the GPU scores.

anyways.

I will get the sli, and once your getting 120fps in games I suppose it doesn't matter much anymore.

btw that new lost game sux.

 

Hi again.

I'm saying the reason your getting a higher CPU score is thanks to the 2nd CPU test (Muticore test) which your quad gets almost x4 FPS compared to our dual cores

Thats why your CPU score is higher but not much higher if you understand.The reason your getting lower FPS in 3D test than your expecting is because its only running at 2.4Ghz and not usign all 4 cores...Probably 2 at max.
So your CPU limited in 3Dtest and thats hwy your getting a lower score...

I'm sure when a more upto date 3D mark is released we can get rid of these stupid CPU limited tests and get some proper GPU benchmarks again

 

ahhhhhhhh.-me screaming.

there's nothing wrong with my CPU TEST. it's FINE!

the GPU test and CPU test are seperate.

the GPU is stressed on it's own. and CPU etc.


I am getting good CPU scores. and utilizing all 4 cores. consistent with anyone on the net using a stock 2.4ghz q6600 processor.

My G....P....U score is lower in comparison to other 8800m's in single mode.

 

*Sighs*

I've tryed to explain to you...

Run 3Dmark again, Half way through a 3D test quickly get the task manager up and click performance...I bet you a pounds only 2 cores show up as doing anything major!

Please try to understand this...

3Dmark 06 is OLD, The GPU test is very dependant on the CPU now since its using such a low res(1280/1024) and GPU have come so far since 2006.

Why else do you think I gain almsot 3k points in 3Dmark 06 just by overclocking CPU to 3.4Ghz?I can tell you for a fact its not because I'm scoring more in the CPU test but its giving the GPUs more room to do what they do instead of waiting for the CPU to do w/e it needs to do...

 

i know this. but I don't care.

I want to know about my GPU score not my CPU score.

my CPU score is higher than the dells. so that's fine. as it should be because it's better.

the CPU has absolutely 0 effect past having a t7700 on the SM2.0/3.0 score.

ok?

I don't care about total score.

there is 3 parts to 3dmark

sm2.0

sm3.0

CPU score.

you overclock CPU you get higher CPU score.

I don't care about the CPU score.

I care about the G.P.U score.

sm2.0/3.0. that is all.

 

CPU speed EFFECTS the GPU score though lol.

CPU @ 3.4Ghz

3DMark Score 14016 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 6514
SM 3.0 Score 6898
CPU Score 2906

CPU @ 2.8Ghz

3DMark Score 12256 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 5609
SM 3.0 Score 6386
CPU Score 2409

ZOMG!!!11!

Looks like CPU bottleneck there effecting the GPU scores

Yes you have a very good CPU, My point was only 1 test in 3Dmark 06 is making good use of all 4 cores, The rest are using 2 cores at best which is why I compared it to a T7700.Your CPU scores alot higher than dual cores on the 2nd CPU test since your getting like 4FPS while we only get like 1.8FPS which bumps your CPU score up abit.

 

SM 2.0 Score 5609
SM 3.0 Score 6386

see these scores?

I am only getting like 4786 -sm2.0
and 4900 sm3.0

then cpu score of 3800

you see my point? big difference no?

i know that's with SLI but what about single?

I was basing my scores against single.

 

I might be clutching at straws, here but different brand ram on the graphics card? all it needs is a little better latency and boom the score goes up

also the core itself could be on a more finetuned production run making it just that little bit better, there is a whole host of differences tha could be the cause
right down to the motherboard drivers, I mean the PCI-E driver which will pass over the MXM interface could be a better version, have you thought about comparing chipset drivers?

 

Hey Dexgo, how about setting all nvidia control panel to fit MAXIMUM Performance. That will get you some more points.

 

Hi again

I have a day off on Tuesday, I'll disable SLI and compare a single card with CPU @ 2.8Ghz and 3.4Ghz.

 

good idea, all things to cosider.

veggie, that would be wicked cool bud.

thanks

 

the idea is default

 

I just tried this and it didn't budge my SM scores barely at all. My cpu score dropped by 564 points and my total 3dmark dropped by 580 points. So I don't think the CPU effecting the SM scores adversely is what is happening here.

 

I think the hardware differences are more likely. Like I said in desktop cards especially I know that say two 8800 GTX cards made by two different manufacturers can perform very differently. I have seen this personally. All other variables the same, but you get very different 3dmark scores and game performance.

 

I know 3dmark doesn't mean crap. I just want to dissect it a little that's all.

duane.

what do you get stock no OC of CPU and stock GPU (Single) in 3dmark 06

 

most cards have a general performance and usually it's within 5% of that with differing cards.

 

We are looking at a just a little over a 5% difference here, so it's feasible.

I'll try and run that for you when i get time. I'm about to head out for the day.

 

I am installing Vista and going to try a different aspect just to see for fun.

I mean the card runs great anyways. I mean I do have it overclocked and I still get 35fps in Crysis @1680 all HIGH, and I am Happy with my beast.

I want to grab another card and see what SLI can do.

thanks for contributing duane.

 

I have been looking @ the bios of Dell 8800 vs the Clevo 8800, and I've stumbled on something currious.

look how the ammount of Vids setup in the Dell vs the Clevo.

and You know with the clevo we have had to add the 1.05 to the voltage.

but the vids aren't setup at all.

that's a true big difference.



big diff.

 

So you`re saying the Clevo ones are sort of locked from the factory?

 

they are setup weird. that's for sure.

 

How about emailing Clevo about this? maybe they can shed some light on the matter.

 

I wish we could OC the processors in this unit.

that really sux.

there is no point in me getting an x6800 or an e6850.

We need to be able to OC the proc

 

Once again, email Clevo and ask.

 

it's all good.

I've figured out the problem.

it's just that what peeps were saying.

I analyzed alot of other scores.

it's the Overclocking ability of the M1730's CPU and higher frequency that enables them to have a higher SM2.0/3.0 score.

that's all.

theres no point in emailing Clevo.

We have the PLL now so now we just need someone to write support into a program so we can OC the CPU.

I mean people are getting Huge Oc's on these quads.


It just would be wicked cool that's all.

hopefully it will happen but prob not.

 

Hmm Dexgo that Dell bios can you raise any voltage above 1v with Nibitor? I haven´t tried myself though, since I saw you could raise your Clevo´s to 1.05.

But yeah there is a difference for sure in the vid tables.

 

yea it's in the vids for sure.

I just thought it was weird on how it's mapped.

 

This doesn't really make sense because when I don't overclock my CPU and run it at 2.8ghz I lose pretty much nothing on my SM scores. My CPU score drops by 564 points and my total drops by 580. So the overclocking CPU only made a difference of 16 points. 16 points isn't even measurable really since you can get that differences running 3dmark twice in a row with the same config.

 

i've looked around and compared alot in the m1730 lounge.

and this is confirmed.

as well as reading about bottlenecks in CPUs.

from what i've seen in 3dmark 06 the CPU frequency effects the sm2.0 score.

I have read tons on this today on the net even on desktops.

someone in the lounge had 10k with a t7500 IN SLI.

running @2.3ghz

it's a combination of different cpu's and different frequency's.

I hope others post some results. With Clevo d901c's

we have enough Dell. we don't need no more. I have a good Idea of what they can do. since the m1730 is like Mainstream Music. Raido Hit top 100 Pop Music Commercial etc etc.....

Clevo is boutique.. but we need more people to contribute results.

1vs10000 doesn't really work.

I have read tons on this today on the net even on desktops.

it goes up more than 16 points buddy.

LOL. more than that.

 

So we'll be getting that research report soon, then? Actually, if you've found a few really good sources, posting a link to them would be great - if you've any time left over, that is.

 

I am the only one concerned with this it seems.

I am the only one who is posting any kind of results.

I'm tired of this crap.

The reason I am pissed @ the Dell scene is that they have a "SCENE"

and they have users to post and compare results.

Having a clevo is like going to a school in EAST LA when your WHITE.

 

and maybe it just comes down to Dell and Clevo being 2 different systems with different hardware.

different 8800's from the ground up.

oh well.

 

Umm ok I'll post screen caps tommorow if you want. It's exactly 16 points in the SM score, I'm not lying. My CPU score dropped by a ton but the SM scores barely budged. You can't take random 3dmarks and base your "confirmed" facts on that given that most of those are people running it fresh from the factory wiht stock drivers.

But hey if you don't want me to post any more I don't have to I was just trying to help you figure stuff out. I'm perfectly happy with my machine and don't need to do anymore testing.

 

@dexgo,

Interesting conclusion. Goog effort mate and thank you for the info.

Trance

 

Dexgo,
When was the PLL found?

 

Duane I was configuring my 1730 system, what Hardrive did you get btw? And can you list your specs here please.

BTW the Alienware M15x with a 8800 gtx card is running crysis at 14-23 fps, is this normal? I saw a sager 9262 that was benchmarked and it ran crysis at 23 fps at max. Dexgo what is your FPS with Crysis on your 9262? I'm still unsure if I shold go with the m15x or 1730

 

What do you need coded?

 

Hey, dexgo...

Don't know if this will help, but I compared my 3DMark06 scores with those of Aryantes who has a rig like mine but with a Q6600 processor. The first number is Aryantes, the second number is mine:

SM 2.0 4246/4301
SM 3.0 4102/4152
CPU 3836/2692

This seems to show an advantage to the graphic scores because of the faster CPU clock, but it is tiny (1%), and could have been caused by the fact that we used different drivers. I used 167.46 and he used 167.43.

No matter how different our scores, we got virtually identical fps results in the Crysis benchmark.

 

Conroes are still slower thant Penryns.

 

Ok here is my 3dmark06 score with no overclocking on the CPU. I didn't get a screen cap last time I ran it and got the 16 point difference and I don't have time today to run it a few times. But the difference in SM is still very low.



Here is a comparison to my earlier scores with CPU overclocking, as you can see it's a 87 point difference in the SM 2.0 and only 2 points in SM 3.0, and like I said last time I ran it it was a 16 point difference total in SM. The only huge drop is in CPU.

3.4 vs 2.8 GHZ Cpu.

Totals 11581 vs 10967 = 614 difference
SM 2.0 5273 vs 5186 = 87 point difference
SM 3.0 4881 vs 4879 = 2 point difference
CPU 3096 vs 2540 = 556 point difference

So like I said the CPU is not what is causing the discrepancy here.

EDIT: This is with SLI disabled of course.

 

no I see that.

your cards are clearly way different and are clearly way better.

I rest my case.

Clevo Sux. in alot of ways. they are getting beat down.

they youstu have the advantage but now they suck! Hardcore.

no overclocking, clearly weaker cards..... pathetic.

 

The problem is not that they are being beaten down, but that they are being beaten down BIG time. If the diff was just some hundreds, but they are getting beaten down on with diffs of 1000 to 3000.

I remember when d901c had the advantage. But back then a lot of technical comparisons were technically a wee bit unfair (better CPUs against worst, SLI against non SLi etc etc).

Now with all things almost even, well engeneering shows.

Trance
PS: Maybe this can be fixed with a new motherboard upgrade, firmware, BIOS, who knows. I suspect that Clevo will not solve this at all, and focus on next gen of cards as usual (The problem is that SLi is not working as it is supposed in the 8000 series cards).