New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

5690 benchmarks are up

post #1 of 50
4/14/04 at 1:17pm
Thread Starter 
I'm starting this thread for discussion of the 5690 benchmarks which we updated the 5680 review to reflect. The numbers are all directly out of the box from Sager with default settings (balanced video performance) and drivers. The EXACT condition a customer would receive it who ordered it with Windows XP Pro pre-installed and pulls it out of the box to run benchmarks:


Sandra MAX3 CPU ALU
8790 10,315
5690 10,440
Sandra MAX3 CPU FPU
8790 4185
5690 4274
Sandra MAX3 CPU SSE
8790 7458
5690 7468

Sandra MAX3 CPU Multi-Media Integer
8790 25,774
5690 26,019
Sandra MAX3 CPU Multi-Media Float
8790 37,568
5690 37,487

Sandra MAX3 Memory Bandwidth
8790 4277/4315
5690 4257/4276


UT2K3 1024 X 768 Flyby
8790 146 FPS
5690 167 FPS

UT2K3 1600 X 1200 Flyby
8790 62 FPS
5690 71 FPS

3DMARK01 SE
8790 11,826
5690 13,326

3DMARK03 (340 Patch)
8790 3,381
5690 3,875

Aquamark 3
8790 27,102
5690 31,376

We'll be running the battery bench soon and throwing on powerstrip to take a look. If anyone has ever seen a laptop beat ANY of these video scores out of the box, let it be known!

The 5690 review:
http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=7008
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 50
4/14/04 at 1:28pm


Those are some impressive numbers.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 50
4/14/04 at 1:33pm
WOW!! Just from a benchmark point-of-view, the 5690 kicks some major booty over the 8790. I'm very curious as to why??
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 50
4/14/04 at 1:33pm
Thread Starter 
oops, wrong review fixed.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 50
4/14/04 at 1:47pm
Adam:

What is it clocked at by default? I wonder if the extra 128 of ram in the 8790 is killing performance?

Those are amazing benchmarks. Shoot for 14k in 3dmark01
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 50
4/14/04 at 1:48pm
oh, and turn everything to high performance!
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 50
4/14/04 at 1:51pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jswriter
WOW!! Just from a benchmark point-of-view, the 5690 kicks some major booty over the 8790. I'm very curious as to why??
The 8790 was released clocked very low which is why I made the whole thread dedicated to overclocking in the review section with Sager's thoughts on it. The 5690 looks to be released much more optimized from the factory in clock settings. I loaded powerstrip and it shows 297/499.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 50
4/14/04 at 1:52pm
Adam - can you keep both of them clocked the same and then post your results??
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 50
4/14/04 at 1:57pm
perhaps they clocked the 8790 so low, because they know it will generate too much heat if they clock it higher? (i remember reading that the 256mb of video will cause a lot of heat..)

in any case...i think this just renewed my interest in getting the 5690 instead of the 8790.....hahaha..want to know a big concern of mine? my friend has a 5670 , i have a 5660, and i'm sick of having the same computer as him!
maybe i'll shoot for one of the paint jobs....
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 50
4/14/04 at 2:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam@PCTorque
I loaded powerstrip and it shows 297/499.
Is that 297 core and 499 memory?? Or is it the other way around??
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 50
4/14/04 at 2:34pm
Thread Starter 
297 mem 499 engine. You can compare to the 300 mem 500 engine overclocking post in the review section if you want to see the 8790 @ about the same clock speeds.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 50
4/14/04 at 2:36pm
Thanks!

Cool! Actual Radeon 9600XT speeds.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 50
4/14/04 at 2:57pm
Thanks for the numbers.
8790 or 5690? Hmmmm.
I think another trip to BB is in order to look at screen sizes.
Do I want that wide screen, or better performance?
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 50
4/14/04 at 2:58pm
Makes me want to trade in my 5680. Any idea as to when you'll have the cost for trade-ins?
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 50
4/14/04 at 3:12pm
wow that is just stunning... i was really leaning towards the 8790, time to check out the clock settings again.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 50
4/14/04 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q-Ball
wow that is just stunning... i was really leaning towards the 8790, time to check out the clock settings again.
Well, ya could clock the 8790 the same as the 5690 without any problems. When you do that, the 8790 gets better scores.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 50
4/14/04 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by infamous_pb
Well, ya could clock the 8790 the same as the 5690 without any problems. When you do that, the 8790 gets better scores.
True, but Adam noted some artifacting at the higher OC speeds on the 8790. It all is gonna just come down to personal preference in the end...doesn't it always?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 50
4/14/04 at 3:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam@PCTorque
I'm starting this thread for discussion of the 5690 benchmarks which we updated the 5680 review to reflect. The numbers are all directly out of the box from Sager with default settings (balanced video performance) and drivers. The EXACT condition a customer would receive it who ordered it with Windows XP Pro pre-installed and pulls it out of the box to run benchmarks:


Sandra MAX3 CPU ALU
8790 10,315
5690 10,440
Sandra MAX3 CPU FPU
8790 4185
5690 4274
Sandra MAX3 CPU SSE
8790 7458
5690 7468

Sandra MAX3 CPU Multi-Media Integer
8790 25,774
5690 26,019
Sandra MAX3 CPU Multi-Media Float
8790 37,568
5690 37,487

Sandra MAX3 Memory Bandwidth
8790 4277/4315
5690 4257/4276


UT2K3 1024 X 768 Flyby
8790 146 FPS
5690 167 FPS
8790@460/290 182
8790@ 500/300 190
8790@ 515/300 192

UT2K3 1600 X 1200 Flyby
8790 62 FPS
5690 71 FPS
8790@460/290 80
8790@ 500/300 85
8790@ 515/300 86


3DMARK01 SE
8790 11,826
5690 13,326
8790@ 460/290 12,851
8790@ 500/300 13,309
8790@ 515/300 13,524


3DMARK03 (340 Patch)
8790 3,381
5690 3,875
8790@ 460/290 3,748
8790@ 500/300 3,971
8790@ 515/300 4,033


Aquamark 3
8790 27,102
5690 31,376
8790@460/290 29,751
8790@ 500/300 31,819
8790@ 515/300 32,420


We'll be running the battery bench soon and throwing on powerstrip to take a look. If anyone has ever seen a laptop beat ANY of these video scores out of the box, let it be known!

The 5690 review:
http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=7008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam@PCTorque
The 8790 was released clocked very low which is why I made the whole thread dedicated to overclocking in the review section with Sager's thoughts on it. The 5690 looks to be released much more optimized from the factory in clock settings. I loaded powerstrip and it shows 297/499.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam@PCTorque
297 mem 499 engine. You can compare to the 300 mem 500 engine overclocking post in the review section if you want to see the 8790 @ about the same clock speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam@PCTorque
Running 500/300 right now, almost through. I haven't seen any artifacts. The artifacts from what I've seen can be caused by either setting being too high.

It seems to bench fine with the 500/300 setting. I'm updating the original thread with the scores @ that clock speed added. I made the thread in the way it is so we can collectively come up with the best possible settings. I'm using Sager's provided stock drivers.

I can't say 500/300 would be stable with many hours of gaming until I spend many hours of gaming with those settings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam@PCTorque
Played UT2K4 demo with the 500/300 settings for over 2 hours and no artifacts, freezups, lockups, or any problems. Bumping it up a little bit to see if it will reach 4,000 in 3DMARK03.

EDIT
4,000 reached no problem.
I merged the 8790 "Speed up" results to Adams original posting to simplify viewing for everyone. Insertions colored purple.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 50
4/14/04 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jswriter
True, but Adam noted some artifacting at the higher OC speeds on the 8790. It all is gonna just come down to personal preference in the end...doesn't it always?
Where did he say that? I think I remember him saying that he saw artifacts when clocking it higher than 500/300. But I think he said that he didnt have any problems with 500/300.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 50
4/14/04 at 3:46pm
nice job G

They are pretty much even but the 5690 is a lot less pricey and I was always a fan of the 56XX platform...I was the proud owner of a 5660 before my new 8790.

The 8790 is going nowhere...for the larger screen, larger texture memory and far more options, RAID, multiple hard drives etc.

But the 5690 WILL be the one to beat as always for pure outright speed. Interesting to see how far the 5690 can go when it is overclocked...

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sager & Clevo Notebooks