NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › centrino gaming... is it worth it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

centrino gaming... is it worth it?

post #1 of 16
6/30/04 at 12:41am
Thread Starter 
Shopping around a bit... my minimum requirements for a laptop are: P-M 1.7, 40gb drive, dvd/cdrw, 512mb ram, intelpro 2200BG wireless, 14" screen and under $1800.

I'm looking at a CL56, and it seems that a 3dMark03 score of 3000 is really marginal for playing any sort of recent first person shooter games, like Far Cry for instance.

I can get the Compaq x1000 (Pentium M 1.4, 512mb crap ram, crap hd) for $600 less, and it should be fine for RTS type games.

Is it really worth the extra $$$ to play Far Cry at 15fps? Just how bad is it really compared to the average enthusiasts desktop system (p4 3ghz, ati radeon 9700pro)? I know there's a huge difference packing all that stuff into a tiny case, but I don't want to fool myself into thinking it's even close if it really isn't.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 16
6/30/04 at 12:48am
I think rince has a cl56 and he gets 50+ fps in Farcry last time I saw.

anyway, just a though.. you can save big bucks by getting a 1.5ghz dothan instead of the 1.7

fps games require more horsepower from the vid card and ram than anything else.
the cpu is mainly for physics modeling and such.

the 1.5 is about $120 cheaper. you can get an extra 512mb of ram with that.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 16
6/30/04 at 12:50am
to get the P4 Ghz rating for Centrino do P-M*1.5=P4 (1.5*1.5=2.25). There are 128mb ati 9700 available in some lappys. also if you will be playing 512-1gig ram is totaly required. also a 7200rpm HDD will give you a much needed help.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 16
6/30/04 at 1:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mregala
Just how bad is it really compared to the average enthusiasts desktop system (p4 3ghz, ati radeon 9700pro)?
A P-M 2.0 and a 128mb 9700, is pretty much what a 3.0 P4 with a 9600xt would be like.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 16
6/30/04 at 2:12am
Quote:
A P-M 2.0 and a 128mb 9700, is pretty much what a 3.0 P4 with a 9600xt would be like.
no way. there is no mobile system that can match a 9600xt. a mobility9700 system with a p4 3.0 ghz is beaten by a 9600pro 3 gig desktop. the P-M will be further behind.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 16
6/30/04 at 2:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by abeer
no way. there is no mobile system that can match a 9600xt. a mobility9700 system with a p4 3.0 ghz is beaten by a 9600pro 3 gig desktop. the P-M will be further behind.
Where are you getting your info from? I am basing my statement on Anandtechs article on the mobility radeon 9700...


Quote:
In terms of the performance delta of the desktop Radeon 9600 XT and Radeon 9700, the Mobility Radeon 9700 hits somewhere between the two in the context of the mobile segment, which is why the name is, no doubt, going to be debated
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1957&p=1

Everyone knows that a P-M processor gets multiplied by 1.5. A 2.0 is the equivalent of a 3.0 P4. What anandtech says about the mobility 9700 made me say that a 2.0 w/ 9700 is "pretty much" the same as a 3.0 P4 with a 9600xt desktop.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 16
6/30/04 at 2:35am
Thread Starter 

I don't think the equivalencies are 100% accurate

Regardless of what reviews are saying, it looks like the cl56 is topping out around 3500 in 3dmark03 (overclocked I'm pretty sure). My p4 desktop 3ghz ati 9700 pro is getting 5800 at stock speeds.

So would my gaming experience be 2/3 the quality/fps on a cl56?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 16
6/30/04 at 4:30am
Currently the bottleneck for gaming on most machines is the GPU. A 1.5 or 1.7 Pentium M should have power to spare on even the toughest current games. So gaming on a Centrino laptop? You betcha.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 16
6/30/04 at 5:04am
CL56's 9700 = 390 core/200 mem
Desktop 9600XT = 500 core/300 mem
Sager 5690's 9700 = 500 core/300 mem

This video card's clockspeed difference is why the CL56 is slower in games
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 16
6/30/04 at 5:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mregala
Regardless of what reviews are saying, it looks like the cl56 is topping out around 3500 in 3dmark03 (overclocked I'm pretty sure). My p4 desktop 3ghz ati 9700 pro is getting 5800 at stock speeds.

So would my gaming experience be 2/3 the quality/fps on a cl56?
Well, the 9700Pro is a lot faster than the 9600XT, so the original comparison may still be accurate.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 16
6/30/04 at 5:21am
Go for the Dell i8600. I got mine for $2050.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 16
6/30/04 at 5:26am
I don't really think the Dell 8600 is the top performer laptop that he's looking for

I think CL56 is the best laptop around
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 16
6/30/04 at 8:43am
Nevermind 3dmarks, I have been addicted to benching.

I benched this lappy and got a score of +/- 9900 in 3dm2K1 but ALL of my games run perfectly, no slowdowns anywhere.

Games: BF1942, UT2K4, Prince Of Persia, BF : Vietnam, Doom3 Alpha, etc...
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 16
6/30/04 at 12:06pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks fellas, just ordered my Hypersonic CX5 (I'm a sucker for that no-dead-pixel guarantee)
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 16
6/30/04 at 12:45pm
congrats. I guess you don't need any smashed bannanas because of the no dead pixel guarantee.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 16
6/30/04 at 3:25pm
It isn't as intense as FarCry, but I play America's Army (v2.1) on my CL56 with amazing FPS rates (with all of the goodies on).

I just got rid of 1.5yr old desktop with 512 ram, 64mb vid card, and about a 2.5 ghz processor and my CL56 owns it's performance.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › centrino gaming... is it worth it?