NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › Big doubts... gaming on latest Sagers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Big doubts... gaming on latest Sagers? - Page 2

post #21 of 57
9/2/03 at 9:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Divine_Madcat
Once again, thi is not correct information. 3D Mark is indeed effected by CPU, RAM, FSB, AGP bus, etc. Please stop spreading this incorrect information. if you doubt it, please do some research on futuremarks forums.
Did I say it wasn't affected by those things? No, I didn't.

edit: My point is that 3DMark03 is not fully indicative of real-world performance. This is true WITHOUT A DOUBT.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 57
9/3/03 at 4:18pm
Miniaturization and portability cost money. If performance is your dominant priority, spend that money on a more powerful desktop insteead of a laptop.

You can't really expect a laptop to outperform a desktop of equal reasonable price. (Of course if the desktop's price is unreasonably inflated by the need to pay for the marketing costs of the company that makes it, a Sager might beat it at the same asking price.)

If you don't want a laptop's protability, why pay for it? If you do, decide whether it's worth the price/performance compromse.

-phubar
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 57
9/3/03 at 4:31pm

A theory

Is everyone sure they are running 3dmark2003 . This could account for the descrepancy in numbers, especially the "moderate gaming system can get 6000." Those are more like 3dmark2001. Just a thought, I most definatly could be wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 57
9/3/03 at 4:42pm
My computer in my sig scores 5100 in 3dmark 2003 and 13500 in 2001. For the people who keep buying really expansive desktops for gameing learn to build your own. I've upgraded my computer every year to perform better in games. I spend less that a grand a year to make it a great gaming machine. In the coming months I'll be upgrading again and will only cost me aroun $500 to $600. Much more cost effective if you ask me.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 57
9/3/03 at 4:42pm
I thought people might want to read this.

From http://www.gamers.tv/articles/243/

" Doom 3 System Requirements
The Phobos Lab have got in contact with Mr Carmack himself to finally, once and for all, nail down some minimum system requirements for the highly anticipated Doom 3. Here's what he had to say:

With all the hubbub floating around the net lately about what would and what wouldn't run DOOM³, we decided to bring an end to the system requirement confusion and contact the main man, John Carmack, himself. Here is the official word on the minimum system configuration you'll need to run Doom³:

1GHz CPU
256MB RAM
GF1 or Radeon 7xxx series card

Don't expect to run it fabulous with that system setup , but everything will be playable at least.

Well, so far that counts me in, but as they say, the game won't run particularly well on minimum specs. I can't wait to see this game in action and hopefully I won't have to upgrade my PC too much."
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 57
9/3/03 at 4:50pm
Hmmmm...interesting...

Looks like I might have to upgrade my CPU & video card if I wanna use my desktop PC to play Doom 3. That should only cost me around $200-300 tho...now if only I could find a job...

...and again...I've said it before and I'll say it again...

DON'T JUDGE YOUR SYSTEM UPGRADES BASED ON SYNTHETIC TESTS!!!
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 57
9/3/03 at 5:32pm
Nothing is wrong with synthetic tests. If run right, it is fair across the board, and IS a good guide. Besides, "real" world tests are just as easily screwed up... :P
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 57
9/3/03 at 5:40pm
But to say "Oh, I won't get <this product> that is $150 b/c I can only get a score of 3,000 but with <this other product> that is $400 & I can get a score of 3,001...so it must be better."

That is just CRAZY and it drives me NUTS that people can be that STUPID!!!

*phew* Ok...sorry for ranting...
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 57
9/3/03 at 5:44pm
And if that 1 point were to repreesent 10x better performance, for only 3x the price, is that STILL stupid?
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 57
9/3/03 at 5:47pm
Huh? How can 1 point represent 10x the performance?
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 57
9/3/03 at 5:54pm
Not just 3d mark man.. ANY test. I am using that kind of figure as an example. yes, in 3d Mark, paying 250 more is dumb. But u know, who are you to speak like that? Are atheletes dumb becuase they pay good $ for just shoes? or pants? i mean, one may help more, but in the end, all they are getting is that extra point.


Anyway, my point is, any bench is/ has the possibility to be accurate and fair, acorss the board. Right now, 3D Mark 2003 is there. I wasnt before, but it is now. Same with other game benches.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 57
9/3/03 at 5:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Big doubts... gaming on latest Sagers?

Quote:
Originally posted by CruzBullit
I have a Geforce 4 ti 4600 with a AMD 2400+ 2Ghz 512Ram
and I get a score just under 2000 with 3dmark03, I think the only system that could get a 5000+ score is maybe a overclocked 3ghz+ with a 256MB 9800 1GB ram.
Also I don't think the drivers for the 9600 are going to change the score much.
I posted this in another thread, but it is all about the GPU folks



Thats with the desktop specs in my sig


Believe me, I've been through 5 video cards with this system. A Radeon 9000 pro 128, an Nvidia FX 5200 128 NP, a Voodoo 3, the default Via onboard graphics 32MB Shared, and the Radeon 9500 I have now, and the numbers make a DIFFERENCE.

The score is directly proportional to your real world scores! The Nvidia got a 2000 in 3dmark 2001, and had similar framerates to the Voodoo 3 which also got a 2000 (and the voodoo 3 was not a hardware accelerated card whereas the Nvidia card was). The onboard graphics got about 800.

My Radeon 9500 blows them all away, I got about 7000 stock in 2001, then I OC'ed and added the softmod to 9700 specs, and I get about 10500 in 2001 now. And it definetly reflects real world because my framerates in all my games are at least 60FPS with max resolution and max detail settings for everything! I couldn't do that with the Nvidia or voodoo 3, they would get 0 FPS!
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 57
9/3/03 at 5:58pm
jago is that a pic of your face?
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 57
9/3/03 at 6:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Big doubts... gaming on latest Sagers?

Quote:
Originally posted by JeffL
I posted this in another thread, but it is all about the GPU folks



Thats with the desktop specs in my sig
*sigh*.. no, it isnt... I really wish i knew why so many people think that.. lol
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 57
9/3/03 at 6:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big doubts... gaming on latest Sagers?

Quote:
Originally posted by Divine_Madcat
*sigh*.. no, it isnt... I really wish i knew why so many people think that.. lol
Well then what is it about? If it were about CPU, the 8890s should be getting about 5 times what I do.....yet they get only 3000ish.

That is about what the desktop 9600pros get too, last I checked.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 57
9/3/03 at 6:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big doubts... gaming on latest Sagers?

Quote:
Originally posted by Divine_Madcat
*sigh*.. no, it isnt... I really wish i knew why so many people think that.. lol
Probably because A 300mhz P3 with a Radeon 9800pro gets a much higher score than a 3.2ghz P4 with a Radeon 9600.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 57
9/3/03 at 6:08pm
It is about overall system.

And have you ever wondered if there is more to it than what you see? like, your GFX being a bottleneck, and not showing how your CPU and system really scale, since your GFx is holding things back? The 9600 is fast, but overall, it is still lacking...
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 57
9/3/03 at 6:15pm
Well, my specs were a bit off, but I found the article.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000242
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 57
9/3/03 at 6:17pm
Well jeez, and aparently in 9600pro in the sagers is lacking more than my 9500 np, cause I get a better score.

But then, if it were overall system, my box should still be slower than the Sagers, but alas, I have less than 1/2 the FSB (266), I am still using SDRAM (not DDR; 133Mhz), I dun have Hyper threading, and I have 1/2 the CPU power of the 3.2Ghz (if it were comparable that way anyway, unfortunately that is not an apple to apple comparison, because we are dealing with 2 different procs with different cores), I only have 4x AGP, a $2 PSU, etc.


I no way did I say my system outperformed the Sagers in integer or floating point CPU tests, drystone, wetstone, whatever, because it won't, but in gaming, obviously your GPU is the major deciding factor in performance, not the CPU, and 3dMark tests just that, the GPU.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 57
9/3/03 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Divine_Madcat
Not just 3d mark man.. ANY test. I am using that kind of figure as an example. yes, in 3d Mark, paying 250 more is dumb. But u know, who are you to speak like that? Are atheletes dumb becuase they pay good $ for just shoes? or pants? i mean, one may help more, but in the end, all they are getting is that extra point.


Anyway, my point is, any bench is/ has the possibility to be accurate and fair, acorss the board. Right now, 3D Mark 2003 is there. I wasnt before, but it is now. Same with other game benches.
That's totally different man...comparing an athelete to a computer geek is like comparing apples to oranges man.

Time in sports makes a difference b/c the whole point is to win...there is no real fundamental use to have the fastest and highest scores b/c everything changes so fast.

christine faith: No, that's not me. That is the game designer, Shigeru Miyamoto...the genius who created Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, etc.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sager & Clevo Notebooks
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › Big doubts... gaming on latest Sagers?