NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › ***The Official NBF ORB/Benchmark Team***
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

***The Official NBF ORB/Benchmark Team*** - Page 16

post #301 of 488
2/21/06 at 2:21am
I'm running two test right now for comparison. One at 1024 x 768, and one at the normal 1280 x1024. I'll post screen shots in a few minutes. The run at 1024 x 768 was 92xx, so that show you how much difference it does make (my highest at default rez was 83xx). Around 1000 marks if not more, waiting on my default run to finish. Be back with screenies.
Reply
Reply
post #302 of 488
2/21/06 at 2:26am
me in the mix for 6600 Go =D

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=143199



1.82GHz Pentium M (OCed AUTO 5% from 1.73GHz)
512MB Ram
6600 Go 256MB (Using 83.20 Nvidia Driver from Tweaks R Us, cause AW's a bit slow on drivers)
Benchie done in 1280x800
Reply
Reply
post #303 of 488
2/21/06 at 2:35am

Difference between 1280x1024 and 1024x768

Quote:
Originally Posted by ikilledkenny2
that would be very interesting pleas show your results

This was on my DIY. Running an AMD Opteron 175 dual core @ 2.7 1:1 memory and 526/1.33 on gpu's. Didn't want to mess with oc's, so that's why I only ran at 2.7 (latest 24/7 stable oc) instead of higher clocks. This is also on a loaded down install of Windows.

1024 x 768 run



Default settings of 1280 x 1024



Guess I was a little off on the score difference, it was only 990 3DMarks. Big difference. Wish there was a way that they could make default the same on all monitors, and I'm sure they could.
Reply
Reply
post #304 of 488
2/21/06 at 2:44am
Thread Starter 
i doubt that would be possible due to the different screens on the market now days.

xga, sxga+, uxga and that's not even counting the widescreen and that's why we have the variations.
Reply
Reply
post #305 of 488
2/21/06 at 2:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yang88She
i doubt that would be possible due to the different screens on the market now days.

xga, sxga+, uxga and that's not even counting the widescreen and that's why we have the variations.

I hear you. Would be nice to have a standard rez for stuff like this though. You can't doubt it makes a big difference though. Still have the best layed out thread for scores here Yang, nice job on the orb links (bet that's fun to keep up with).
Reply
Reply
post #306 of 488
2/21/06 at 3:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulioni
Guess I was a little off on the score difference, it was only 990 3DMarks. Big difference.
They aren't inversely proportional, so the difference isn't as much as it could be. ie: 1280x1024 has 67% more pixels than 1024x768, but it only takes an 11% performance hit. If every pixel produced required the same amount of processing, then it would have a 40% performance drop. Obviously the real processing difference is a lot more complex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hulioni
Wish there was a way that they could make default the same on all monitors, and I'm sure they could.
Well i guess Futuremark could have left the default as 1024x768 and that would have alleviated 95% of compatibility issues amongst users, but i suppose they have decided it's time to move on from 1024x768. Personally, having a widescreen laptop, 5:4 aspect displays like 1280x1024 just look weird
Reply
Reply
post #307 of 488
2/21/06 at 3:55am
All I'm saying is, it's hard to compare when you have lots of people running at different rez (it does make a difference in the final score). It never was this difficult before with 05 I didn't think. You just have to look now, where before I just took the rez run as a given. In the end I could really care less about the 3DMark as it's not a real game, the whole point for me was to look at the orb and see where it was that I needed to tweak to keep up with comparable equipment to mine. Don't get me wrong, it's a very good bench to compare with, just has gotten more complicated is all. Heck I have three computers around the house that won't even run it, lol. Good scores being posted here.
Reply
Reply
post #308 of 488
2/21/06 at 4:56am
A new best for me. My DIY.

ORB - http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=143334

Sreen shot -
Reply
Reply
post #309 of 488
2/21/06 at 9:37pm
when one kid gets the top score with a lower resolution then maybe they should deduct a certain amount of pionts if they aren't runnning at the standard res.
Reply
Reply
post #310 of 488
2/21/06 at 10:12pm
Thread Starter 
if you would like to come up w/ that calculation and adjust each score according let me know =D
Reply
Reply
post #311 of 488
2/23/06 at 11:18pm

Inspiron e1705 / 7800 Go

3164 3DMarks(06) | 1215 SM2.0 | 1220 HDR/SM3.0 | CPU 1631

256MB 7800 Go Tested @ 1280x1024, Default Settings

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=148405



Dell Inspiron e1705
2 Ghz Core Duo T2500
1 GB DDR2 667mhz
256MB 7800 Go@ 378/874 Driver: 83.60 v. 2.25
60GB 7200rpm HD
17" WUXGA 1920x1200

I don't know why the chipset shows as 7800 GTX in the 3DMark report, but it is definitely a 7800 Go, as that is the best card that can be installed in an e1705/9400.
Reply
Reply
post #312 of 488
2/23/06 at 11:30pm
That is a real nice cpu score bluefish. Good score.
Reply
Reply
post #313 of 488
2/25/06 at 2:52am
Here's another Dell 9400 screeny:



That's a go7800 @ 373/930 running 81.98 @ 1280x1024.
Reply
Reply
post #314 of 488
2/25/06 at 9:33pm
How long will that alienw4re guy be on the boards because as long as he doesn't verify he will be there forever.
Reply
Reply
post #315 of 488
2/26/06 at 11:18pm
Dell 9300, 2.0ghz, 2gb ram, Nvidia Geforce 6800 Go. The screenshot is 1400x900, but the test was done at the standard 1280x854, my screen is regular XGA, not UXGA.


http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=155080


Reply
Reply
post #316 of 488
2/27/06 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulioni
That is a real nice cpu score bluefish. Good score.
Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #317 of 488
2/27/06 at 11:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dellbert
Here's another Dell 9400 screeny:



That's a go7800 @ 373/930 running 81.98 @ 1280x1024.
Ah, you suck! Well, I have the feeling we're both about to be blown out of the water by those who found the volt mod for this GPU.
Reply
Reply
post #318 of 488
2/27/06 at 11:15am
Ok, I worked on my score yesterday and got a little increase in 3DMarks (still not as much as Dellbert), but what I am really happy about is that I got a nice increase in my CPU score!



http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=151965

~40 point CPU score increase.

Dell Inspiron e1705
2 Ghz Core Duo T2500
1 GB DDR2 667mhz
256MB 7800 Go@ 378/874 Driver: 83.60 v. 2.25
60GB 7200rpm HD
17" WUXGA 1920x1200
Reply
Reply
post #319 of 488
2/27/06 at 2:02pm
Thread Starter 
congrats to the new #1's in their classes...well you know who you are...haha I forgot already w/ all the updates.

yang
Reply
Reply
post #320 of 488
2/27/06 at 9:05pm
3672 3d mark 06 438.965 83.40


dell 9400 from italy
t2600
1gb 2x512 533
100.7200
wuxga






6988 3d mark 05
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › ***The Official NBF ORB/Benchmark Team***