benchmarks for G1

Follow the link. Overall score was 2604, follow the link for a breakdown:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1963610

We're pretty close Kindser

Looks like our G1's are right about where we expect them today relatively speaking anyway. 3dmarks are quite competitive with most I've seen out here. Only thing I wonder about is the CPU scores. They seem to be quite less than many notebooks I've seen. Anyone have a theory about that? And please be nice. Piece of ****, they saw you coming, etc., is not progressive feedback.

really need to clear this up

No offense, but I don't know who in the world decided that wide-screens would distort, or box-in games. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If you go out and look and my G1 review link you can see for yourself. Madden 2004 and CoD use every pixel of the screen and have superb graphics.

You can say whatever you want about the WXGA's, but don't say they don't do games, because I'm here to tell ya they do!

and one more thing

I ran Aqua 3D today and got 23 framerate. Don't know if that sucks also (like everything else about the G1 evidentally), but there you have it.

I will say one thing..if anyone wants to sell their Mayhem G1 (if not under return warranty) get with me.

and a second thing

If you go look at the compare on Futuresoft between the F2 and G1..the G1 slaps the F2 around pretty good in most 3D tests. Again, not trying to create controversy..just getting a lil touchy about the dissin of the Mayhem. The only point I have seen positive proof on are 1.) the F2 is a little lighter 2.)the battery life is probably 20% better.

All the comparisons about SXGA+ and WXGA..M-class and Pentium-class..etc..etc..is like comparing apples and oranges. You can slant any argument into your favor. Bottom line is..ABS has been marketing PC's for a long time..they said the G1 was their #1 gaming box..that is enuf for me.

BTW..I think the F2 is dandy also, but for whatever reason it pops up into every thread involving the G1 and seems to often be the brunt of the dissing. They are 2 significantly different boxes that just happen to be sold by the same company.

question for xstern

Why do you personally believe ABS is billing the Mayhem G1 as their "gaming" machine and the F2 as a productivity system and selling it for $100 less? Do you think this company really doesn't understand computers/marketing as well as yourself? Maybe you think it's some sort of plot/scam on ABS's part to defraud the buyers? They probably just don't understand the evolution of gaming technology as well as yourself. Do you really know much about WXGA technology..outside of what you read and can recite obviously? Do you really get 4 hours of battery life on the F2 under stress (believe Kindser was watching DVD's for 72 minutes). So, if you're gonna throw out numbers like 300% better you should compare apples to apples.

I'm really not trying to attack your opinion here. I'm trying to help ppl make rational decisions on what notebooks to buy based on my own personal experience, by giving true-experience feedback. Hell, I know the G1 prob ain't the best out here. But, I really don't think you are doing ppl like Kindser (and a lot of other ppl looking to buy or those that have bought and are doubting their purchase) justice by sometimes (and you are in the habit of doing this occasionally) writing generalities based on what you've read ( written by possibly other biased folks). If it was up to you (this is just how I perceive your remarks) he would be sending his G1 right back to ABS and getting a F2 or Gateway 505 that probably wouldn't give him one more bit of satisfaction. Yeah, maybe he wouldn't end up a crippled/hunchback'd old man from carrying the extra 24 oz. (that's just 2 cans of Budweiser btw) of notebook around all day, but his gaming experience would not be expanded in the least (that was my first opinion).

I'm trying to keep my review to what I know..the system I'm typing said reviews on.

For example..here is my opinion of the G1 graphics..ready? "This is the first WXGA monitor I've played Madden 2004 or CoD on. Previously I played these on a 19" desktop monitor using Radeon 9000 technology. Madden 2004 seems to me like it was made to be played on a widescreen. It's sort of like watching a football game (how's that for an analogy?) on a widescreen. Just appears better to the eyes. The same can be said for Call of Duty. Did you ever watch a good war movie (Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, Platoon, etc.) at a theatre on a wide-screen? The reproduction on this notebook is a quite similar experience. I appreciate this look so much I've not played these games on my 19" desktop since and will not as long as I have this notebook."

So, you sort of see my objectivity. I'm not saying I've seen other forums where ppl say WXGA's/SXGA's/etc are limited as to what games they can play in native mode. I'm stating something I've experienced.

As far as benchmarks go and the fact I should be getting a 3000+ on benchmarks is just an unfathomable remark. First of all to make that sort of statement you need to understand how the software works. I don't think any of us out here really understand exactly how to make the numbers tumble upwards in 3D tests. Sounds like over-clocking will surely do it (again, however, I haven't personally tried this so can't say for sure). I've yet to see a review myself (opinion) where any notebook has topped 3000 right out of the box. I'm sure I could tweak mine and get it up there, but there is no justification for me to do it. All the software I use (afore mentioned games, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Explorer) run just right for me. Why would I want to risk damage to my nice new system by overclocking it just to produce some inflated numbers that have no substance to anyone?

And one last thing since I'm on a roll here. Is there some sort of Warcraft III brotherhood on this forum? PPl keep mentioning this game as if it were sacred. It's a game that can be played well on a PII with an 8mg video card. It's so old who really cares how it plays on a widescreen. That's like suggesting, "I think the jury is still out on WXGA because it won't play Ultima I or Duke Nukem in full-screen mode". And what if you have an older game that doesn't do wide-screen, but newer games look much better. Do you sacrifice the better experience with the new stuff just so you can play the old? The reason I say better, is movies/sporting events/etc have always been delivered on wide-screens when possible (it's a proven fact, ppl enjoy a panoramic viewing experience)..why then do you think a computer game is not better served with this technology? 'spose it's a personal opinion.
Ok, I'm done..yer turn.