New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ferrari 3200 confused - Page 2

post #21 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:20pm
if we are trying to find out the better cpu at gaming, lets take away the GPU for a minute... ignore the GFX scores (as the athlon64 is clocked higher at 450/210 stock and the pentium-m typically come clocked at 391/200 stock)

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)"

cl56 (with gpu clocked to 480/255)
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:23pm
8,006 cpu score from aquamark03 with a 1.7ghz pentium-m (BANIAS)

vs

7,370 cpu score from aquamark03 with a 2800 (1.8ghz) athlon64

-------

2.0 dothan (according to dekka) actually got 9000 something

take all of this as you will (since we are trying to find out the better cpu performer @ gaming). the difference between these scores equate to in real life gaming is only going to be 1-2 fps and you wont notice it

as i said before the GPU is what matters the most in gaming, not the CPU
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:27pm
rincewind: What UT2004, 3DMark01se/03 & Aquamark scores do you get on your CL56 with GPU clocked to 450/210 (the same as the Acer Ferrari 3200 at stock speeds) ?
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:29pm
i will check right now
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:37pm
http://notebookforums.com/showthread...132#post267132

I reran and got Engine 459, Memory 209.25. These are absolutely default--I've never opened the Bios or changed the video settings yet.

I'm going to set my 9700 at 460/210 since thats what his 3200 was default clocked at
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:41pm
this should be funny
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:54pm
Ok I set my GPU to 460/210 mem in Powerstrip.

460/210 is what the Ferrari3200 comes default.



Now heres my score in Aquamark03



vs.

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)"

--------------------------

Is this what you guys were arguing about? A difference in 149 in aquamark03?
I bet if I ran it again I would get a score equal to his

I will do 3dmark03 and run benchemall to get UT scores at 460/210 in a min
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 120
6/22/04 at 2:58pm
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
mebbe you should change your *opinion*. =0

the a64 2800+ doesn't offer huge increases in gaming performance when compared to even a 1.7 Banias system. it's pretty clear to see that.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:00pm
rincewind: Hmm, what about 3DMark & UT2004 scores then? And how do you explain why you get lower CPU score by in Aquamark by only changing the GPU? Anyways, not much of a difference...

Aikeo: As I said before, a few benchmarks dosen't tell you the whole story. Who buys a laptop just to play games anyways?
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:10pm
not me, that's for sure. other people, i can't say, maybe they are mainly gamers. =0 i'm not trying to seem notably acerbic here, i just take issue with the statement that the mobile a64 is much better than the p-m / dothan for gaming. i think they're pretty much indistinguishable in the current configs.

i'd hate to see someone like ntrekie buy an a64 system and be disappointed that it wasn't giving him any better gaming performance, while giving him ~2 hrs less battery life.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:13pm
And how do you explain why you get lower CPU score by in Aquamark by only changing the GPU?

what do u mean lower CPU score?

I had gotten 8,006 and 7,957

its around the same ballpark... do you see the FPS score I got in the corner? thats what matters interms of real life performance... not the synthetic score
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:14pm
this is an incredibly stupid argument.
both chips will kill any game out there today, and some from tomorrow since they both come with the 9700.
Also, you can't trust the CPU scores in benchmarks... you don't know exactly what they are testing. And some of them fluctuate from run to run.
I would say unless you can notice a difference in FPS that is larger than 10% the two configurations are equal.
Furthermore, the A64 has advantages in some non-gaming operations, and the Dothan has different advantages. I know the A64 is much faster for compiling for instance...
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:17pm
Ok here we go again, 460/210, just like the Ferrari3200





vs.

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)"
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:18pm
both chips will kill any game out there today, and some from tomorrow since they both come with the 9700.

indeed

the bottleneck is the GPU, not the CPU
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by agentsim
this is an incredibly stupid argument.
not really. i think it helps to clear up some the of common misconceptions about the two processors. it might seem stupid to you since you're already informed-- unlike a lot of people on the forums (see poster of this thread).
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:21pm
yes I agree, its not stupid... im not argueing. Im just trying to educate
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:25pm
maybe not stupid in that it is informative... but its value as an argument is null and void.

Either chip is good at what it does best... and the AMD fanboys should not be promoting the A64 as if it were miles ahead of its competition...
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:30pm
and the AMD fanboys should not be promoting the A64 as if it were miles ahead of its competition

that's the point we were making =)

anyhow i like a good debate, it usually sparks interest / more indepth analysis on a subject. i'll be the first to admit if i'm wrong. some people take stuff too personally on here tho
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:31pm
Unreal Tournament 2004

Max details settings. 640x480 is not selected
800x600 is not selected
1024x768 93.86 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 113.24 fps, as-convoy: 54.45 fps, br-colossus: 113.90 fps )


Thats my scores using the latest benchemall @ 460/210

If you want a real comparison (the ferrari3200 owner NEEDS to run the same benchmark program/version as I did to do a comparison (as this program uses its own preset gaming test))

http://www.benchemall.com/download/benchemall.zip
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 120
6/22/04 at 3:40pm
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
I think thats what made us inclined to do the tests :P
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Other Brand Notebook Reviews