• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

amd64 vs p4 (for video games)

I

iiibuddhaboy

Member
thinking of a new laptop for gaming and i was wondering which was better?

if you just have suggestions on laptops in general
specs should be something like

price around 1500
9700 or better
battery life is no concern
15 inch or better


please give me some suggestions :]
 
Neither the p4 or the a64 are the best gaming at the moment.
The P-M takes the crown.
A Dell 9300 could be had in your price range with some nice upgrades.
 
Neither the p4 or the a64 are the best gaming at the moment. The P-M takes the crown.
Click to expand...

Proof please.

Every benchmark I've seen says the A64 is the best CPU for games.

Particularly, since it is now available in laptops, show me benchmarks with a CPU that can touch a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 in gaming performance.

 
Originally posted by: RamIt
Neither the p4 or the a64 are the best gaming at the moment.
The P-M takes the crown.
A Dell 9300 could be had in your price range with some nice upgrades.
Click to expand...

That's a good one. Thanks for the late-night chuckle.

Like it or not, the A64 will murder all but the most expensive P-Ms - which are at the high end of his price range.

But as said by others, the video card is the pivotal area here. Discrete card, minimum of a Mobility 9700 / geForce 6600Go, preferably a Mobility X800 or 6800Go. 🙂

- M4H
 
Of coures the video card makes a huge difference.
Show me any a64 "notebook" currently that can better the Dell XPS2 in gaming in any price range.
There arn't any. I am sure this is a temporary issue but currently nothing can touch it.
 
Originally posted by: Mike01
Neither the p4 or the a64 are the best gaming at the moment. The P-M takes the crown.
Click to expand...

Proof please.

Every benchmark I've seen says the A64 is the best CPU for games.

Particularly, since it is now available in laptops, show me benchmarks with a CPU that can touch a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 in gaming performance.
Click to expand...


As you wish:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothangaming&page=6

Note that these benchmarks are showing the "OLD" 400 MHz fsb Pentium M as found in the Dell i9200, not the newer 533Mhz version that comes in a Dell i9300.

1.8GHz P-M is a little faster than 3.4GHz Pentium 4, and equal to A64 3400+.

Yes, as shown, a normal "OLD" P-M will beat all but the fastest A64's.
The newer P-M's kill them even further.

Other things that make the P-M a much better laptop choice are heat and battery life. These run so cold that for light work, you can run them with the fans turned off, and still stay under 50C. Of course they have smaller heatsinks and fans because large ones are not needed, which means lower overall weight. Battery life blows away any other current CPU, which also means they can get away with a smaller and lighter battery.

One last note.
Couple reviews have stated they have now found the fastest gaming "PC" made (not notebook only), and it turns out that it is the Dell XPS2 with P-M. It is faster than any desktop available at the time.
 
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: RamIt
Neither the p4 or the a64 are the best gaming at the moment.
The P-M takes the crown.
A Dell 9300 could be had in your price range with some nice upgrades.
Click to expand...

That's a good one. Thanks for the late-night chuckle.

Like it or not, the A64 will murder all but the most expensive P-Ms - which are at the high end of his price range.

But as said by others, the video card is the pivotal area here. Discrete card, minimum of a Mobility 9700 / geForce 6600Go, preferably a Mobility X800 or 6800Go. 🙂

- M4H
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should at least know what you are typing about before laughing.
The semi-loaded i9300 with coupon is priced at around $1400, and at that price includes P-M of about 1.8GHz, nVidia 6800 and 1 gig of memory.

A high end A64 will not murder any low end P-M, and will not touch a high end P-M.
Gaming is the P-M's strongest point!
Even in those games where the A64 has an edge, it is only a couple percentage points, and since this is for laptop useage, all the other advantages of the P-M far out weigh that irregularity where the A64 might be the fastest.

The HOT (and I don't mean temps) setup for laptops now is to take a i9300 and replace the CPU with a 400 MHz P-M such as a 1.8GHz, (after adding jumper wire to socket that changes FSB from 100 to 133), and you end up with a P-M running at 2.4GHz. That puts the gaming performance at a little faster than A64 4000+. More info at Notebook forums.

An easy way to compare P-M to A64 speeds is to take a P-M speed and add 200 to come up with what the A64 "TRUE SPEED" must be to come close to the P-M. For example, P-M 2.0GHz would be about the same as A64 3500+ whose TRUE SPEED is about 2.2GHz.
 
I've seen those benchmarks...there's something fishy about them. Check out Tom's harware guide (a much more reliable source):

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/prescott-08.html#directx_9

You will notice that in this benchmark (which is typical of the benchmarks I've seen there) the Athlon 64 murders the P4....yet in the same game benchmark on the site you mentioned, the performacne of the P4 is almost identical to the A64.

This can be for one of several reasons. One, they used a bad motherboard (bad for the A64), two, they had something configured wrong, or three, my favorite, they cheated.

How do you explain it?



 
The semi-loaded i9300 with coupon is priced at around $1400, and at that price includes P-M of about 1.8GHz, nVidia 6800 and 1 gig of memory.
Click to expand...

I've priced the 9300 over a period of two months and it has never been below 2000 with a 1.8, 1GB of RAM, 6800 and a decent sized hard drive....not even with the best coupons. Add a good dvd burner, and it goes up even more. I just checked it now...over 2K (with no dvd upgrade).

So unless Dell had some crazy one time sale, I don't see where you pulled that price out of.
 
Sigh........

Inspiron 9300 Intel® Pentium® M Processor 750 (1.86 GHz/2MB Cache/533MHz FSB) SM18HN [221-7310] 1
Operating System Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition WHXP [420-4766][463-2282][412-0689][420-4928][412-0706][420-4830] 11
Display 17 inch UltraSharp? Wide Screen XGA+ Display 17XGA [320-4177] 2
Memory 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz 2 Dimm 1GB2D [311-3732] 3
Video Card 256MB NVIDA® GeForce? Go 6800 256NV [320-4185] 6
Hard Drive 40GB Hard Drive 40GB [341-1804] 8
Network Card Integrated 10/100 Network Card and Modem INTNIC [430-0493] 13
Adobe Software Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 6.0 ADOBER [430-1048] 15
CD/DVD Drives 8X Max DVD ROM Drive 8XDVD [313-2579][420-5111] 16
Wireless Networking Card Intel® PRO/Wireless 2200 Internal Wireless (802.11 b/g, 54Mbps) IP2200 [430-0996] 19
Office Productivity Software (Pre-Installed) No productivity suite - Corel WordPerfect word processor only ICOREL [412-0714] 22
Security Software No Security Subscription NSNOR [412-0802] 25
Digital Music Dell Jukebox - easy-to-use music player and CD burning software MMBASE [412-0741] 26
Primary Battery 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery (53 WHr) 6BAT [312-0285] 27
Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options 1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr Mail-In Service, and 1Yr Technical Support ST111RR [950-3337][950-9057][960-6910][960-6900] 29
Internet Access: Dial-Up 6 Months of America Online Membership Included AOLDHS [412-0585][412-0625][420-3224][412-0687] 37
Digital Imaging Photo Album? SE Basic DPS [412-0744] 38
Financial Software No QuickBooks package selected- Includes limited use trial QBSSP [420-5139] 83
TOTAL: $2,148.00
-$750 off $1,999
=$1,398


If you order it with the 8x DVD burner and 256 memory it comes to $1,277.
Add a gig of ram for a total of 1.25 gigs from newegg for $125
Grand total $1,402

 
Originally posted by: Mike01
So unless Dell had some crazy one time sale, I don't see where you pulled that price out of.
Click to expand...
Dell deals are extremely cyclical for the most part. The $750 off $XXXX coupons have somewhat spoiled average Hot Dealers.

This is an excellent resource to keep up with the ever changing face of Dell discounts.
 
Originally posted by: Mike01
I've seen those benchmarks...there's something fishy about them. Check out Tom's harware guide (a much more reliable source):

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/prescott-08.html#directx_9

You will notice that in this benchmark (which is typical of the benchmarks I've seen there) the Athlon 64 murders the P4....yet in the same game benchmark on the site you mentioned, the performacne of the P4 is almost identical to the A64.

This can be for one of several reasons. One, they used a bad motherboard (bad for the A64), two, they had something configured wrong, or three, my favorite, they cheated.

How do you explain it?
Click to expand...

You asked:
Proof please.

Every benchmark I've seen says the A64 is the best CPU for games.
Click to expand...

You simply asked for proof about P-M performance stating you have never seen it beat A64. So I gave you what you asked for. Now you say you knew about it, but didn't trust it? Did you actually read the testing method, or see the title "revisted? Even they could not understand original results, so a week later, they tested with different machines (video, etc). Same story, as shown from those new results.

Having others do our benchmarking is not the best method. Comparing our own results will tell you the true story. Testing here proves shows similar results as link above. 3dmark results also confirms all of these, P-M is faster than both P4 and A64.


here are initial test results:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dfipm&page=10

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothandesktop&page=11

but wait, theres more:
http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/546/

" Pentium M 755 2.0 GHz : 78 Watts
- Pentium M 755 Oveclocked at 2.4 GHz : 81 Watts
- Athlon 64 3200+ 90nm : 110 Watts
- Athlon 64 3500+ 90nm : 113 Watts
- Athlon 64 3500+ 130nm : 130 Watts
At 2 GHZ, the Pentium M performances are higher than a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or an Athlon 64 2.2 GHz (3500+ S939, 3200+ S754). These performances are quite good, but after Overclocking the Pentium M is even able to reach equivalent performances to the most efficient Pentium 4 and Athlon 64."

Note, all benchmarks above were performed using the older i855 400MHz chipset and CPU, not the newer and faster 533MHz versions that the i9300 uses.

And if that is not enough proof (again more of the slower i855 chipset):
http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/dfi_855gme/16.shtml
"Saving the best for last ... "

"In summary, there are a few benchmarks that are not won by a landslide by the Dothan, however, in the overall picture, it comes out right next to the Athlon64-4000+ as the most powerful gaming processor."

So if the old version compares to A64 4000+, what does that tell you about the newer and faster version in the i9300?

Even "IF" they were equal, the P-M wins hands down for laptops due to it's lower power requirement (i9300 uses a 90w supply) which equals longer battery life, cooling running, quieter operation, lighter weight and faster. oops.
 
Originally posted by: RobsTV
here are initial test results:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dfipm&page=10

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothandesktop&page=11

but wait, theres more:
http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/546/

" Pentium M 755 2.0 GHz : 78 Watts
- Pentium M 755 Oveclocked at 2.4 GHz : 81 Watts
- Athlon 64 3200+ 90nm : 110 Watts
- Athlon 64 3500+ 90nm : 113 Watts
- Athlon 64 3500+ 130nm : 130 Watts
At 2 GHZ, the Pentium M performances are higher than a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or an Athlon 64 2.2 GHz (3500+ S939, 3200+ S754). These performances are quite good, but after Overclocking the Pentium M is even able to reach equivalent performances to the most efficient Pentium 4 and Athlon 64."
Click to expand...

While we're pulling quotes ...

"At 2 GHz the P-M is slightly faster than a P4 3.2 GHz, but is still far from the A64 3000+ (actually closer to a 2800+). Thanks to overclocking and FSB/DDR frequency increase, performances are increased and comparable to the A64 3700+ (much faster than a Pentium 4 EE 3.46 GHz!)."

"However, compared to the A64 which is more at ease with games, the Pentium M is just behind a 2800+. Thanks to overclocking the P-M bests the Pentium 4 and is closer to the A643400+/3500+."

"So the P-M 2 GHz is just between the P4 3.4 et 3.6 GHz, and close to the A64 3200+ S754."

Note, all benchmarks above were performed using the older i855 400MHz chipset and CPU, not the newer and faster 533MHz versions that the i9300 uses.

And if that is not enough proof (again more of the slower i855 chipset):
http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/dfi_855gme/16.shtml
"Saving the best for last ... "

"In summary, there are a few benchmarks that are not won by a landslide by the Dothan, however, in the overall picture, it comes out right next to the Athlon64-4000+ as the most powerful gaming processor."
Click to expand...

And the previous page, where the OCed Dothan loses to a 3800+ in 3/4 tests? Never mind that the test you quoted from above is MDK2, based on Ye Olde Quake Three Engine. 😛

So if the old version compares to A64 4000+, what does that tell you about the newer and faster version in the i9300?
Click to expand...

Oh, the 533FSB version? Which the overclocked ones were all running on?

Even "IF" they were equal, the P-M wins hands down for laptops due to it's lower power requirement (i9300 uses a 90w supply) which equals longer battery life, cooling running, quieter operation, lighter weight and faster. oops.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wasn't aware that performance and longevity were directly comparable results. I guess that built 454 sucks hardcore, because my Honda gets better mileage. And if you go back to the original post:

battery life is no concern

"Oops."

Never mind that all the tests posted thus far have been from desktop platforms. If I'm about to drop 1500 on a laptop, I'd like to see actual reviews of the real hardware I'm shelling out a few car payments for. 😛

- M4H
 
Um, in desktops, the P-M has a huge disadvantage, so while some tests were performed in a desktop, they were still comparing a mobile P-M against Desktop fully developed AMD A64 systems. It is tough to find reviews and comparisons of laptops. Still, Tom's hardware choose the P-M as the ultimate laptop to build CPU, and they have some info on P-M:

http://www20.tomshardware.com/mobile/20050224/dell_xps-06.html

Again, you asked for proof, and it was shown. Perhaps not in every test. But, the some quotes that I posted were the end result, after factoring in ALL tests. Sure the A64 can win a battle or three, but according to these reviews from various sites, the winner of the war is P-M.

Last thing is, go to where the true info is at.
http://notebookforums.com/index.php?
There you can see laptops made with all types and sizes of CPU's.
It is the place for Laptop info.
Check out Sager and Alienware forums.
They are not too happy with the Dell's P-M's beating them at a much lower cost.
Then compare laptop's with A64 from the top makers to laptops from Dell.
You will choose a i9300 for under $1500 without a second thought.

Here is an example of an AMD laptop with A64 3000+ and MR9700 (Acer 3400)
http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=52703
Note these numbers:
3DMark03......: 3139 (714 CPU) Standard
3DMark03......: 3594 (711 CPU) O/C'd 478 / 248

Compare that to my i9200 with stock clocked P-M 1.8GHz and MR9700:
3dm2k1se = 14200
3dmark03 = 4201
3dmark05 = 1437

This is the old i9200, not the recommended i9300 and it's nvidia 6800 video card.
Even then the old i9200 with P-M beats a comparably equipped A64.
Also note the power requirements of each. 6 cell batteries work great!

EDIT: Show me please an AMD A64 notebook that can compete with old P-M laptop.
I have been searching and searching, trying to find ANY AMD laptop with better 3dmark scores faster than my old i9200 P-M MR9700 (again, a lesser unit than i9300 6800). Nothing comes close. I know they are there, but looking in Gateway and Acer, I can not find them. What does it take from AMD to beat an old P-M? Please show me.
 
Originally posted by: RobsTV
What does it take from AMD to beat an old P-M? Please show me.
Click to expand...

Probably equilivant vid cards. I think the turion will be on close to equal footing when they have comparable specs but they dont at the moment.
 
The second set of benchmarks, the ones not from the site I believe is full of shit, clearly show that the heavily overclocked Pentium Ms kick some serious ass.

Aside from that, they show that the stock clocked Pentium Ms are far behind the Athlons.

So...um...where's that proof?

The reason I don't trust that first site is simple...I trust Tom's Hardware Guide. In Tom's Far Cry benchmark, the same one that bogus site has, almost all A64s slaughter almost all P4s. Yet in the bogus site's benchmark, the P4s perform basically the same as the A64. Forget the Pentium Ms for a second....care to explain that little discrepancy? I wonder if those guys have anything to gain....


As for your old i9200...what were the settings of your benchmark test? All default (freeware) settings? I doubt that. Why?

Take a look at this guys signature (from that forum with the Acer review):

P M 2.0 GHz 1024 Mb DDR333 RAM ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 (M11) w. 128 Mb Hitachi HDD 60 Gb on 7200 rpm

3dMark2k5: 1108 (3125 CPU)
3dMark2k3: 3020 (625 CPU) (no OC)
3dMark2k1: 10895

And this is that guys laptop! Why would he lie??


Hmmm....
Pentium M at 2.0GHz, MR9700, no OC = 3020, 625 CPU
A64 3000 2.0GHz, MR9700, no OC = 3139, 714 CPU

Same clock speed....both laptops....same GPU (exactly)....same benchmark...the results look pretty clear to me. At the same clock speed, the A64 wins.

Just for fun, here is a 3DMark Benchmarks I just ran. My machine is not what I would consider a gaming laptop...it has a MR9600 (tested at 350/200)....but it is what I would consider a powerful laptop (A64 3700 2.4GHz, 1GB ram, 100GB hd, dl dvd burner.

3DMark03: 2949, 860 CPU
 
Originally posted by: iiibuddhaboy
thinking of a new laptop for gaming and i was wondering which was better?

if you just have suggestions on laptops in general
specs should be something like

price around 1500
9700 or better
battery life is no concern
15 inch or better


please give me some suggestions :]
Click to expand...



Im sorry that I may have fanned the flames of the AMD-Intel battle. 🙁
The best laptop in your price range is the Dell 9300 which has neither the A64 or a P4 chip in it but a PM instead.

You will get decent battery life although it is not one of your concerns.

If you get it with the 6800 go, it will game close to twice the speed of the 9700.

It has a nice 17" screen.

If you need help finding coupons or help configuring one PM me. I would be glad to help.
 
I think the real anwer to the OP's question is "don't worry about it".

It's not like if you get intel you're getting crap and if you get AMD you're getting gold.

They're all close. Best CPU is probably the A64....but...

Unless you have a money tree in your backyard....you'll probably go for the one that gives you the greatest overall performance for your $$$. If you could pick up an A64 lappy with a nice 6600 or 6800 in it, cheap, that would be ideal. The P-M's aren't that far behind in gaming. Just ran 3dmark 03 on my 'old' 9200. Only pulled a 1900 (but that was on batteries so the vid card was clocked down). Got a 608 cpu score. That's on a 1.6 ghz p-M...the old 400 mhz fsb ones I believe....

Whoops.....AA and AF were forced on. 3800 now..... Pretty sure I cracked 4000 on this thing when I had it fully tweaked. That's with the vid OC'd of course.... CPU now at 646....still on batts don't know why that changed....nor why it's higher than the 2 ghz P-M posted above. <shrug>
 
nor why it's higher than the 2 ghz P-M posted above. <shrug>
Click to expand...

I can answer that...because futuremark makes bad benchmark tools. 🙂
I usually trust Aquamark3 for my desktop benchmarks.

You changed nothing on your CPU, yet your CPU score went up almost 40 points. That shouldn't happen.

I just ran it again for kicks at max GPU clock (416/215.....not bad for a "9550" that starts out at 297/202, huh?)...and the results are:

3241, CPU 868

Cool...my card is much better than a stock-clocked MR9700! 🙂

But RamIt is right....the best gaming laptops out there have Pentium Ms...so it's really a moot point which processor is better. If I played games on my laptop (god help me), I would probably own an XPS gen 2 or a 9300.

But just think...next year, when you're still paying with your XPSs, I will have the coolest new video card in my desktop...whichever one that may be (ATI x950? GeFroce 8000 Ultra?). And when the next coolest one comes out, I will get that too. And you guys will be stuck with that last years loser the 6800 go Ultra. Ha! 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Mike01

Just for fun, here is a 3DMark Benchmarks I just ran. My machine is not what I would consider a gaming laptop...it has a MR9600 (tested at 350/200)....but it is what I would consider a powerful laptop (A64 3700 2.4GHz, 1GB ram, 100GB hd, dl dvd burner.

3DMark03: 2949, 860 CPU
Click to expand...

Well said.
Post is about which is better for a gaming laptop, A64 or P4.
According to you, your A64 3700 is not a gaming laptop.

Fair enough.

Looking at P-M laptops with 9600 video, I can see what you mean compared to your A64.
http://notebookforums.com/showpost.php?p=130526&postcount=7
inspiron 8600
p m 1.5
512 meg ddr333
radeon 9600 pro 128meg
default settings (memory 624/core 392) 3dmark 2001se 11230 (DDR makes it same as 312/392)

or this one from an overclocker that I post only to show potential of P-M system.
http://notebookforums.com/showpost.php?p=724269&postcount=6
Pentium-M 1.6GHz w/ 2MB Cache 441MHz FSB - OCed to 1.77GHz
128MB ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 (405/310)
7:29 Hours Batt Life on Single
3DMark01 SE: 13,104
AquaMark3: 33,472

Or this one for a 3dm2003 score.
http://notebookforums.com/showpost.php?p=150790&postcount=16
All on default clocks
Pentium M 1.7GHZ, 1GB RAM (2x512)
ATI Radeon Mobility 9600
3D Mark 2003: 2850

Looks like A64 3700+ laptop can compare in 3dmark to about a P-M 1.8GHz laptop, when both use similar clocked video. I always thought it only took an A64 3400+ to keep up with the P-M 1.8GHz. Thanks for the info.😉 Just busting your chops now. Your laptop is not THAT bad 😉

Also note that a modern laptop like the i9300 has the go6800 video card in it, which is about twice as fast as these old 9600's.

(BTW, it should be noted that in many cases the Dell ATi drivers outperform the Omega drivers that many others use, which may explain why the same equiped Dell will run faster (3dmark 1.8 P-M Dell faster than 2.0 P-M Acer running Omega)).

To move on then.
P4 "was" the Intel powerhouse in notebooks, and the older Dell XPS/9100 with it's MR9800 Pro is an example of a good old gaming laptop. Technology improves, so most laptop makers have dropped the P4 from the high end laptops and moved up to the faster Pentium M (and because of all the other things P-M adds specifically for performance laptops). Dell uses these in the i9300 and XPS2. Even Intel has plans to drop the P4 line by the end of the year. So without judging AMD, at least you know the P-M is a better and faster CPU for a gaming laptop than the P4 was. Is it better than A64? That is for you to decide after looking at all the laptop benchmarks are reviews. If the A64 was better than the P4, (which it was), and the P-M is better than the P4 (which it is), then..........

Without thinking about CPU and video card, and instead asking what is the best laptop to get under $1500 that runs games thae fastest, and is the most future proof, then the answer is Dell i9300 with 6800 option. Nothing, and I mean nothing can compete at that price range for raw gaming performance. Or if you only have a $1000, pick up a i9200 with MR9700 from Dell outlet, and still be a player.
 
Originally posted by: Mike01

As for your old i9200...what were the settings of your benchmark test? All default (freeware) settings? I doubt that. Why?
Click to expand...

Sorry,

ATI MOBILITY RADEON 9600 (3dmark thinks all MR9700's are MR9600's. It is a MR9700)
Stock out of the box with no overclocking
446 MHz / 263 MHz = 3541 (same as Tom's shows for stock speed)
overclocked video
533 MHz / 313 MHz = 4201

When overclocking it is an apples to apples thing.
You simply overclock as high as you can go while still safely running all apps without graphical or system errors..
If one machine overclocks better than the other, and we are comparing overclocked numbers, then it is a better machine.

Here is an example of an AMD laptop with A64 3000+ and MR9700 (Acer 3400)
3DMark03 = 3594 overclocked
Compare to:
Here is an example of Dell i9200 with P-M 1.8GHz and MR9700
3dmark03 = 4201 overclocked

It takes a lot of video overclocking for the A64 3000+ to catch the stock clocked P-M 1.8GHz.

There is no need for me to post links to 3dmark scores. It is normal.
Mine are only average for a 1.8GHz P-M. If mine was higher than normal, I would link.
Go to madonions site and check out all the scores for various configurations.

I have no clue why another P-M PC with same or better specs would do worse.
Perhaps if you included links with your posts, it could be figured out?
It is common for some laptop manufacturers to underclock video cards so that heat is reduced and stability is improved. If it has no heat or stability issues, the manufacturer can clock it at higher or stock speeds. Is this a reason to look down on the faster one. Nope. If anything, look to the slower ones as neutered versions. If you have a cold running CPU to start with, you have more head room with temps for video cards. Just another plus for P-M.
 
Originally posted by: Mike01
Neither the p4 or the a64 are the best gaming at the moment. The P-M takes the crown.
Click to expand...

Proof please.

Every benchmark I've seen says the A64 is the best CPU for games.

Particularly, since it is now available in laptops, show me benchmarks with a CPU that can touch a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 in gaming performance.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I see what I'm doing wrong. Didn't find the "right" A64.
Could you please provide links to any laptop reviews that use a A64 3700+ 2.4GHz?
I'm sure that once I see the link and specs with it's 6800 Ultra, that you will be correct.:laugh:
Until then, many P-M's beat the numbers your A64 3700 2.4Ghz hits.
I9200 with MR9700, I9300 with 6800, XPS2 with 6800 Ultra are just three examples.

edit: did find a couple, but only reviewed Gateway scored about the same as Dell i8600 with P-M 1.7Ghz mainly due to it's video being similar to the i8600. It was sad that the new A64 3700+ had to turn video quality way down in order to run Doom3. Hoping to find the A64 3700+ with at least MR9700 (Fujitsu) or higher to run up against.


 
Okay....


We are not talking about what is a better gaming laptop. Right now, that's obvious. XPS 2 and 9300.

We're talking about what would make a better gaming CPU. For example, would an XPS be better if it had a A64 3700? I think it would.

The only benchmarks you've shown in last three posts with a 3DMark03 benchmark shows a 1.7GHz Pentium scoring 2850. 3DMark is not CPU intensive (unlike AquaMark3)...GPU makes the biggest difference...that's why 3DMark has a seperate CPU test. Yet this machine scored lower than mine anuyway.

So...what was it's CPU score? I noticed you left those out of your benchmarks.

Or did you want me to have a brain fart and compare 3DMark2001 scores to 2003 scores?? Why did you even post benchmark scores for which we have no basis for comparison?

In fact, the only benchmark you've shown where a PM laptop actually beats an A64 laptop is your old i9200, which manages to miraculously spank an equivalent A64 laptop in the same benchmark, contrary to every other benchmark both you and I have shown here.

This is the one item I am curious about...in all else, the numbers speak for themselves. I think you have a licensed copy of 3DMark 2003 and either turned off aniso filtering or changed some other settings (in the benchmark, not your laptop) and either don't remember that you did, or don't care to remember, and that is why you scored higher.

The fact that a 2.0GHz Pentium M scored lower than a 2.0GHz A64 with the same MR9700 video card, as reported by the proud Pentium M owner himself, shows this to be the case.

I don't need to show you link...it's on the Acer ferrari review forum that you originally linked to.

Madonions, huh? Google mad onions, and on the first page you will find links with the following:

"Why do ppl cheat on MadOnioNs Benchmarks?"

and

"lost of scores on madonions are fakes"

As for my laptop...it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that a laptop with 6800 go would play games faster...but that's not why I bought it...I never claimed MY laptop was a great gaming laptop...only that the A64 is a great gaming CPU, better than a Pentium M. Again, so far the ONLY benchmark you've shown to the contrary is that of your old i9200...and that is suspect.

Yes, a 9300 with 6800 would smoke my laptop in First Person Shooters...but I wonder which CPU could handle more units simultaneously in RTS games, or which would covert DiVX to mpeg in less time? Don't tell me...you have benchmarks for that too with your old i7200 that show that a 0.1GHz Pentium M smokes a 2.4GHz A64 is just about everything, right?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top