My new 9280 arrived! NOT HAPPY:(

My new NP9280 arrived today. Vista64, 6GB or RAM, 3333GHz Extreme Core i7, settings in control panel's power tab to maximum performance, machine plugged-in.

Against my desktop machine with a similar configuration I noticed things all very slow. Upon benchmarking the results are a disgrace. Here's some shots.

Is this it? What am I doing wrong? Around 40% slower than it should? Is this the results everyone else is getting?

 

looks bad.. did you update your firmware etc..

 

No. BIOS supposedly the latest from Sager. Fresh clean install of Vista Ultimate 64 bit with latest drivers. All as clean as possible. No software added yet nor anything running in background. Also some services not used turned-odd to improve CPU load. Power settings all at maximum performance. Not sure what else to do at this point or if I am missing something.

 

go get SiSandra and post the results of the CPU and Memory tests.

I have all of that benchmarked.

 

Thanks Gophn. Downloading and installing it now. Will post screenshot of results when I complete them. BTW, I got 2 power supplies with my 9280. With one of them, results are lower than with the other... I wonder if one of the supplies is faulty or there is some issue with the way power is being delivered to the mainboard... with the unit on batteries, results are even lower, about 1/2 of when the unit is plugged-in, which is to be expected,

 

I tested that already.

on battery the i7-975 is downclocked to 2.66GHz ... to save battery life.

the power supplies should be very standard... exactly the same as the D901C.

 

I don't seem to be able to install SiSandra. Install exits with an "unknown error". tried a couple versions, no cigar. Running Vista 64bit now but will be downgrading it to XP 32bit which I need for work. Kept running several tests on the latest build of Everest and the results are consistently the same within 30% to 40% lower than a comparable system with the same processor. I have no idea where the problem is as, on software side I'm running a 100% fresh Vista install and on the hardware, well, its what it is. I guess I will do the adventure of trying to get the 9280 running XP 32bit and then re-test everything and see where it stands. I don't think results can be much different but then again, Vista for me = computing horror, so who knows I get lucky and my 9280 loves XP better...

 

I installed SiSandra fine in Vista x64 .... make sure to disable Driver Signing Enforcement and UAC

and XP is compatible with the system as long as you have the latest BIOS (which is a beta BIOS) that supports it.

 

You know what, my 9262 runs fast as lightning. I will trade you.

 

A possible overheat issue prehaps? That could cause downclocking, although its unlikely.

 

My 9280 (brand new as well) runs pretty slow too. I was kind of disappointed....my old lappy with a dual core t9300 ran just as fast and was a hell of a lot lighter lol.

 

uh seriously? i went from t9300 to i7 950 and the difference is definitely noticeable. something is up with your OS if you don't notice a performance increase.

 

Personally, I'd be curious to see what 3DMark 06 and Vantage have to say.

 

I never trusted to much those benchmarks from Everest.

 

Maybe I should buy a 950 then because I really don't see that big of difference. I'm using windows 7 on both machines. The only difference I really notice is gaming, but I'm sure that due to my video card....I guess I was just expecting more. I'm new to the whole RAID thing and I just thought it would be faster as well. My WD Scorpio Black HDD did a lot better on HDtune then my Hitachi 7200.4 RAID configuration . Maybe I didn't do something right, but really only the gaming aspect of this laptop is impressing me. I'm using my little ACER now and I kind of miss it lol. Its light and fast.

 

Unless you're running processor intensive tasks / gaming, you really won't see much of a difference between a decent Core 2 chip and an i7 chip because both are more than overkill for baseline use.

As always, if you want an idea of how fast or faster your system is, load up some tried and true benchmarks like Vantage and Wprime, which are my two go to programs now. Programs like Everest / Sandra are fractional benchmarks at best testing certain segments like memory bandwidth with what I've found to be suspect overall benchmarking. I don't care so much about my memory bandwidth or "test my suite," applications. I do care about apps and benchmarks that are the culmination of all the subsystems tied together. To get an overall idea of system performance, I prefer Vantage (Especially Vantage GPU), Wprime (single thread, 32M to test an isolated core, then all threads for overall performance), Passmark, actual game benchmarks, cinebench and similar ilk. If I am forced to use 3Dmark 06, I focus on the SM20 and SM30 scores.

 

I agree with electrosoft on all point in his previous post. You're NOT going to see much difference between the c2d and i7, or the c2d and any of the more powerful chips unless you're doing something that stresses the CPU.

To the OP, Post up some benchmarks so we can see what's slowing your system down!

 

OK, first of all regarding benchmarks, I absolutely agree that applcaitions like Everest are far from being particularly accurate nor overly scientific. However, when U use a tool to bechmark systems against other systems, then, it can be extremelly useful in getting a good idea how comparatively, performance is. I have a few desktops and worksations and also a couple other laptops. I only have another i7 system I cn compare it with with is one of the desktops. The 9280 runs fairly slower than my i7 desktop, your average Asus Rampage mobo with the same 3.33Ghz CPU and similar specs memory. Actually, memory benchmark results bewteen both systems are nearly identical.

When running similar applications the Clevo is noticeably slower and it fairly matches the benchmark results I get from Everest. Surely Vantage and Wprime tests are far better, but they also take long and are too technical. I use tests that take seconds to run and I compare results with my other systems. Works for me and it has always.

I used Sysoft Sandra for a long time but the application keeps on getting more and more complex, slower to run, more intricate to install and today, Everest is what Sysoft Sandra used to be . A simple lean benchmark application that us great to compare systems between each other.

One of the applications I use the most is Pegasys TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress:
http://tmpgenc.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/te4xp.html

This is an extremely well coded and developed video conversion/editing/correction application that is continuously updated to take advantage of the latest CPUs, drivers and codecs. When doing HD transcoding between codecs and formats, some jobs take hours to render, some, take days. Pegasys TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress also takes advantage of Nvidia's CUDA co-processing for which higher-end graphics cards like the one on the 9280 are a phenomenal help specially using certain filters and algorithms.

However, comparatively speaking when using solely the CPU on jobs and tasks where CUDA is still not employed, it takes about 30% to 40% longer to render the same thing on my 9280 than on my i7 desktop. These are apples against apples, and Everest confirms actually very closely the same results.

The ONLY difference here is that on every system I own I have XP 32bit while on the 9280 I currently have Vista 64bit. This is re-enforcing my despise against Vista as well as my overall impression that, at least for now, 64bit OSes don’t make that much difference in application's performance, when actually not detrimental.

The real test I want to do on the 9280 is when I benchmark it running XP 32bit. That’s a project for next week using a beta BIOS I have.

Till then what is it is what it is, I don’t need PCMarks, Vantages and Wprimes. The 9280 runs slow. Bottom line.

 

Agreed...well just slower than I anticipated.

 

That is the disadvantage of the mobile technology it is always slower than the desktop corresponding. While the cpu is the same the mother board and the memory are a little different. I never expected that my D901C will perform the same as a desktop with the same cpu and I do not expect that the D900F will be at fast as a desktop similar configuration.

PL

PL

 

You got the GTX 260? Try 3dmark 06 perhaps? I get 13K with my 9262 8800M GTX SLI and Q9450. Guess yours should be in the same region... probably even higher if you're not SLI

 

The NP9280 has a GTX280m, not a GTX260m.

 

Some sellers are selling it with a GTX 260M

 

Mine is: (hardware in signature, Vista Home Premium 64, Nvidia driver 8.15.11.8603)

3dMark Vantage: P6676, X2555
3dMark 06: 13334
WPrime 32M: 9.7 sec

This without any "conditioning" whatsoever - no oc'ing done, services and apps (like sidebar gadgets) running as normal, antivirus realtime scanning on as normal, HWMonitor running.

 

I ordered the same setup from xoticPC.com and expect delivery tomorrow. This thread has me nervous.

ReDuNZL - Are those scores in line with the OP’s scores? Do you also think your laptop is ‘slow?’

My desktop is old so I expect I’ll experience a bigger difference than the OP. It has the following specs:
CPU:AMD Socket 939 Athlon64 3800+ (2.4GHz)
MOBO:Abit AV8 Via K8T800 Pro
RAM:2 GB Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2PT Kit DDR400 XMS3200 RAM (2-3-3-6)
AGP Video:BFG nVidia 7800 GS OC 256 MB AGP
HD1:74GB WD Raptor SATA
HD2:160GB Maxtor PATA
PSU:PC Power&Cooling Turbo-Cool 510W Deluxe
Case:Cooler Master Stacker Case with Cross Flow Fan
Audio:On-Board Sound
LCD:Dell 1901FP 19"
Temp/Fan Display:Thermaltake Hardcano 12
Controller Panel:Cooler Master Musketeer2
OS:XP PRO SP2

 

These results are what I expected or thereabouts. The same setup with a i7 975 Extreme gets nearly 1.000 points more in 3DMark 06, and will get close to 7.000 points (P) in Vantage, or maybe more. A Clevo M980, not overclocked, with a QX9300 and GTX 280M's in SLI would get around 15.000 in 3DMark 06 - in that context, I'm quite satisfied with the numbers with my D900F. WPrime should give less than 8 seconds with a i7 975. I have not seen the OP's results with these same apps.

No, I don't perceive my machine as slow - but then I have never been working on a desktop setup similar to my laptop. Quite the contrary - my machine feels ridicilously fast, specially with loading, installing and such things - mainly due to the SSD, I suppose.

 

Update: Got Everest now, and did the tests that the OP had pictures of - and my machine gets considerably better results than his, even though my processor is slower. And I'm running Vista 64.
There must be something wrong with the OP's machine.

CPU Zlib:89479
CPU PhotoWorxx:30478
CPU Queen:22117

 

My new 9280 arrived last night. I'll run the same benchmarks and post my results.

 

My results with the rig in my sig (i7-950):

14277 3dmarks (latest drivers, no overclock)


8,424 seconds


My machine also never feels slow.. its definetely a great leap from that crappy AW M17 i used to own.. not parting with this one any time soon..

 

First off, to the starter of this thread, getting this machine with 6GB DDR3 1333 RAM to use with Win XP 32 bit is the biggest waste of money in the universe, as it will not allow more than 3GB to be utilized, unless you're going to boot XP on 1 hard drive and Vista on another.

Also, forget benchmarking and go with actual gameplay. Only use benchmarks as a base for whether you can/will run a game or not. The answer, of course, is that you will, rather well too. This video card is very good, and top of the line in laptops, until a GTX 380m (maybe a 360m too) is brought out.

The machines have incredible speed when doing things, and installers etc are bound more to the hard drive than anything else. The label on the back of your machine is different to mine though, mine just has "Sager" on it, yours has "Notebook-something-something". Don't know if the reseller messed with your chassis.

Dual core 2.53 GHz I believe is the cut off for speed noticeable on desktop usage, I.E. for looking for things like files etc. If you experience any slowdown, it is your OS and/or your hard drive. I suggest getting driver updates from manufacturers themselves directly before attempting to see if you get any slowdown. A machine might feel slow if you're expecting it to go faster than it is because of some statistics on paper.

I have the 950 and it is great, no complaints here, and this machine is workstation class. It's more for people who love to game and need processor-intensive programs like rendering, programming, audio/video encoding, burning blu-ray discs, etc etc. You should want it to shine in those respects, rather than in day-to-day usage. Even though I have no complaints in day-to-day usage =). But anyway, go for it. See what you can do. If you're getting real issues bearing all this in mind, then let us know we'll do what we can to help ya ^^

 

The "Notebook something something" is what it says when these machines comes from the Clevo factory. Resellers, like Sager, slaps their own badge on them. Most of them do, anyway. Mine has "Multicom" badge on it.
Which leads me to believe that his machine is not "a Sager" at all. Not that it should matter.

 

I think it could matter, I think Sager has a standard of building a machine and when resellers get a hold of it they mess it up a bit, I remember reading posts about Sagers that came through Resellers where say... The Wi-Fi card was in the wrong slot, and the hotkeys would not turn it on or off (bad for being in an airplane), or another person when his wireless card was not being detected at all (nor his wired ethernet port for that matter) even though opening the machine showed a card was there though something seemed to be missing from the inside >.>

Imagine if a non-sager brander got hold of one of Clevo's Barebones, because as far as I know the Clevo barebones are not available for general sale to the public.

 

I'm pretty sure that the barebones I purchased from RJTech is directly from Clevo. It's definitely not a Sager.

 

If you got it directly as a Barebones then my statement doesn't apply =)
I meant that Sager isn't the only one who uses clevo products, and other places may sell them built up from the barebones gotten from Clevo, and the quality of these machines may not be at Sager's standard.

If you got it barebones though, then there isn't much to say on it, as nobody would have really gotten their hands dirty in filling out the machine

 

My mistake! I agree that Sagers are great in terms of quality control, which is why their resellers have excellent machines.

Pretty much exactly why I wanted the bareones. My last computer purchase was a Dell. It's difficult to describe the feeling of knowing that this was my machine, but damn, as long as I have the time and the resources, I'll never buy somebody else's machine again.

 

*shakes your hand* I didn't feel like my old HP was my machine until I wiped it clean and loaded on a proper Windows Vista Ultimate. And that wasn't too much either. This machine feels like mine though, I chose what I wanted and I like the outcome. It's great. As for any problems you or someone may have with this machine, it could very well be illusional, brought about by expecting something to work a lot faster than it possibly can.