NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Notebook Benchmarks › E1705/M1710/M1730 FRAPS Benchmarks Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

E1705/M1710/M1730 FRAPS Benchmarks Thread - Page 10  

post #181 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:19pm
heya turbo,

Do you ever have those problems when you enter a game and you get a Grid of purple blue like lines. then you alt-tab out and back in and it fixes the prob.?

i have that from time to time.

also the 169.09 drivers the powermizer don't work after you go to 3dclocks 1 time its stuck there.

plus you can't OC with them either . you can just downclock.

but when you downclock you are stuck there and can't upclock.. it's weird.
post #182 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by savat View Post
For a reason I ignore, Call of Juarez runs very smoothly for me, all at max, 1440x900, except shadows at medium. I can't cut it though at 1680x1050 for my external LCD native resolution, but the difference in quality between both resolutions is very minor.
IMHO, this game sometimes has very beautiful graphics, and sometimes really poor (like the very high cliff and water which look very dated). Nice use of lighting and particles effects though.

it runs smooth for me 30fps + @ 1900x1200 maxed in every way.

just when my clocks get too high I get arts/

I always run everygame @ native WUXGA. cept crysis @1680x1000 or whatever.

I get 30fps @ medium.

630x750 clocks
post #183 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurbodTalon View Post
Yeah, man, I'm picky about not lowering my native res. That's what I'd have to do to run Crysis at a decent frame rate. Not passing on it completely, just for now.
Did you try at 1280x800,which is just one step below your native res and gives a fake AA at the same time ? I had to install Powerstrip in order to enable this resolution. As compared to 1024x768, it's day and night. The best of both world in all my testing so far. But I thought that the extra memory on my upcoming 7950 would help me run it at 1440x900, or even 1680x1050 without a drop in performance. So it is not the case for this specific game ?
post #184 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by diefool View Post
it runs smooth for me 30fps + @ 1900x1200 maxed in every way. just when my clocks get too high I get arts/ I always run everygame @ native WUXGA. cept crysis @1680x1000 or whatever. I get 30fps @ medium. 630x750 clocks
Yeah but notice that I STILL have a 7900GS The great performance I get in COJ impresses me.
post #185 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:24pm
crysis looks like shit on a stick @ medium @ 1440, 1280 etc. high looks better, but still I would rather have higher res with lower sett's cuz even @ high the game looks too big of textures @ low res.

smoother= better.

@ 1900x1200 it looks awesome!! @ medium, cuz it is smooth looking.

I get about 18fps @ 1920, but 30fps @ 1680x1000 it's smooth and nice @ that res.

you should look @ getting an fx2500, its the same as a 7900gtx and can get pretty much the same results as a 7950.

I have a fx2500 and a 7900gtx. backup card is the fx2500.

I got 6000+ marks with the fx2500 and it costed me 200 bux
post #186 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:25pm
Thread Starter 
No, you won't have a problem with any current game but Crysis. They were trying to push the envelope, and did a good job of it.
post #187 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by diefool View Post
crysis looks like shit on a stick @ medium @ 1440, 1280 etc. @ 1900x1200 it looks awesome!! @ medium, cuz it is smooth looking. I get about 18fps @ 1920, but 30fps @ 1680x1000 it's smooth and nice @ that res.
I don't know about such high res, but from my testing and tweaking I got the best visual results by lowering my res a bit and trying a mix of specific medium and highs. But visual tastes are very personal, aren't they
post #188 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:29pm
not really,

Higher RES = Smoother Textures.

that's the _________line bud
post #189 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:29pm
Thread Starter 
Yes. I won't run at anything below native. If I can't run the given game at native, it goes on the back burner.
post #190 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:30pm
agree'd.

for me I am willing to drop only to WSXGA+ res. 1600 xxxx

that's all folk's
post #191 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by diefool View Post
not really, Higher RES = Smoother Textures. that's the _________line bud
I totally agree about textures, and even jaggedness. On the counterpart, higher resolution means less graphical effects. FEAR developpers themselves suggested to reduce resolution in order to be able to activate AA and AF.
post #192 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:40pm
trust me, if you crank the res to 1600+ on crysis and play on medium it looks killer.

better than 1024x768 on high. i can tell you that for sure.

low res is shitty.

even with high settings the effects look like junk cuz the textures are to jaggy and large.
you think the peeps with dual 8800 cards are gonna lower res cuz higher res means less graphical shit?

naw sounds assbackwards to me.
post #193 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by diefool View Post
trust me, if you crank the res to 1600+ on crysis and play on medium it looks killer. better than 1024x768 on high. i can tell you that for sure. low res is shitty. even with high settings the effects look like junk cuz the textures are to jaggy and large.
Gotta try it. On my GS it doesn't run smoothly even at 1440x900 for the time being though. This argument could go on and on, but do you realize that by putting everything at medium, some current-gen games effects aren't even in the game (for instance HDR). So again, it is a very personal preference. I for one prefer HDR and a few other trickies over a higher res. Well, I would prefer both at the same time of course
post #194 of 494
11/22/07 at 7:21pm
crysis looks like shit compared to other games at low res cranked.

it only looks good at high res, and yes with high settings.

low res. no matter how many settings you have . doesn't look that great.

even compared to say bioshock or oblivion, or farcry even @ 1900x1200.

vs crysis on high @ 1024x768. crysis looks shitty

and remember. lets say the pre-requisite is 30fps..

I am getting that on crysis @ 1680x1000, and it does look better than low res even with higher settings.
post #195 of 494
11/25/07 at 8:26pm
stalker

2007-11-25 18:24:07 - XR_3DA
Frames: 1488 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 24.800 - Min: 0 - Max: 45

max settings
post #196 of 494
11/25/07 at 9:24pm
Thread Starter 
Nice.
post #197 of 494
11/25/07 at 9:32pm
could be better
post #198 of 494
11/25/07 at 10:14pm
Thread Starter 
You're running a 7900 at 1920x1200 at max settings, that's good for STALKER.
post #199 of 494
11/25/07 at 10:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghazgull013 View Post
could be better
I didn't forget you with my screenshots and stuff. I'll put you a zip on a server tomorrow. It's too big to send by email.
post #200 of 494
11/25/07 at 11:00pm
It's awesome how tweaking can sometimes yield better performance.
I have Crysis set at a mix of high and medium settings.
When I run the benchmark tool, it gives me an average 8 fps.
When I apply specific tweaks, I get 19.8fps in the same benchmark tool.
My 8 hours of reading and testing has been finally worth it.
Can't wait to get my 7850 and make it an even 25-30 fps, in a even higher resolution, who knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dell Notebook Benchmarks
This thread is locked  
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Notebook Benchmarks › E1705/M1710/M1730 FRAPS Benchmarks Thread