New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ferrari 3200 confused

post #1 of 120
6/20/04 at 6:29pm
Thread Starter 
I saw two benchies for the Ferrari 3200 and benchies for lappies with the dothan 2.0 mhz the cl56 and mitac 8050, all of them had ati 9700 128mb. From what I understand(Little at best) the 2.0mhz dothan is better than the low power athlon 64 2800. but the ferrari had higher non overclocked scores , uhh why. the gpu of the ferrari had a higher rating, arent they all the same?
the athlon 64 had lower cpu scores but the final score for it was still higher. what is going on.
also does ram or hdd rpm affect 3dmark03 or aquamark scores.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 120
6/20/04 at 7:22pm
uhh why. the gpu of the ferrari had a higher rating, arent they all the same?

no... the 9700 cards are clocked differently in different notebook systems

in general the 9700 in P-M notebooks are clocked 390/200 default
9700 in athlon64 notebooks are clocked at 450/210 default
9700 in p4 notebooks are clocked at 450+/250+ default (varies alot)

and why yes the cpu scores in aquamark03 and 3dmark03 reveal that the 2.0 dothan and even 1.7 banias are better than the athlon64 2800, but thats just one aspect of it... those benchmarks are more GPU based than anything else. i wouldnt pay too much attention to the numbers on there... you wont notice a real life difference between the two scores. synthetic benchmarks are just a method of comparison, but mean very little in real life performance
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 120
6/20/04 at 8:05pm
Thread Starter 
if benchmarks dont compute to real life performance than what does it compute. arg i want to know what is better, i wont be overclocking, so what wins, ferrari or cl56( with 2.0 dothan) for gaming. and by how much, in the dust or close second. Im willing to take a slightly weaker rig if it looks better, and get it stolen.- which brings up another q know any good guns, looking for something not too heavy but lotsa stopping power to cap them suckas.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 120
6/20/04 at 10:04pm
because synthetic benchmarks are just a method of comparison

if u use a synthetic memory test to see the diff between ddr400 single channel and ddr400 dual channel, the dual channel would be the better performer... but interms of real world performance, you wont notice the difference :P
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 120
6/21/04 at 11:43pm
Thread Starter 
so which is better for gaming.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 120
6/21/04 at 11:55pm
roughly the same, but p-m notebooks have better battery life and the compal 56 runs cooler apparently (i mention it because the compal seems to be the favorite of this forum)
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 120
6/22/04 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrekie
so which is better for gaming.
The low-power Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ is by far the best for gaming, like most other Athlon 64 processors
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 120
6/22/04 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by snorre
The low-power Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ is by far the best for gaming, like most other Athlon 64 processors
hmm.... by FAR the best for gaming? don't think so. did you not read the posts above?

Adam's stock Ferrari config:
3DMARK03
3,028

Rincewind's CL56, stock and overclocked so you can see how clockspeed affects 3d performance (and consequently gaming):
Gaming & Synthetic Benchmarks:
(Tests were done at default cpu speed of 1700MHz and default gpu speed of 390core and 200mem)
3DMark01: 10,002
3DMark03: 2,777
Aquamark03: 22,700
PCmark04: 3,200
UT2004: 1024x768 91.16 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 103.72 fps, as-convoy: 71.52 fps, br-colossus: 98.24 fps )

Overclocked Gaming & Synthetic Benchmarks:
(Tests were done at default cpu speed of 1700MHz and overclocked gpu speed of 480core and 255mem)
3DMark01: 11,240
3DMark03: 3,420
Aquamark03: 27,246

you should be fine either way you go (ferrari/cl56). from what others have said, you can safely overclock the cl56 5-10% if getting a few extra fps in farcry concerns you greatly.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 120
6/22/04 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aikeo
hmm.... by FAR the best for gaming? don't think so. did you not read the posts above?

Adam's stock Ferrari config:
3DMARK03
3,028

Rincewind's CL56, stock and overclocked so you can see how clockspeed affects 3d performance (and consequently gaming):
Gaming & Synthetic Benchmarks:
(Tests were done at default cpu speed of 1700MHz and default gpu speed of 390core and 200mem)
3DMark01: 10,002
3DMark03: 2,777
Aquamark03: 22,700
PCmark04: 3,200
UT2004: 1024x768 91.16 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 103.72 fps, as-convoy: 71.52 fps, br-colossus: 98.24 fps )

you should be fine either way you go (ferrari/cl56). from what others have said, you can safely overclock the cl56 5-10% if getting a few extra fps in farcry concerns you greatly.
Yeah, but comparing the stock LP M-A64 2800+ with P-M at overclocked speeds is meaningless in my opinion.

From soyboy's review:
http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=27166

"These are all at stock speeds (I will run some overclocked results when I get my 7k60).
3DMark2001: 10,706
3DMark2003: 3,033
Aquamark 3: 26,149 (GFX: 3,177 CPU: 7,370)"

From nikonx's review:
http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=27266

"A quick benchmark:
Unreal Tournament 2004 Benchmarks:
Flyby: 167.9
Botmatch: 74
Resolution: 1023 x 768

i have been able to play a few high power games including ut2004 with good performance on pretty high settings"

These benchmarks dosen't tell the whole truth though, but if you've read any review of the A64's you would know that they kick ass in games
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 120
6/22/04 at 12:22pm
fps is a pretty good test for me.

from nikonx stock ferrari (as you quoted)--
Unreal Tournament 2004 Benchmarks:
Flyby: 167.9
Botmatch: 74

stock cl56 review--
UT2004: 1024x768 91.16 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 103.72 fps, as-convoy: 71.52 fps, br-colossus: 98.24 fps )

interesting...
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 120
6/22/04 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aikeo
fps is a pretty good test for me.

from nikonx stock ferrari (as you quoted)--
Unreal Tournament 2004 Benchmarks:
Flyby: 167.9
Botmatch: 74

stock cl56 review--
UT2004: 1024x768 91.16 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 103.72 fps, as-convoy: 71.52 fps, br-colossus: 98.24 fps )

interesting...
FPS is a terrible performance indicator, but used for games testing anyway. Here are a few more game benchmarks of the 2800+:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...a642800&page=7

P-M may perhaps offer slightly better battery life at stock speeds, but I'm pretty confident that LP M-A64's on average performs best in games
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 120
6/22/04 at 12:58pm
huh? if fps is a "terrible performance indicator" why is it used as a "benchmark" in gaming?
thats a pretty unsubstantiated claim imo =/
once again, if you look at the review you quoted it has for the stock AMD system:

Unreal Tournament 2004 Botmatch - Rankin
(Higher scores mean better performance)
AMD Athlon64 2800+ (1.8 GHz)-- 92.2 fps

CL56 (rincewind' stock system) -- dm-rankin: 103.72 fps

the amd system even appears to be even losing slightly in this case.

I'm pretty confident that LP M-A64's on average performs best in games
I'm not, sorry.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 120
6/22/04 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aikeo
huh? if fps is a "terrible performance indicator" why is it used as a "benchmark" in gaming?
thats a pretty unsubstantiated claim imo =/
once again, if you look at the review you quoted it has for the stock AMD system:

Unreal Tournament 2004 Botmatch - Rankin
(Higher scores mean better performance)
AMD Athlon64 2800+ (1.8 GHz)-- 92.2 fps

CL56 (rincewind' stock system) -- dm-rankin: 103.72 fps

the amd system even appears to be even losing slightly in this case.
Yes, but not in this case:

Unreal Tournament 2004 Botmatch - Colossus
(Higher scores mean better performance)
AMD Athlon64 2800+ (1.8 GHz) -- 112.1 fps

CL56 (rincewind' stock system) -- br-colossus: 98.24 fps

Why did you leave that out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aikeo
I'm pretty confident that LP M-A64's on average performs best in games
I'm not, sorry.
Hehe, you base that on a SINGLE benchmark? I wouldn't, and if you had really paid any attention to the world around you it would be obvious to you that the A64's are the processors of choice for gamers. Also, the CPU in Acer Ferrari 3200 can most probably be overclocked using ClockGen since it uses the VIA K8T800 chipset:
http://www.cpuid.com/clockgen.php

This combined with overclocking the M-R9700 graphics it will most definately make it rock gaming wise
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 120
6/22/04 at 1:19pm
who the hell gives a crap. I mean seriously you look at tom's VGA charts the difference between a desktop 9700 pro and a 9700 pro is like what 10 or 20 fps? (at 100+ fps levels)...if you can notice that, you're not human. The bottom line is, benchmarks are good for bragging rights, and that's about it. End of discussion.

Edit: let me rephrase that...it's the exact same card, just clocked differently (and not by much). Any real world difference, is, like previously stated, marginal.

On an unrelated note, i can see we can delete our messages now
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 120
6/22/04 at 1:26pm
lol turanuk that's my point. snorre doesn't seem to understand that the mobile a64s aren't actually that much better than the dothans. sure they might be a little better, but who really cares, i'll take my P-M and bust the crap out of anyone in UT2k4 all the same.

he's convinced it's like night and day, though:
The low-power Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ is by far the best for gaming

even though the "proof" of a stock ferrari (whose m11 clocks are already higher than a stock cl56!) keeps losing out to a simple stock cl56

dude, you're trying to take generalizations about a 64bit architecture and turn them into proof that a low-voltage mobile processor -- designed to run cooler and slower than its high performance cousins -- will substantially outperform the current dothans. stop confusing ntrekie!
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 120
6/22/04 at 1:35pm
Aikeo: No, it's you that is confusing ntrekie here not me

If you check that review again you'll see what an overclocked 2800+ is capable of in Halo and FarCry as well...
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 120
6/22/04 at 1:39pm
i'll put up any cl56 to reproduce those farcry and halo fps numbers.

just forget it man. you've completely missed the point.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:10pm
Thread Starter 
ummmm duuuuuuuuuur
???!!!
no gniog si tahw
dnatsrednu on em
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:11pm
i'll take my 5 hour mobility

over 2-3 fps in ut

synthetic benchmarks are only a means of comparison
u should really look at what they mean in real life scenarios...
your laptop lcd is limited at 60hz so you will not see the fps of anything over that...

the bottleneck for gaming is the GPU, not the CPU

so the fact that the athlon64 notebooks with 9700 COME clocked at 450/210
and your comparing a p-m notebook with 9700 that come clocked at 391/202

is a silly way of trying to find out which CPU is better at gaming :P
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:18pm
As I have said before the 2.0ghz Dothan outperforms the mobile 2800+

In fact it out performs a desktop 3.0ghz P4.

I agree with Rince, PM rules give me the battery life anyday oh and the better performing chip.

Take a look at the CPU scores in my signature.

Go figure.....
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Other Brand Notebook Reviews