NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Acer Notebook Forums › Acer Notebook Reviews › Acer Aspire 5672 Review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Acer Aspire 5672 Review - Page 6

post #101 of 214
Excelent, thanks for the help Divine Madcat.

Well it seems the heat is relatively the same as my current laptop, but it doesnt have the performance hit, thats good.

Everything seem decent about this laptop, and since im gonna own it for a year, i dont mind it not being the most powerful one, but it has great features.

all the benchmarks and games run as expected, mainly the due to the 128mb card the scores are lower, but what i dont get is.... the 3dmark03 score. thats the only thing puzzling me.

anyways ill be getting this lappy soon enough, and when i do i will post maybe a little review and benchmarks etc.

is it absolutely possitive that the Video card is locked? maybe we can find a way to unlock it. also changint he fan settings would help a lot the heat.
post #102 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryzeki
Excelent, thanks for the help Divine Madcat.

Well it seems the heat is relatively the same as my current laptop, but it doesnt have the performance hit, thats good.

Everything seem decent about this laptop, and since im gonna own it for a year, i dont mind it not being the most powerful one, but it has great features.

all the benchmarks and games run as expected, mainly the due to the 128mb card the scores are lower, but what i dont get is.... the 3dmark03 score. thats the only thing puzzling me.

anyways ill be getting this lappy soon enough, and when i do i will post maybe a little review and benchmarks etc.

is it absolutely possitive that the Video card is locked? maybe we can find a way to unlock it. also changint he fan settings would help a lot the heat.

Just one correction. The 128 has nothing to do with the lower scores - that is the fault of the lowered ram SPEEDS; the size is just fine for all the benches.
post #103 of 214
Oh, i know 128mb is fine for gaming, and the improvement with 256mb is not as much when you consider real life gaming, but benchmarks like 3dmark05 get higher scores the more memory a card has. not that i care much about it anyways.

for example, the same clock speed for the x700 but with 64mb, 128mb and 256mb had in between them around 500 marks of difference. that was just out of memory size. (dont count my X700, because mine is terribly crippled than other 64mb versions)

it doesnt mean much on real world performance tho, because even my X700 with 64 mb could run Fear at medium settings at good fps when it said it couldnt because lack of v.memory.

what i like is that gaming wise this acer 5672 is much better than my travelmate. actually its much better than my travelmate in all areas
post #104 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by newlynx
Yes I bought it, but the lack of time don't give me the chance to to write a review ACER 5673 specs : Core Duo T2400 1,83GHz 2GB DDR2 533 120GB 5400rpm SATA ATI X1600 128MB (512 HM) Actually it's a 5672 with a X1600 from ATI, so most of the things written about 5672 are the same for that model. It's fast in CPU (1min 20 secs for SuperPi) but average in the GPU measures (it gets around 2800 in 3DMark05 with the latest Omega drivers). This happens because of the 128MB the card has and the 439/369 speeds of core/memory. The card is locked and you cannot overclock it (it would be nice to increase the memory speed that's too low). The only thing to consider (in my opinion) is the heat. I live in Greece and it's actually quite hot that period of year. Inside my house and without air conditioning still installed (about 25 Celcius) the cpu temperature in idle mode is about 50-55 degrees (C) and at maximum perfomance around 70-72 degrees (C). In the second case it's getting hot but you can still use the palmrest area without problem.The only bad thing is the hot air pushed in your right hand while using the mouse (you are lucky if you are left handed ) -The temperatures were measured with MobileMeter)- These are my first impressions...... I'll get back when I have time.
Thanks for the feedback newlynx! I'm going to order this laptop in the next few days. I couldn't find any other laptop with similar specs at a similar price, so I think that it's a preety good deal! The only drawback is about the x1600 which, as you and other people said is probably locked... I hope that somebody finds a way to unlock it and finally be able to overclock that sucker!
post #105 of 214
Holy crap. ATI Tray Tools tells me my X1600 is only 64-bit and only 4 pipes! What is Acer trying to pull!? That pretty much explains the lousy benchmarks.
post #106 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndlogic
Holy crap. ATI Tray Tools tells me my X1600 is only 64-bit and only 4 pipes! What is Acer trying to pull!? That pretty much explains the lousy benchmarks.

Omg! Can you post a pic from atitool or rivatuner?
Can someone else confirm this?
If it's true then to acer...
post #107 of 214
Display adapter ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 (0x71C5)
Core Name M56
SubVendor Acer Incorporated (1025)
SubDevice 0094
BUS 1
Device 0
Function 0
Base Address 0 D0000008
Base Address 1 00002001
Base Address 2 C8100000
Base Address 3 00000000

Bus Type PCI Express
SMARTGART Installed No

Driver Version Omega 6.05
Release Version 8.241-060321a1-031959C-ATI-OMEGA
QuadBuffer Stereo Support No
Catalyst Registry Path
System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Video\{43C9D97A-BC02-41D8-82E9-FFC656DCAEEC}\0000

______________________________
Clock Information
BIOS VPU 475.00
Current VPU 499.50
BIOS MEM 375.00
Current MEM 391.50

______________________________
Radeon PCI configuration space
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F
00 02 10 C5 71 07 00 10 00 00 00 00 03 10 00 00 00
10 08 00 00 D0 01 20 00 00 00 00 10 C8 00 00 00 00
20 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 25 10 94 00
30 00 00 00 00 50 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 01 00 00
40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 25 10 94 00
50 01 58 02 06 00 00 00 00 10 80 11 00 A0 0F 2C 01
60 10 08 00 00 01 0D 00 00 40 00 01 11 00 00 00 00
70 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
80 05 00 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
90 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
A0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
B0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
D0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
E0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
F0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

______________________________
Hardware Information
Installed memory 128 Mb
Memory Type GDDR3
Memory Width 64 bit
Active Rendering Pipelines 4

______________________________
ASIC details
Family 63
Emulated Revision 10
Gfx Engine ID 3

______________________________
Radeon Registers
RADEON_BIOS_0_SCRATCH 00040000
RADEON_BIOS_1_SCRATCH 0100C000
GB_TILE_CONFIG 01010011
HWDREG_00000000 2100126C
HWDREG_00000001 00000001
HWDREG_00000002 00000000
HWDREG_00000003 0000000C
HWDREG_00000004 24000AC8
HWDREG_00000005 00000001
HWDREG_00000006 00000000
HWDREG_00000007 0000000C
HWDREG_00000008 00000005
HWDREG_00000009 00000000
HWDREG_0000000A 00010090
HWDREG_0000000B 110FAC8F
HWDREG_0000000C 44221100
HWDREG_0000000D 00073011
HWDREG_0000000E 00000000
HWDREG_0000000F 0F3FF01A
HWDREG_00000010 0F3FF01A
HWDREG_00000011 0F3FF01A
HWDREG_00000012 0F3FF50A
HWDREG_00000013 0F3FF01A
HWDREG_00000014 0F3FF01A
HWDREG_00000015 000000CA
HWDREG_00000016 000001CA
HWDREG_00000017 0000018A
HWDREG_00000018 0000010A
HWDREG_00000019 0000014A
HWDREG_0000001A 0000060A
HWDREG_0000001B 0000040A
HWDREG_0000001C 0000001A
HWDREG_0000001D 00000012
HWDREG_0000001E 00000017
HWDREG_0000001F 00008028
HWDREG_00000020 00000000

______________________________
Video BIOS Information
Version 009.012.001.013
Part Number BK-ATI VER009.012.001.013.019743
Date 2006/04/26 19:12
Vram Type HyperMemory

______________________________
Controller Configurations
Controller 0
Active Connections:
-LCD Panel (Laptop) (0) 1280x800x60
Controller 1
Active Connections:
No Active Connections

______________________________
Displays supported by adapter
0 (1) Monitor (CRT1)
1 (2) LCD Panel (Laptop)
2 (4) TV
3 (8) Digital Flat Panel
4 (16) Component Video Output

______________________________
EnumDisplays
Display Type 0, Extended Type 1 , Max Resolution 1600x1200
Display Type 2, Extended Type 0 , Max Resolution 1280x800
Display Type 1, Extended Type 0 , Max Resolution 1024x768
Display Type 3, Extended Type 1 , Max Resolution 2560x1600
Display Type 4, Extended Type 0 , Max Resolution 720x480
post #108 of 214
Rather than blaming Acer, why not think with your HEAD for a second. If that were true, the x1600 would be scoring LOWER in 3D Mark 06, rather than higher (as compared to a x1400). The only things that is incorrect here is your assumptions, and ATT not recognising the card correctly...
post #109 of 214
Divine Madcat, how can you be entirely sure that ATT is not recognising the card correctly? Do you know some other program that will state otherwise? I hope you are right because I don't want some crippled version of the x1600.
post #110 of 214
ATI would be on the like white on rice if Acer did that. Every card with ATI's brand on it MUST meet certain specifications. If they call it an x1600, it HAS to meet certain specs.

The other thing, is be realistic here. The card beats an x1400 by several hundred points. Now, given the two cards:
x1400 -4 pipes, 128Bit mem
"supposed" x1600 -4 pipes, 64bit mem, slower mem speed than the x1400.
How does it make sense that the x1600 still makes higher scores, with worse specs than the x1400? Just because one shitty program misreads the specs, does NOT make it right...
post #111 of 214
Do you run Omega Drivers? i think it is a misread in the Omega Drivers that give inaccurate readings to ati tools.
post #112 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divine_Madcat
ATI would be on the like white on rice if Acer did that. Every card with ATI's brand on it MUST meet certain specifications. If they call it an x1600, it HAS to meet certain specs.

The other thing, is be realistic here. The card beats an x1400 by several hundred points. Now, given the two cards:
x1400 -4 pipes, 128Bit mem
"supposed" x1600 -4 pipes, 64bit mem, slower mem speed than the x1400.
How does it make sense that the x1600 still makes higher scores, with worse specs than the x1400? Just because one shitty program misreads the specs, does NOT make it right...

Since you're an such an expert on how bad ATT is, and what a moron I am, I'd be more than happy to try your own diagnostic tools. What would you have me do?
post #113 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by KinzaKracker
Do you run Omega Drivers? i think it is a misread in the Omega Drivers that give inaccurate readings to ati tools.

I got the same results with normal ATI 6.3 & 6.6, both standard clock and overclock.
post #114 of 214
64BIT is a wider bandwidth than 32bit. That is a GOOD thing. It shows compatibility with future chips x64.

the BIT has nothing to do with MB's. The 1400x choices are 32 or 16bit.

unless I'm a maroon and am reading your post wrong
post #115 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by techno3
64BIT is a wider bandwidth than 32bit. That is a GOOD thing. It shows compatibility with future chips x64.

the BIT has nothing to do with MB's. The 1400x choices are 32 or 16bit.

unless I'm a maroon and am reading your post wrong

Umm... memory bandwidth has nothing to do with the bit nature of a CPU. The x1400 has a 128bit memory bus, as should the x1600. Even the core architecture has nothing to do with CPU compatibility.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sndlogic
Since you're an such an expert on how bad ATT is, and what a moron I am, I'd be more than happy to try your own diagnostic tools. What would you have me do?
Well, i wasn't trying to put it in those harsh words, but yeah, if you just blindly belive a program, especially after it reports vastly incorrect data....
post #116 of 214
ok that makes sense, also I think the card is being read wrong based on performance with games, like BF2 and oblivion. Thanks madcat, or timberwolf lol.
post #117 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by calcutron
ok that makes sense, also I think the card is being read wrong based on performance with games, like BF2 and oblivion. Thanks madcat, or timberwolf lol.
Agreed 100%. People are far to quick to jump to conclusions despite all the other evidence pointing otherwise..
post #118 of 214
Speaking of real game performance... If it is possible, would somebody run the doom3 timedemo and/or the integrated FEAR benchmark and post the results? I think those results should clear things up!
post #119 of 214
I run BF 2 On High, with no lag, or anything, and i doubt that would be viable on 4pipelines, shoot my desktop 9800se was 4 pipelines, and i paid 45 bucks for that...but i softmodded it to 12, I just think there is some sort of misread with the Omega Drivers, there is no reason why they would cripple ATI would set themselves up for this, especially in the wake of harddrisk manufacturers settling lawsuits over inaccurate advertising of drive space, all that can be for sure is, numbers don't mean jack, when your performance isn't being interfeared with if you really wanna see 12 Pixels, and have that "Need" to be able to see that, then uninstall all your omega drivers maybe even format ur PC, and use your actual manufacturers drivers, not 3rd party, and from ur posted display information it just shows, the you using omega
Release Version 8.241-060321a1-031959C-ATI-OMEGA

and i think the results are clear Stratsal....just some people are ummm...lol needy and need to be re-assured, usually a savvy person can tell what there machine is running at, and how it is doing by using it, regardless of numbers, i am mystified how this became a 8pg thread...
post #120 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by KinzaKracker
I run BF 2 On High, with no lag, or anything, and i doubt that would be viable on 4pipelines, shoot my desktop 9800se was 4 pipelines, and i paid 45 bucks for that...but i softmodded it to 12, I just think there is some sort of misread with the Omega Drivers, there is no reason why they would cripple ATI would set themselves up for this, especially in the wake of harddrisk manufacturers settling lawsuits over inaccurate advertising of drive space, all that can be for sure is, numbers don't mean jack, when your performance isn't being interfeared with if you really wanna see 12 Pixels, and have that "Need" to be able to see that, then uninstall all your omega drivers maybe even format ur PC, and use your actual manufacturers drivers, not 3rd party, and from ur posted display information it just shows, the you using omega
Release Version 8.241-060321a1-031959C-ATI-OMEGA

and i think the results are clear Stratsal....just some people are ummm...lol needy and need to be re-assured, usually a savvy person can tell what there machine is running at, and how it is doing by using it, regardless of numbers, i am mystified how this became a 8pg thread...


I get the same results on a clean OS install and default ATI drivers. I've just been waiting for somebody to give me an alternative to ATT to see the actual specs, but so far nobody seems to have anything other than benchmark results.

I assume there is no such reliable utility/program that can give true specs of a video card?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Acer Notebook Reviews
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Acer Notebook Forums › Acer Notebook Reviews › Acer Aspire 5672 Review