some np2090 benchmarks

decided to run some benchmarks on my 2090...
specs are:
t7300 2.0 ghz c2d
8600m gt
120 gb 5200rpm
2 gigs ram
vista home premium

everything stock

pics of the settings and stuff are in the attachments

3dmark05..... 5676
3dmark06...... 3281
superpi...... 2million = 59secs
vista rating..... 4.6
CSS stress test... avg 155.23

Fear demo... 1024x768 max everything and 4x FSAA and 16x anisotropic.... min 8, max 33, avg 18.717 (got out of car and pressed the fraps benchmark button and just ran around and shot stuff for a minute)

and uh only problem is my 2 side buttons (power usb, smart charging) and the top 5 buttons and top 4 status led indicators dont work.

 

just a quick question.

is more fps good?or is less good...

cause I remember someone that benchmarked source at 55 fps on the Sager NP2090 I think.

 

more is good

 

FPS stands for "Frames per Second", so yes, more frames running through the screen per second translates to smoother gameplay. No one likes a slideshow.

BTW, when did you order your Sager, vi3tci0us?

 

fps refers to frames per second, therefore the more fps, the smoother a game runs.

 

I looked at his last screenshot, and his RivaTuner is also telling him that it's GDDR3. I doubt the program could be wrong, but seems likely that the Sager uses GDDR3, for those who cared about that.

 

I was ready to take a blow whether it was GDDR2 or GDDR3. But thanks for clearing it up for me haha.

 

um ordered late at night june 19th i think... so june 20th then?

 

its odd that your windows rating for your gpu is higher than mine... i'm kinda mad about the fact that yours is .1 higher!

 

i dont know much bout gpus.
judging from ur benchmarks.. is the card underclocked by alot?
and whats it's clockspeed/memory bandwidth?
(sry for the many questions)

 

uh clocks are 513 core, 400 memory according to rivatuner... or u can look at the pic i put up. but ya its underclocked just like all the others

 

Hmmm, I am almost slightly depressed by this... I was expecting something slightly higher...

The Asus-G1S had a 3D06 of 3630 at similar resolution and not OC'ed. (Ok, I guess it isn't as far off as I first thought... but the G1S could be pushed to 5411 OC'ed at 1024X768...).

The G1S also had a vista rating of 4.8 with similar specs. (but it wasn't limited by the 8600 GT, that got a 5.9... although the screens look different... is the one I am referring to a "vista gaming" thing or something?)

Here is the link:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=125246

I guess I can always hope new drivers (and imporoved Vista) bump it up a little!


P.S. I am used to terrible graphics, settings, and framerates. This machine is still going to blow my mind (even if it is only half as good as people say). I was just hoping that the explosion wouldn't leave any trace of my brain ever being there, if you know what I mean! )

 

The G1S has gddr3 and was tweaked for gaming performance before it was shipped. I think it can be termed as the 8600gt turbo. Most people have been calling the Compals and Dells (and now Asus C90) 8600gt "underclocked" or "gimped" but in fact it is simply gddr2 memory. The only 3 machines with the gddr3 in them are the new Macbooks, the G1s and G2S.

From what I've seen:

8400gs - gddr2
8400gt - gddr2
8600gs - gddr2
8600gt - gddr2 (Acer, Asus C90, Dell 1520 and the Compal IFL90)

Ours is the normal step up in the chain, it is an 8600gt after all. It doesnt perform as well as the G1S, but the G1S has been out for a while and all of us here in the pre-order crew didn't buy it. I understand the hope for gddr3 since its been out for a few years now and should be standard, but it isn't. Many of us pre-ordered before we even knew if the 8600 was GS or GT, then we got greedy and wanted gddr3. All the other versions game really well with the gddr2 version, this one wont be any different.

 

For me its not that big of a deal. I want reasonable performance but I'll appreciate the battery life of the IFL90 more.

I can also understand the disappointment of the C90 purchasers. They were expecting the best performance and ended up with stock graphic benchmarks less than the IFL90. They knew they were getting lousy battery - it didn't matter to them. the C90 should be about performance.

On the other had the IFL90 sounds like the best balance. It'll be great at gaming and have great battery life.

I just can't wait to get it!

 

Yeah, you almost wonder if Asus went with the gddr2 due to heat reasons. There was talk that Asus didnt want the C90 to take business from the G1S buyers, but really if it was all going to the same bank account why would they care which one people bought?

 

Hey...is the smart charging,LEDs and top 5 buttons a problem with each of you who's bought the Sager 2090?
I personally don't care for benchmarks,all I care is how the notebook performs in real life gaming.....
And as far as I have heard,GDDR2 and 3 don't make a huge difference....so no worries for me...

 

Are there any proper 3dMark06 Benchmarks for the 2090 or other IFL90? All the ones I saw so far are all 1280x800 resolution. Most G1s, Dell 1520, Asus C90s and Macbook pro benchmarks are all at default resolution of 1280x1024. Makes it very hard to compare. Can someone please benchmark at default. Might need an external monitor since the notebook screen would not support it.

 

Actually, I do believe that he ran 3D Mark 06 in the native resolution (1280 x 800). His screen shots seem to indicate this, you can see what resolution he actually performed the test in.

What confuses me is why the other benchmarks were done in 1280x1024. Most of the laptops (G1S, IFL90, NP2090, etc.) seem to run in a 16:10 ratio. 1280 x 1024 is a 5:4 ratio, which just as wierd as all-get-out.

 

(I do realize that it must be standard, just why it is the "standard" is beyond me...)

 

The standard resolution is 1280x1024. You cant run it at that resolution with the display because you have a 1280x800 or 1440x900 display. You cant run it at a higher resolution because that is the maximum it supports. If this is the case 3dMark uses the highest available resolution by default. In your case 1280x800. If you have an external monitor that can display 1280x1024 or higher use that to benchmark please.

 

Oops, my bad. I thought you meant that you wanted the scores in 1280x800, not 1280x1024. You actually were talking about it the other way around...