NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › **E1705/M1710 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS** Go here first
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

**E1705/M1710 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS** Go here first - Page 4

post #61 of 115
3/22/08 at 2:26pm
Thanks for the help. I'm looking into getting a 7200rpm 16 MB buffer HDD. I'm pretty sure mine is a 8MB buffer. If this is the case, would a 16MB buffer be a much better difference?
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 115
3/24/08 at 10:42pm
Apparently, the difference between 8 MB and 16 MB in HD's is not huge. Note that I am not a hard drive guy though. Maybe someone else here can shed some light.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 115
3/25/08 at 9:40am
Last month when I bought a new desktop computer, my sales rep, whom I trust very much, told me there wasn't a real difference between the new 32mb vs. the 16mb ones. However he said 16mb was worth it as compared to 8mb. It was for desktops HDD though. And it's just his opinion, nothing scientific. I'm just sharing
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 115
3/27/08 at 5:04pm
Ah, thanks for the input. As long as it's worth it and increases performance, I'm good. To be honest, I had no idea there were 32mb buffer drives but I've only seen 16MB for laptops anyway.

What's weird is that I always hear how higher resolution slows performance but in Doom 3, I changed the resolution to 1440x900 through the console. The default in-game only goes to 1024x768. Now the average frame rate I'd get through the test was 43 FPS in that resolution. Once I changed it to 1440x900, it went up to 64 FPS. It's a lot smoother. However, if I change the anti-aliasing from x4 to x8, the FPS drops to 21. It wasn't a that big a leap in lower resolutions.

One last thing, can I use a SATA 3GB or must I get the 1.5GB model?
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 115
3/27/08 at 8:13pm
Either one. It won't make a difference. You can do a search to find out more info.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 115
4/5/08 at 6:03pm
Thanks for sharing your knowledge of the 1710.This has been most helpful in which upgrades to go with.Thanks Again.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 115
6/27/08 at 6:39am
is there a big difference between the even numbers and the uneven numbers of the T7xx cpu
just wondering why you can't use the uneven in the M1710
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 115
6/27/08 at 6:55am
The pinout on the processor and socket is different. They (T7100, T7300, T7500, T7700, X7800, X7900) won't physically fit into the socket.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 115
6/29/08 at 3:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenuxx View Post
The pinout on the processor and socket is different. They (T7100, T7300, T7500, T7700, X7800, X7900) won't physically fit into the socket.
ah ok, that explains everything , thnx
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 115
8/20/08 at 8:07pm
What I'd like to know is how an overclocked 7900 GS can be at a safe zone with 600/800 when mine can barely scratch 500/600 without screwing up. Is it the drivers? Right now mine works fine at 480/590 using the 196.28 drivers. It actually runs cooler than the newest NBF mobileforce drivers that weren't overclocked. I just wish it could go higher without getting artifacts.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 115
8/20/08 at 10:18pm
Thread Starter 
All cards are not created equal. 600/800 is considered to be the safe zone though. Could the T2400 or the 5,400RPM HDD be a cause of poor performance? I used to be able to overclock my 7900 well past the safe zone. I had a T7200 and a 7,200RPM HDD from the get go though.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 115
8/23/08 at 11:57pm
The actual difference is that your card uses lower spec'd parts. You most likely have a rev1 card and its memory is definitely rated lower than the rev0 card. Also, the core cannot be pushed as far although I have no hard evidence for that. So short answer is that you dont have the same card that other people had.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 115
8/25/08 at 3:19pm
Nope, I have a rev0 card. Proof is when I flashed a rev0 bios for my video card (juan's) and it worked fine. Went back to the stock bios for the overclocking with these drivers though. I don't see why I have lower spec'd parts when others don't. Any other way to tell?

TurbodTalon: I have upgraded my drive to a 7200 RPM 200GB drive. Had it for a little while. I suppose if it's anything, it's my CPU.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 115
8/25/08 at 4:18pm
Hi,
Have you tried with different drivers, for instance the 169 or the 174 series?
In addition, when you mention you're getting artifacts, what monitoring tool are you using? I ask because Nvtune will always pretend you're getting artifacts at lower speeds. It happened to me with my old 7900GS and also with my 7950GTX. I would get speeds comparable to yours in Nvtune while I can easily overclock the core past 600 without getting artifacts in games. If you're using ATITool, you have to check the "Use old monitoring method" option, otherwise you'll get artifacts at lower speeds too.
But from my experience, actual gaming is the best way to scan for artifacts. Stalker and World in COnflict (even if they aren't necessarily the most demanding games) are the two games which will produce artifacts the most easily for me.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 115
9/6/08 at 12:03pm
Sorry for the late reply. I just recently upgraded to Vista SP1 and from what I've heard, ATI tool sucks in Vista. I'm hesitant to try it because I'm afraid it may screw something up. I can use n-tune to overclock but I can't test anything because I apparently need nforce 2. So what do i need to look for when scanning games for artifacts? I'm rather new at this and i don't recall seeing artifacts in any games but that may only be because I don't know what to look for. I currently have Fable and Devil May Cry 4 on my comp.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 115
9/6/08 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rising View Post
Sorry for the late reply. I just recently upgraded to Vista SP1 and from what I've heard, ATI tool sucks in Vista. I'm hesitant to try it because I'm afraid it may screw something up. I can use n-tune to overclock but I can't test anything because I apparently need nforce 2. So what do i need to look for when scanning games for artifacts? I'm rather new at this and i don't recall seeing artifacts in any games but that may only be because I don't know what to look for. I currently have Fable and Devil May Cry 4 on my comp.
Those two games you mentioned aren't likely to produce artifiacts. Artifacts are very easy to notice: you see polygons popping every now and then. You won't gain any benefit from overclocking with those 2 games though, a stock 7900 can run them smoothly. I personnaly use Rivatuner for o/clocking.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 115
9/6/08 at 12:25pm
See, I have a problem running Fable even overclocked. DMC4 runs well even on stock settings. Overclocking to the settings I mentioned increases frames by about 10, which helps during the forest area. However in Fable, in towns, I get about 25 fps even overclocked. I'm not even at the highest settings. I'm running it at 1280 x 720 with all graphic details one notch below max. I swear it was running faster in XP. That's why I've been asking around if a better processor would benefit Vista and gaming in Vista. Any tips?

Would Half Life 2 show artifacts? Better yet, Half Life 2 Lost Coast?
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 115
9/6/08 at 12:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rising View Post
See, I have a problem running Fable even overclocked. DMC4 runs well even on stock settings. Overclocking to the settings I mentioned increases frames by about 10, which helps during the forest area. However in Fable, in towns, I get about 25 fps even overclocked. I'm not even at the highest settings. I'm running it at 1280 x 720 with all graphic details one notch below max. I swear it was running faster in XP. That's why I've been asking around if a better processor would benefit Vista and gaming in Vista. Any tips? Would Half Life 2 show artifacts? Better yet, Half Life 2 Lost Coast?
The best way to find out is trying them. HL2 never produced artifacts for me, whatever o/c settings I used. I'm very surprised Fable runs this slow at such a low resolution. THis game is 3-4 years old. What I would recommend is o/c using Rivatuner 2.10. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to run you 7900gs at least at 500/700. You won't gain a lot from upgrading your CPU, perhaps 10-15 %. Vista is known to run games slower in Dx9. There are more background processes and such.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 115
9/6/08 at 12:38pm
Pretty much any game will show artifacts if you push your card far enough. The frequency you have to set your card to in order to produce artifacts will differ slightly depending on the game however.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 115
9/6/08 at 1:48pm
Okay, I'm getting annoyed now. I overclocked the 7900 GS to 465/650 and there was distortion for a sec and then the screen just froze. After a short while, everything was normal. I tried out Fable and just standing there in a pathway, staring at some scared traders, I was getting about 15 fps in fraps. It wasn't just fraps either, the game was noticeably choppy. I had the same settings I mentioned above.

The game ran at an average of 40 fps in XP with all settings maxed and my card was running at stock settings. This is ridiculous. I just installed the latest direct x and it did nothing. Now I know this can't just be Vista because DMC4 runs just fine and it was just released a couple months ago. Would disabling visual themes and desktop composition in compatibility mode help?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › **E1705/M1710 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS** Go here first