NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Notebook Forums › Dell Legacy (single-core notebooks) › Ordered I6000d - What to expect when gaming?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ordered I6000d - What to expect when gaming?

post #1 of 17
8/4/05 at 1:35pm
Thread Starter 
I'm heading off to University this fall so I decided it was time to get a Laptop. When it came to pricing the Dell 6000d was the only thing in my range. I know people love the virtues of the 9300 but for my price range, the 9300 loaded out with the same features cost much more, so I went with the 6000, which is at least a bit lighter.

Anyway, I'm not a huge gamer but I like to play my fair share of games here and there so I was wondering what kind of performance I would see with my loadout.

Which is:

Dell Inspiron 6000d

Intel Pentium M Processor 750 (1.86 GHz/2mb Cache/533MHz FSB)
Microsoft Windows XP Home
15.4 inch WXGA LCD Panel
512 DDR2 SDRAM 2 Dimms
128MB ATI's Mobility Radeon x300
80GB Hard Drive (Free Upgrade - I guess its 4200 RPM)

How well will this system hold out when playing Call of Duty, Homeworld 2, The Sims 2, or something more intensive like Doom 3?

I was just wondering because it's been a while since I've played anything recent. My current Desktop system is also a Dell with a loadout of:

Intel Pentium III 866
256MB RAM
Win 2k
10GB Hard Drive
64MB NVIDIA Geforce4 MX 440

Just so you know where I'm coming from.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 17
8/4/05 at 3:15pm
I can play Doom3 very well.... overclock it a little and get non stock ATI drivers - Omega or NGO and you'll be rocking
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 17
8/4/05 at 3:43pm
Thread Starter 
How much can you overclock it and be fairly sure that it won't burnout?

and with Doom 3, what settings are you playing at?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 17
8/4/05 at 4:06pm
I also have the X300 128MB video card and the Sims 2 plays fine.

Reply
Reply
post #5 of 17
8/4/05 at 4:16pm
Sims 2, HalfLife 2 and GTA:SA on my similar system. All run better than my desktop w/Radeon 9550. But im returning my 6000 anyway because after 3 weeks im realizing that having gaming on a laptop is silly (for me). I dont ever see an oppurtunity where i'll be on the road or vacation needing a gaming fix. But I definitely would see myself appreciating a light and tiny 700m. I hope a new coupon comes out soon because im sending backt he 6000 monday and ready to buy the 700m now.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 17
8/4/05 at 6:06pm
i have overclocked my x300 to 411 core 325 mem..... i'm sure it wont burnout. My GPU maxes to around 57 degrees.

I play Doom at 1024 x 768 with medium settings and i have no lags or slow downs.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 17
8/5/05 at 2:32pm
Thread Starter 
Anyone know how this machine will take Battlefield 2?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 17
8/28/05 at 8:58pm
Ya. I'm runnin Battlefield 2 just fine. I have the X300 128MB card and it runs well. 1024x768 runs almost flawlessly. Havent tried anything higher yet. And for drivers I'm using some DNA drivers. They are also modified ATI drivers like the Omega and NGO but I like the DNA better.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 17
8/29/05 at 12:04am
Thread Starter 
I always wonder though why on the 9300/XPS 2 they're always bashing the X300?

I mean, even when a person comes in saying they're not a big gamer and that they only play older games (or don't care about high resolutions or 8x AA), they always respond that the X300 is no good and that you're a fool to get anything less then the 6800Go if you want to play any games!!! Despite the fact the person might be on a budget and the 6800 is a couple hundred dollars more.

I mean from all I've heard so far the X300 is a very capable card, it can play all the top end games at pretty high settings at "low res". Though last time I checked I played all my games at 1024x768 and it looks fine to me.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 17
8/29/05 at 7:26am
i totally agree with Blighter. My old 8600 had the mr9600 pro which a year and a half ago was the best card at the time.. and my x300 is def more capable that that.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 17
8/30/05 at 3:48pm
I run Counterstrike:Source at about 50fps or so at default settings, which is HIGH detail, trilinear, no antialiasing, at 1280x800 resolution which looks pretty nice. It is quite adequate. But sometimes I'd run it at 720x480, which looks crappy but gives me about 100fps, which helps me kick even more @$$. I would love to run it at 1920x1200 + 4x antialiasing, but...it's not gonna happen on this computer, or least...it won't be playable =P

I ran the F.E.A.R. demo at 30 fps at medium settings. Hopefully when it is released, it would be optimized to run at a higher speed, but I don't think there will be that great of a difference.

This laptop is NOT future-proof. It'll run future games, but probably with everything turned down.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 17
8/30/05 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquazi
i totally agree with Blighter. My old 8600 had the mr9600 pro which a year and a half ago was the best card at the time.. and my x300 is def more capable that that.
Thats impossible. The X600 is a direct port of the Radeon 9600 pro except on a pci bus. The X300 is slower then the 9600 pro turbo.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 17
8/30/05 at 7:02pm
What are the differences between the DNA, NGO, and Omega drivers? I've never heard of the first two before, but from the little blurb on Guru3D they all seem to be about the same.

Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 17
8/30/05 at 7:26pm
Thread Starter 
All I know is that I saw Allan86 play CS: Source at 110+ frames with everything on high (no AA), at stock clock with an ATI x300. I'm not sure what Res it was, but I know it was higher then 800x600. The thread is in the Photos section, but unfortunatly the pics seem to be down.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 17
8/30/05 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RelaxGuy
Thats impossible. The X600 is a direct port of the Radeon 9600 pro except on a pci bus. The X300 is slower then the 9600 pro turbo.

Well i beg to differ.... i have a 3dmark 05 score of 1860 on my 6000 while my 8600 had a score of 1450. Both overclocked. The only difference is that my 8600 had a 1.6 400mhz compared to my 1.73 533 and i now have a 100GB HDD.

And i get much faster frame rates with my 6000 in HL2 with same settings than i did with my 8600.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 17
8/30/05 at 10:41pm
The only reason you may score higher in 3dmark 05 is that the X300 is a directx 9.0b card while the 9600 is directx 9.0. I have no idea what tests 05 runs but they may rely on a certain feature of directx 9.0b. Also make sure you compare two overclocked scores not just one of them overclocked. The X300 is not as fast, its around 20% slower then the X600, which is exactly what the 9600 is except on the agp bus.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 17
8/31/05 at 5:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeybutler
I dont ever see an oppurtunity where i'll be on the road or vacation needing a gaming fix. But I definitely would see myself appreciating a light and tiny 700m. I hope a new coupon comes out soon because im sending backt he 6000 monday and ready to buy the 700m now.
Ditto. I have the MR9600 Pro, and rarely find myself taking advantage of it other than braging rights. I just don't play that many games, so I would be fine with a fast P-M (next lappy will be 2Ghz or more), lots of RAM (1Gb +) and smaller size (even though I find my 8600 fine sizewise).
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Notebook Forums › Dell Legacy (single-core notebooks) › Ordered I6000d - What to expect when gaming?