Vaio SR ATI HD 3470 Gaming Thread

Grid was awesome! One of my favorite racers in a while, but now that Midnight Club LA is coming out, perhaps it's worth waiting, that will be fantastic! Also, NFS Undercover looks like it has some potential!

 

Several people have told me in the Graphics forum that a 64bit card does not need more than 128MB.

I don't know who is right.

 

A card with a 64bit bus width generally can't take advantage of more than 128mb of memory due to insufficient memory bandwidth. Although if the memory was clocked high enough(think GDDR5) it could possibly take advantage of more memory. Hence why the 4870 has a 256bit bus but comes with upto 1gig of memory.

Wolf: The amount of video memory has alot less of a performance impact on games than the actual "power" of the card. More memory, with a sufficient bandwidth, will see a benefit in games running at higher resolutions and texture details.
The HD3470 is about the equivilant of the 6800 GT but it's a completely different architecture; the HD3470 will beat it in newer more shader intensive games while the 6800 GT will beat the 3470 in older games running at higher resolutions.
The 3470 beats the 6600 GT outright.

 

Using Test Drive Unlimited as an example, the minimum video requirements for the game are a 256 MB 6600GT video card. I have a 128 MB 6600GT video card and the gameplay, like I said, feels jerky, which may be due to the lack of vRAM (since the other specs of the computer exceed the minimum requirements). Plus, most of the new games coming out now require at least 256 MB of vRAM.

And doesn't the HD3470 have 64-bit GDDR3 memory interface anyways, so the card is capable of taking advantage of the extra memory? At least that's what I heard around.

 

It could be but there's ALOT of things that can make gameplay "jerky".
Try some of these if you want to play the game on your desktop.

It's generally twice the bus with GDDR2 & GDDR3 for how much memory is effectively used with games. These cards could still use a gig of memory or more but you'd be looking at some very slow gameplay... like half a frame per second

 

Most of those fixes either relate to Vista or dual core processors, which I have none on my home computer. Trust me, the computer at home is barebone and optimized for gaming using XP Hardware Profiles.

 

I ran 3DMark06 again today using the latest driver that was released today (8.10)
I got 2328 points
That's a 50 points increase from last time when i was using the 8.9 driver!

 

The new macbook with the 9400M integrated graphics got 2344 points!.. 16 points higher than the SR with HD3470...

very impressive for an IGP

I wonder how many more point will the SR with 256MB HD3470 get..

 

just pre-ordered left 4 dead off of steam. looking forward to reporting how that performs on my sr! only about a month away!!!

 

That game looks awesome!
I love zombie shooting games

God i would so pre order that game if i didn't have to focus on my school work right now

 

this is what I found out in the gfx card thread on the forum and the 3470 has only a 64-bit DDR2/GDDR3 memory interface so it won't use more than 128 mb of ram. but more memory is never a bad thing

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=302231&page=303

chaz's post, 5th from the bottom. so even the FW with the 3470 with 256mb of ram will only theoretically use 128 or so.

I think the reason the new nvidia 9400M performs better than the ati card is the 128bit bus. I could be wrong.

 

This is theoretically true, although, if you look at benchmarks of cards with 128 vs. 256 mb iterations of the same card, this is not so.

The 128mb geforce 9300 is much weaker than the 128 mb 3470, whereas the 256mb geforce 9300 is more powerful than the 128mb 3470 by several hundred points on benchmarks(such as 3dmark).

(This was proven on another thread, cant remember name, but it was on NBR)

It will help load textures and other things quicker despite limitations in specific instances....

 

And what about games requiring at least 256 MB of vRAM? Surely, you cannot tell me that the 128 MB and the 256 MB versions of the HD3470 will perform the same.

 

Well, do not confuse the width of the road (64-bit/128-bit) with the size of the garage (128MB/256MB). You need larger storage for GPU to run calculation and also store calculated results (the RAM), but you are also limited by how these data are passed between places (the BUS). A mismatch in them means they are less effective, and therefore not to your advantage to spend money on it, but it's not completely useless.

What you need to watch out for is card with 64-bit bus but put 512MB VRAM and ask you for a premium over 64-bit + 256 MB VRAM. Also, if you really need performance, a 128-bit + 256 MB VRAM will outperform 64-bit +256 MB, holding everything else constant.

 

With the two versions of the 3470, 128mb and 256mb, any game that uses more than the 128mb of ram to store textures will probably put a large strain on the graphics card to output those textures. It doesn't mean it can't be done but you will have gameplay that will become increasingly unenjoyable, from jitters and graphical glitches, and poor framerates. It all depends on the game though.

 

Not necessarily true since games like TDU and Crysis have been tested on the HD3470 256 MB and they are perfectly playable (30 FPS +), though on low settings of course.

 

yeah but with low settings on crysis it shouldn't use more than 128mb of ram..
Edit: at a low resolution of course

 

Unless it says it was done on the FW or a 256mb card, all the settings and FPS on the front page are done with a 128mb HD3470. So crysis is playable on the 128mb card. You guys are also negating the fact that with hypermemory and turboram(or whatever), that this card as many other notebook cards, use shared and discrete vRam, which means my card can theoretically use up to 1gb of vRam...

 

...Which is far slower than on board memory! It's only really there to stop games from crashing

 

Did any of you guys try to overclock the 3470? Perhaps with AMD GPU Tool? I am curious what overclock potential this card has.

 

ATI Tool didn't recognize my card...
But that was with the modded driver haven't tried it with the stock driver..
But IMO it would be kinda pointless to overclock the HD3470, the performance gain would be little... not sure though

 

I think i tried to use the ATI Tool as well, but its really not a smart choice to OC a notebook graphics card on a small notebook...heat issues will for sure arise. If anything, the 3470 is pretty much an OC'ed 3450 with GDDR3 instead of 2...

 

FW11E:
P8400, 3470 256mb, 3gb ram, vista 32bit

Far Cry 2
1600x900 resolution
no AA
DX 9
fire, trees, physics very high
shadows low
everything else medium
HDR + Bloom on

average fps taken over the course of one mission: 15.494 (to me, that's perfectly playable, to others, its horrible )

smooth gameplay, no stuttering.

edit: this is with the modded CAT 8.9-WITHOUT FC2 HOTFIX
edit 2: at 1360x768 res same settings I get an average of 19fps

 

Dude, 15 fps? Playable? Really? I'd turn down the resolution at least which would yield you much better fps.

 

for far cry 2 i turned my settings down to low (all of them i think, well most at least) and i got about 25 fps average

 

Like I said, depends on the person I find playing at 15fps fine, as long as its smooth gameplay (by smooth I mean not jumpy).

 

Far Cry -1024x768 Medium settings ~40-70 FPS fully playable

 

Just received two games today:
- C&C: Red Alert 3
- Far Cry 2

So far, I've installed RA3 and played it. I haven't gotten to any serious intense battles to see how the laptop handles that under load but so far, I'm getting about 25 to 30 fps (surprisingly, it's capped at 30!) with these settings:
- 1280x720 (lowest widescreen resolution available)
- Medium Settings except Low Terrain Detail, Low Water Detail and VSync & AA off
- you can try presetting everything at Medium Settings but fps dips to high 10s with medium intensity battles, which is too slow for a fast-paced game like this.

Next up, Far Cry 2.

EDIT:

Far Cry 2 settings:
- resolution: 1024x600
- all settings on low, bloom on, no hdr
- fps: high 20s to low 40s, fully playable

I will mess around with the setting later on to get the most out of the game

 

Still no updated driver for the card? The poor performance with opengl is killing me.

 

Nothing?

 

why don't you go to www.ati.com
and go check yourself..
if there isn't any then there isn't

 

Hey TOnythetiger, does your sony vaio sr with 7200rpm drive and HD3470 seriously reduce your battery life or create a lot of heat?

 

yeah, it runs slightly hotter than when i had a 5400rpm drive but the difference is small and battery life is still about the same for me, I haven't actually timed it, but it can still last me through a day of school

 

Well I'm sorry if I offended you buy asking but I was under the impression that this was a place to ask questions

Subsequently, it seems that ATI has fixed the Opengl problems with the 8.11 update. I bit the bullet the used the Mobility Modder and it worked flawlessly. No more opengl glitches

 

Well you should always check the web site first and not being lazy and just come here and ask.

But I'm glad it's fixed. Enjoy your SR.

 

I thought that ATi did not provide support for OEM notebooks and does not provide any drivers? There's no information, even for the catalyst version that comes with the SR.
No news from Sony Asia or other countries? Maybe Sony treats their Non-US customers better

 

They dont, but you can download updated drivers on the asia site(i heard) and/or you can download the desktop drivers direct from ATI and then on the net download mobility modder and bam...updated drivers!

 

Update on some graphics:

C&C: Red Alert 3
- 1280x720 (lowest widescreen resolution available)
- Medium Settings, VSync & AA off

The dip in fps from low to med water details is not that bad and the game looks much better (since most of the battles will happen on the seas), getting about mid-20 to low 30 fps

Far Cry 2
- I've uninstalled the game since it just did not appeal to me but I heard the new ATI drivers should provide a 5% increase in performance.

Coming soon:
- NFS: Undercover

 

Wolf, are you talking about Catalyst version 11 using the Modder or is there another driver you're talking about?

 

Yep, that's what I'm talking about. I read the Release Notes on ATI's website and that's what it said.

 

Left 4 Dead
-Medium Settings
-average about 30 fps

 

really I got all on medium 1280X800 and I was getting an average of 45fps, and when theres whole bunch of zombies coming at me, i get at least 35fps.. and its usually something higher than 45fps...

 

is they anyway we can open the SR and put a decent gcard in?

 

(Sigh) Literally 99.5% of laptops DO NOT have the ability to upgrade the gfx card. I recommend looking into a Vaio FW(3650 with 512mb of ram) or the vaio AW (Geforce 9600 GT) if your looking for (with an arnold accent) "More powa!".

MxM laptops(the kind that have upgradeable graphics) never really took off...and in general it's not recommended to pop open new laptops to insert anything other than HDD, RAM(easy stuff), and perhaps a new wifi card...if you dare.

@Foosa and Tony:

I added Left 4 Dead to the front page, thanks!

 

prob be better off with the AW if he wants a powerful sony, or another brand, since I only got 3053 3dmarks06 on my fw with the 512 ati card, stock drivers btw.

the fw isn't meant for gaming, the card is a bit weak if you ask me, I was at least expecting 3200 or even 3500 from the card on this sony. :/

 

3dMark06 scores generally mean diddly squat....so i wouldnt worry too much about it. Regardless, the SR gets in the neighborhood of 2050 points stock, so the 3650 is a 1000 point improvement(which is pretty huge on a notebook) and the 3470 is relatively competent in relatively current games(check the first page for an example of SOME of the modern games that run), so the 3650 should be fine/great! For some perspective, the 3650 mobility is comparable/almost identical to the Geforce 9600 GS and Radeon X1800XT, so i highly doubt that it's not a good card. But, anyway, the 9600 GT is a much more powerful card, with around 2000 points higher score on 3dmark05 than the 3650 radeon(so both should be quiet decent gaming cards for your regular gamers).

Super spec nerds who need top of the line 3k gaming laptops that are thick, ugly, and loud, should obviously look elsewhere for a notebook.. i suggest xoticpc, sager, clevo, rock, the usual suspects....

 

I am sure you are right, I don't game heavily, almost none lately, and my main use besides internet, graphics, or word processing is music production, and the laptop excels at it, ableton works with no issues, no crashes, and so far all but one vsti work with no hiccups. Perhaps I will install the new drivers and then test the benchmark.

 

Glad to see another Ableton user around here. The first time I installed Ableton (the second day I had my laptop), it crashed my Vista so bad I had to reformat. I reinstalled Ableton again a few days ago and it still crashed explorer.exe during installation but I restarted and everything is fine now and Ableton works flawlessly.

 

that is unfortunate, I think ableton is pretty stable so I am not sure why it crashed vista, perhaps it depends what version of ableton you have?

 

You shou;d be getting more than that in 3Dmark, i'm guessing you ran it at 1280 x 1024? Updated drivers?