Ferrari 4000...post your benchmarks!!

With the latest Omega Drivers I got
3dmark05: 2336 on 1024x768 resolution

That seems really really low. What is the deal with these? On the i9300 in my sig, I got 3320-3380 STOCK, before upgrading RAM and HD and Proc and OC'ing. After all that, I get around 4200-4300, and looking for more, but is the X700 really just that crappy of a card? IMO, the AMD should out-bench the Centrino chips easily.

3DMark03: 6015

Super Pi:
1M: 48s
4M: 4m 04s

With modded Catalyst 5.6 drivers. I'll update this if I run any more benchmarking apps.

This might be off topic but the Turion 64 does not outbench the PM nor the other way around. They are very similar in 32 bit. The GPU is what decides the performance in notebooks. What you should look at is features and usabillity in the whole system. A Pentium-M system lacks a bunch of features! Like 64-bit and SSE3 which obvioulsy will hamper it's usabillity (64-bit) and performance (SSE3 optimization) as time progress. Why would any one want a new system that you could only run old gen. Windows 32 bit and software on? I don't get why people still go with PM. I mean the Ferrari 4000 outbenches any other stock clocked X700 PM notebook and it also uses DDR333MHz at that. 3.5h non gaming use. So why are people still getting the PM? Don't know... I guess some people rather have a fiew more minutes in non gaming use, and sacrfice future usabillity, 64 bit and SSE3

I can't wait till the 70VR comes out

3DMark05: 2363
3DMark03: 6068
3DMark01: 15572
Aquamark3: 44139
Superpi 4M: 3:59
Superpi 1M: 0:48

X700 is not a crappy card - I'm really impressed that it's as close to the power hungry 6800Go of "dragable" notebooks in so many benchmarks.

Exactly my point!! I would love to get an AMD chip in a laptop, because in my experience, and I have seen tons of graphs to prove it, AMD architecture just plain and simple games better, even with the same graphics card. Yeah yeah, there is a little difference with mobo chipsets and all that, but the AMD 64 vs the P4 is just no contest with games. If you are running business apps, the P4 wins. So, the PM is a dumbed down P4 basically, thus it should do even worse on games. With me so far? AMD64 = way better than PM (that's the condensed version). Now, read this:
"AMD doesn’t have the resources of Intel, that’s plain and simple. They have done an excellent job with their K8 architecture, but for AMD to devote additional resources to developing another architecture, strictly mobile oriented, it’s just not possible at this time. At the same time, AMD’s Athlon 64 is far more suited for mobile environments than Intel’s Pentium 4 ever was, so the need for a mobile specific architecture isn’t as great for AMD as it was for Intel. So when AMD announced their Turion 64 “Mobile Technology” we had a feeling it would be something very similar to their desktop Athlon 64s, today AMD confirmed that."
Taken from http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2374
What that tells me is that the Turion is dumbed down LESS than the PM is dumbed down. Which means technically, a system with a Turion should perform better in games than a PM system. So, if the Dell 9300 blows the socks off of the Acer 4005, the only real reason could be that the X700 card sucks, and sucks badly. PLEASE KEEP PERSONAL PREFERENCE OUT OF IT! In my own mind, the previous lot of words made perfect sense, feel free to disagree, but please have some proof. It looks to me like the Ferrari may be a waste of money (it was going to be my next purchase) as the ATI still is eons behind nVidia.

the X700 does not suck. Don't compare it to the 6800 either. The X700 is more comparable to the 6600. Keep in mind that the i9300 is a 17 inch laptop... it is bigger... the 6800 uses a lot more power and I think you can only get it in 17 inch dragables. If you want something better... go for a Sager NP7620 with a X800 in a 15.4 inch. Plus, it's not Dell! Anyways... the X700 does not suck, it's just a whole step below the 6800. X700's were being put into laptops long before 6800's were.

Also... don't compare the Pentium 4 and the AMD 64 with the Turion and the Pentium M. Just because the desktop version of the AMD 64 rocked in games compared to the P4 doesn't mean the Turion will do the same. The PM has been benched to be faster in quite a few games and some applications. Just because you don't like Intel (which I don't, I have a Ferrari) don't automatically say the Turion is obviously better. It's not. It also drains the battery faster.

Also... kevineugenius... why would a Ferrari 4000 be your next purchase. The only advantage over the Dell i9300 is the 64-bit architecture, the looks, the screen, and the fact that it's not a Dell. The graphics card is a generation below what you have. The processor is not faster, especially if you pinmodded your Pentium-M like in your sig. Unless you are just looking for something lighter, smaller, looks cooler, and has 64-bit while performing considerably less in games than go ahead.

I'm a little dissapointed that the benchmarks of the ferrari 4005 do not beat the benchmarks of the Asus Z70 Refresh. There both the same card, and i figured that the Ferrari would beat it since its slightly overclocked isnt it? So much for a flagship model...i was hoping that the ferrari would beat it so that my decision would be easier between which of the two (ferrari vs. Z70 Refresh) to buy before i go to school in late August.

Correct, I do like AMD better, I am not fond of Dell, and I want cooler looks. Now that my Dell is painted, its much better, but still says Dell on it. Anyway, I had heard MANY arguments that the X700 was supposed to be ATI's equal to the 6800, but it most definately is not, which means I am disappointed.

How heavy the laptop is doesn't concern me, as I would think is the opinion shared by people who want portable gaming powerhouses. I may never get used to a 17" widescreen though, it just plain old looks too big...

So then, what is the specs/benches of a Sager with an X800? Or, when is notebook SLI going to come out? Maybe I'll just upgrade to an XPS2, then I'd have PCI-Ex16...

Any rumors on a 7800 go?

The X700 was announced before the 6600go so it was definetely not the answer to the 6800go.

Think you should read these two tests "kevinugenius" :
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...&cookie_test=1
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

The P-M is the fastest thing you can get right now. And its NOT a dumped down P4.

Also you'll see that the x700 is competition for the 6600. Both of these cards have a performance similar to the R9800 cards and should not be regarded as direct competition for the 6800.

It really depends on whom you trust more on benchmarks. For example results from anandtech:









2Ghz PM loses to 2Ghz Athlon 64 on socket 754. Turion is actually slightly faster than Athlon 64.

I've seen those and that's for the old P-M with 400MHz bus. The new ones with 533MHz are a tad faster. We really should compare 8104WLMi with 4005WLMi - after downclocking the x700 graphics card to the same level. Then you would see that the P-M is actually faster.

If you only trust anandtech then see this benchmark test : http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2382&p=7

Yep, that would prove something at least for the tested games...

I wonder why nobody have done it yet...

P.S.
It's not like "I only trust site bla". But the link you've given shows that P-M at 2.13Ghz is slightly faster that Athlon 64 at 2Ghz... (in Doom 3 and Wolfenstein)

Want reputable benchmarks? Tough to beat techreport.com!!

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20...f/index.x?pg=1

Here P-M 2Ghz loses again to Athlong 64 2Ghz. But mabe it's again not the lates one.

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

I still hope somebody downclocks x700 to 8104's speeds and benchmarks it...

well first of all that pentium M was running with DDR333... second of all... why are we comparing the Pentium-M to the Athlon 64 again? The Athlon 64 is a desktop processor. We need comparisons between the Turion and the Pentium-M.

The jump from DDR 333 to DDR2 533 is not likely to cause much of a change in performance. Also, Turion is basically an Athlon 64 (the architecture is the same) so performance of the Athlon 64 will be quite similar to a Turion with equal clock and cache.