TECRA M3 Review - oymd - Page 2

http://dssc3031.ece.cmu.edu/~tamaru/...erreadme-e.htm

Is where you can grab a program to monitor temperatures.

In regards to the x1000 issue being similar to this one, hardly.
Toshiba at least states the solution is slower.
Hp/compaq maintain that they are selling a 9200.

Anyways, that all aside, business notebooks in general (and the tecra m3) are -not- designed for gaming.
They are designed for business users (corporate users).
Advanced graphic capabilities for business systems typically are useful for applications such as AutoCAD etc.

I agree that a slower 6600 is a bummer, however I would be willing to bet that the Tecra M3 has the best graphics capability in its class.

The -vast majority- of the radeon mobility x600 systems are larger.
The closest competition I can find would be similar to the Hp Nc6000 series. However once again, graphic capabilities are severely underclocked on the nc6000.

Now this 'underclocking' is fine since I use the system for business uses, However other issues have made me completely dissatisfied with the nc6000.
I should've returned it when it overheated.

that said, I have been using a dell d600 and dell d800 at work, and I will say they are very nice systems. The d600 has inferior graphics, but as previously stated, these are business models, so that's not a priority by any means. As such, they all do the job for me.

If you're truly wanting a system for gaming, then the Tecra M3 isn't what you're looking for. If you play a game now and then, It'll likely work out well though.

Well, in the great notebookforums tradition, I have to disagree. The issue in both cases is rooted in that there was no "firm" definition of the given video card. In the X1000, the "9200" label was used because the "9000" GPU HP used performed similarly and the "9200" was considered to not be a specific circuit board, but a given set of features and performance range. In the M3 case, the same circuit board is used but at a much lower frequency than Nvidia specifies. In both cases, the definition of the video card was murky. In fact, the X1000 was preferable because in the end you got 9200 performance. It appears that the M3 does not deliver 6600 performance.

The problem I have is that there was no information at the time about what frequency the GPU operated at. The warning was that "The graphics processor is optimized for this specific computer model and GPU performance will be slower than the standard nVidia GeForce Go 6600/6200." I wouldn't take it into court, but it was misleading. I think it was reasonable to assume it might be 10% or even 20% slower, but a nearly 45% drop in 3dMark05 is pretty extreme.

I was going to do some finite element analysis pre and post processing on the machine which is heavy in OpenGL and the GPU is important- in a "business" sense. You don't have to game to make the GPU important. There are similar notebooks with similar GPU performance:

HP NW8240, Asus w3v, Sony S series, IBM T43.

I was watching all of those but decided on the M3 because I liked the Nvidia 6600 GPU. I haven't made my mind up, but I was disappointed to see the 6600 TE performance levels because it looks like I should have kept looking. I'm not going to see that huge of a boost over my 9600 machine as I thought.

Just a few points to make:

Quote:
---
In the M3 case, the same circuit board is used but at a much lower frequency than Nvidia specifies
---

Actually incorrect. The PCI-ID is different for the TE gpus. Therefore it can't be the -exact- same circuit board.
As previously stated, it has different thermal algorithms, different v-bios, and is not tested to run at the 'normal 6600' speeds in quality assurance.

GeForce Go 6600 0x0144
GeForce Go 6600 TE/6200 TE 0x0146 *** TE pci-id is different. ***
GeForce Go 6600 0x0148
GeForce Go 6200 0x0164
GeForce Go 6200 0x0167

In regards to the other systems you listed:

HW Nw8240 = Workstation class (Notebook-Workstation 8240). Hp does not even classify it as thin/light because it isn't.
Sony S270 series = 64mb v-ram, not 128, and also agp (less power) not pci-express. (also 400mhz fsb). those points = cooler operation, and performance is lower.
Ibm T43 = mobility x300, intel integrated 900, or fireGl. The FireGL T43s are the 'performance/professional workstation' P models, but they are the equiv of an x300 class gpu.

You're trying to take features from desktop replacement notebooks and from professional/workstation class notebooks and put them into a thin/light system.
It just doesn't work that way.

Also, if OpenGL is of primary importance for your business, you may suggest to your purchase/lease reps that you want OpenGL certified systems.
After all, Geforce and Radeon are -not- OpenGL certified for development apps. That's what FireGL and Quadro systems are for.

In regards to the x1000 video issue, ATI made that comment, -not hp-. Hp has never released any documentation regarding the issue.
Thus the default response, if they list 9200, it is a 9200.

Toshiba has provided at least some information regarding their gpu (i.e. they said it was slower). I'm not saying it's a good presentation (As you do have to look for it in fine print), but it's more than anyone else has published regarding their systems under similar circumstances.

If you are using OpenGL apps (but not stressful ones) or if you design utilizing OpenGL (as various times I do via Java 2D mainly)
then a Radeon 9000/Nvidia fx5200 would be more than sufficient.

However, if you run stressful OpenGL apps (which if a slow 6600 is insufficient to run)
then my suggestions would be:
1) Get a mobile workstation notebook (Dell precision, Hp nw series, ibm pro designation system, etc).
2) get a mobile system with a 'professional' graphic solution. (quadro or fireGL)
3) Get a desktop or a desktop-replacement class notebook.

You seem intent on trying to prove me wrong as much as possible. I don't understand why you are trying so hard.

With regards to the X1000, you seem to do nothing but pick on specifics. As I said, the issue is about misrepresenting the video card due to a lack of a firm definition of the video card itself. Reading Toshibas "addendum" make it sound like you will get a 6600 on the low end of Nvidia's specs, not a 45% slower card in 3Dmark05.

The Tecra M3 is 1.25 inches thick and 5.2 lbs - thin and light.
The HP NW8240 is 1.1 inches thin and 5.7lbs -thin and light.
The Sony S series 9600 ATI solution is the same as I have now and the benchmarks are similar for the 9600 as the x600 as the 6600 TE and it is thin and light.
The ASUS W3v (which you didn't mention) has an X600 and is thin and light.
The IBM FireGL T2 does NOT perform at X300 levels, it performs better than X600 levels and is thin and light.

So, there are alot of "thin and light" competitors to the Tecra M3 (4 + tecra M3). The difference is that the M3 touts a "6600" and that why I bought it (and it was a little cheaper).

I can't decide if I want to return the Tecra until I get it and test it, but there is a 15% restocking fee if I do.

Was I mislead? Should I be bummed? Is a 15% restocking fee fair if I decide to return it due to the graphics performance?

i dont think you were really misled, you just bought before this little fact came to light, its a byproduct of buyinh early. i would still be a bit bummed, but then again you are still getting a good machine, just not quite the machine you thought you were getting. and personally although i dont like the idea of re-stockin fees, i think in this case it is fair if you decide to return it based solely on the graphics performance.

Is it safe to assume they did this to the A4 as well?

As the Toshiba turns...

Well, I was home today and the Tecra M3 arrived. I unpacked it and turned it on and it sounded good at first. Then the "dust buster" kicked in and it was really loud. So I immediately installed mobilemeter and the temp was nearly 69C. I installed rmclock and prime95 and undervolted it using needlenik's great post. Result was that running Prime 95 the fan was only on low instead of high and would actually turn off for 5-10 minutes at a time. Final voltage was 1.052 V (originally 1.356 V) which ran fine for two hours. I'll run it overnight to stress it out good. What's weird is that mobilemeter only recorded some discrete temperatures. Temperatures lower than 55C were reported okay, but the temperature tended to jump from 55C (no fan) to 65C (low fan) to 69C (dust buster). Must be something with the BIOS and Toshibas thermal solution. The extended battery I bought may make it quieter since the inlet is at the bottom and the battery thickness may help airflow. The bottom corner was warm but not hot after undervolting. Any of the notebook coolers available should make this thing even quieter which is a relief. However, I still need to test the graphics chip and the CPU under heavy load together but the undervolting results were encouraging.


I disagree and it's not a "little" fact. I think I was misled and I don't think I was the only one. Saying the performance is lower is fine, but no one expects a 45% drop in performance. I'd expect a 6600 to dramatically outperform an X600 or a 9600/9700 GPU, but in this case it doesn't apppear to. When it gives Toshiba the leg up over competing notebooks, I'd say it is misleading.

I tend to think the consumer should be protected over a company. I think I should not have to pay restocking fees if graphics performance is the issue as it is branded as a 6600. If Toshiba wants to sell a 6600 with lower performance, they should inform the customer of the comparative performance levels or at least the specs of the new part upfront otherwise they are misleading. I'd say if it was a 6600 that ran at 275Mhz, you'd be right. Since it runs at 225Mhz, I think I'm right.

Well this'll be my last post on this thread, no point in repeating the same information over and over.

1) Ibm laptops with the T2 (ati FireGL) video solution contain a Certified OpenGL graphic solution. It is the certified/professional version of the mobility radeon 9600. Totally different League. More money is spent on these systems, and I think the price of the systems should well-reflect this. They are -not- a business thin-light, but a workstation-thin/light class notebook.

2) The Hp Nw8240 is classified by HP as a mobile workstation. You calling it a thin-light is going against what the manufacturer (HP) says. It once again has a certified fireGL video. Thus once again it's a mobile workstation class, not a business-thin+light.

3) The Sony S series has a radeon 9600/9700. It won't hit the 3dmark 2005 scores that the underclocked 6600 will. In fact, it's approx half in 2005 scoring. See for yourself

4) I did not post about the Asus because I do not work with Asus and thus have no knowledge of their products/offerings. Me commenting about them would be throwing out only what i can read from websites and not experience first hand. As such, I left that unmentioned due to my own ignorance.

5) The 9000/9200 hp issue is not the least bit similar. When using ati reference drivers, they identify it as a radeon 9000. In fact, it is 100% identical (specwise) to the radeon 9000 in the presario 2810T compaq notebook (Which was a very limited edition, and did not have the daughter card video, but the same gpu). Sure enough, using the hp drivers makes that system have a 9200 (even though the 9200 didn't exist at the time of the 2810T).
So once again, that's hp saying 9200, giving 9000. For toshiba, they say 6600TE you get a 6600TE. The ambiguity lies in what "te" means. They lightly cover in the published PDF file (and also in fine print) that it will run slower, but they do not directly attribute it to the "TE", so that I can see, but you are getting what you pay for.

Finally, your claim "If Toshiba wants to sell a 6600 with lower performance, they should inform the customer of the comparative performance levels or at least the specs of the new part upfront otherwise they are misleading. I'd say if it was a 6600 that ran at 275Mhz, you'd be right. Since it runs at 225Mhz, I think I'm right." is just plain WRONG.

The Geforce Go 6600 running at 275Mhz is within the -NORMAL- range of a -NORMAL- 6600. As such, if Toshiba clocks a Geforce Go 6600 at 275mhz (gpu), then says it underperforms the 'normal' conditions of the 6600, they would be wrong. Nvidia has never published the specs to the consumers, but they have released 'review configs' and have documented them as such.

Being that the Normal range for a 6600 gpu is 275mhz-375mhz (depending upon notebook vendor's implementation). Also, the vast majority of notebook vendors have them clocked on the lower end for thermal + power consumption reasons.

You can argue all you want, but a 275mhz 6600 = normal. 225mhz = approx 19% slower than 275mhz. As such, it's a 19% decrease in clock speed over a normal Go 6600, not 45% like you claim.

In regards to the Tecra A4, it does -not- use the TE version, thus it's a normal 6600 go (clocked ~275mhz i believe).


Considering your purchase position, I agree that restocking fees for this sort of reason are definately not fair. After all, documentation on what "TE" stands for can only be obtained through nvidia's senior staff (as normal marketing/communication depts may think you mean TC and have little to no knowledge of TE).
Toshiba support likely won't know the answer, although Toshiba Engineering would. Contacting them would definately be a difficult task.

As such, I totally agree that restocking fees should be waved for the first 3-5 business days a system is received as that is more than ample time for someone to examine system specs etc. After that period, any returning would definately cause depreciation + a loss for them, and a restocking fee does make sense, but I can see your perspective and agree with it to some extent. Now granted this is not their policy

Agreed

It doesn't matter what the manufacturer classifies them as, only that the specs are the similar, which they are. There is no official "thin and light" category or "mobile workstation" category set up by any organization so I think it is a matter of semantics. I have to agree that the 9600 is lower than the X600 and 6600 in 3Dmark though.

Well, from what I understood, the 9000 installed in the X1000's was peforming at a higher level than all other 9000 solutions and at the level of other 9200 video cards and as such was equivalent to the 9200.

The question was never if I was getting a fair price, the question is whether I was misled. The price is fair for a 6600TE if you know beforehand what that is.

I was talking about performance. 3Dmark05 scores of ~2200 for the 6600 and ~1200 for the 6600TE. I'm confused as to why my statement is wrong. I thought I was getting a 6600, but I got a lower clocked chip.

That's what I'm talking about... Thank you for that. I also don't think I should have to pay it if I decide to return it in a few days. If the reason was weaker, I would say tough luck, but the only way to find out what the 6600TE really was, was to buy and check it out yourself. That was really my whole point, the restocking fee is a tough pill to swallow if I return it because of the 6600TE.

I was wondering if anyone has been able to use a software overclocking utility on the 6600TE and how fast they could clock it to and what sort of performance they got with it being OC'd