benchmarks

The Intel Core i7 upgrade for the Alienware M11x is well worth it (in some games)

Friday, July 16th, 2010

Clerarly the older processors are OK for most games, but I was amazed by the performance improvement of the Core i7 640M processor over the older Pentium SU4100 (even overclocked at 1.7 GHz) in some games, namely Shattered Horizon and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. So if you can afford it and don’t mind losing some battery life (45 min of Internet use), go for the Core i7 option.

Update: Looks like Dell has released a software update that gives an extra 45 minutes of battery life, so the Core i5/i7 models get much closer to the original Pentium/Core 2 Duo version.

GeForce GTX 480M benchmark compilation

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

The main benchmarking sites have already published results of the Nvidia GeForce GTX 480M (mobile Fermi). In case you missed some of them, here you have a compilation:

Please note that only the last 2 ones are apples-to-apples comparisons, because the older ones are comparing the GTX 480M paired with a desktop processor against the 5870 paired with a notebook processor.

In some games the GTX 480M gets an advantage of 25 or even 30%, but in many games both cards score similar results (maybe within a 10%; the average is a 19% in favor of the GTX 480M at Tom’s Hardware).

You can configure laptops with the Nvidia GeForce GTX 480M at well known assemblers such as Xotic PC, Cizmo and others.

Sager NP8850 (Built on Clevo W880CU) Gaming Laptop

Nvidia GeForce GTX 480M benchmarks (mobile Fermi): 10% faster than ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

As usual, the guys at Notebookcheck.net are among the first ones providing benchmarks of the lastest mobile graphics cards. They have published a review of the GTX 480M in the Clevo D901F that you can read in depth, but from their results, I have to say I’m not very impressed.

  • In Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Metro 2033 (DX11) the GTX 480M is 7-10% faster than the best score of the 5870
  • In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 both cards get nearly identical scores, and in Crysis the GTX 480M is a 6% slower than the 5870
  • DIRT 2 (DX11) is the only game where the GTX 480M really owns the 5870: it is a 38% faster.

So, is the GeForce GTX 480M faster than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870? Yes, it is. And probably the GTX 480M is going to perform better with newer drivers and newer games. But at the moment the price premium of the GTX 480M (490 USD over the GTX 285M, that is 75 USD over the 5870 configuring a gaming laptop at Xotic PC) is hard to justify.

Update: the guys at Hot  Hardware have benchmarked different games and get different results, more like a 30% in favor of the GTX 480M.

Update 2: more benchmarks at Notebookjournal.de

Update 3: even more benchmarks at Tom’s Hardware and AnandTech.

AMD 2010 platform for notebooks: it’s OK, but too expensive for the performance

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

PC Magazine publishes one of the first reviews of a laptop with AMD’s latest mobile platform, the HP Pavilion dv6-3013cl sporting an AMD Phenom II N930 quad-core processor and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250 integrated graphics. CPU-based benchmark scores are OK, close to the ones of an Intel Core i5 processor, but sometimes closer to those of a Core i3 and usually far from the slowest quad-core processor from Intel, the Core i7 720QM. Battery life is OK, too (3:42 h). So nothing is wrong about this laptop (as long as you do not plan to play any games on it).

In fact, the main problem is price: if you go to shopping.hp.com to customise a HP Pavilion dv6t with a Core i5 430M, that is a bit faster than the quad-core Phenom II N930, you finish with a price 45 USD cheaper than a similarly configured HP Pavilion dv6z with a triple-core Phenom II N830.

It seems high-end AMD processors for laptops are too expensive for the performance they offer. Fix the prices and they are a perfectly good option.

Laptop graphics card comparison: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870, 5850, 5730, 5650, 5470 and Nvidia GeForce GTX 480M, GTX 285M, GTX 260M, GTS 360M, GT 330M, 310M

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

My last compilation of laptop graphics card benchmarks is too old, so here you have the new version. I’m only covering the last generation of graphics card, and only the most common ones: if the graphics card you are looking for is not here, go to Notebookcheck or use Google (look for the 3DMark Vantage Performance score of the card for a quick comparison). Some remarks:

  • I know, the tables at Notebookcheck are much more informative, but can be confusing and some info is lacking. I think this presentation is more useful for many people.
  • 3DMark Vantage is a synthetic benchmark. It gives you an approximate idea of the performance of a graphics card, but actual gaming performance of a card can be quite different. It’s better to compare ATI vs ATI or Nvidia vs Nvidia, because many games are better optimized for a brand or the other.
  • Crysis benchmarks on High settings (1024×768) are included. Crysis is not a very current game, but it gives you a good idea of the ability of a card to play current games at high settings (remember that 30 fps is generally considered as smooth gameplay). But some newer games, such as Metro 2033, are more demanding (have a look at the comment about quality levels of Metro 2033 in the Yougamers review).
  • I have only included single card configurations, mainly to keep things simple, but also because the contribution of the 2nd card is very variable depending on the benchmark/game, driver version and so.
  • Bottom line: get at least a Nvidia GeForce GT 330M if you plan to play games, or a GTS 360M or faster if you are serious about gaming.

Feel free to post comments to add your experiences and other relevant information (preferably with links to the sources!).

Are you interested on laptops sold in Spain? Go to the Spanish version.

Gaming on Laptops

Laptop benchmarks: GeForce GTX 285M SLI vs Mobility Radeon HD 4870 CrossFireX (Clevo vs Alienware)

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

The always excellent French site Portables4Gamers has benchmarked two mobile gaming beasts: a Cizmo Qi1840 (based on the barebone Clevo X8100) with the Nvidia GeForce GTX 285M SLI and an Alienware M17x with the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4870 CrossFireX. As expected, the result depends a lot on the game and the settings, so look at the charts carefully.

Read: SLI GeForce GTX 285M vs Crossfire Mobility Radeon HD 4870

Update: Notebook Critic also publishes a comparison, but with the 280M instead of the 285M.

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650 benchmarks

Friday, December 18th, 2009

I was not aware that any laptop sporting an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5000 series was available, but I have found some benchmarks of the Mobility HD 5650 at Notebookjournal.de. It performs faster than the Mobility 4670, but not by a lot. So it seems a good successor for the Mobility 4650, but nothing revolutionary.

Update: Notebookcheck has added their review of the 5650.

Nvidia GeForce GT 230M, GT 240M and GTS 250M benchmarks

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

The Nvidia GeForce GT 230M and 240M are becoming quite popular in mainstream and multimedia laptops, while the GTS 250M is being introduced in high-end and gaming laptops. So I think it’s interesting to have a look at the available benchmarks (mainly from Notebookjournal.de and Notebookcheck).

The GT 230M and 240M perform quite similarly, giving enough performance in most games at low resolutions and medium or high settings. The GT 240M gives 10-20% more performance than the 230M. The problem is that the good ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 is faster than the GT 240M, sometimes by a good margin. Of course both are faster than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4570. The GT 230M is used in many HP Pavilion laptops, such as the dv6t Quad , dv7t Quad and dv8t (UK link).

The GTS 250M could look like a gaming card because of the GTS prefix, but in many cases its performance is way lower than that of the GTX 260M, specially at high resolutions, and in many cases it’s closer to the one of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4670. The GTS 250M is often found in Core i7 laptops.

At the end of the day, the decision is going to depend a lot on pricing and the actual games you play, but generally speaking:

GTX 260M >> GTS 250M > HD 4670 > HD 4650 > GT 240M > GT 230M > GT 220M >> HD 4570


Main sources: GT 240M benchmarks at Notebookjournal.de, GTS 250M benchmarks at Notebookjournal.de

See also the benchmarks at Notebookcheck (go to the bottom of the page):

Intel Core i7 for laptops benchmarked (720QM, 820QM, 920XM)

Monday, September 21st, 2009

So the guys at PC Pro are first publishing benchmarks of the Mobile Core i7 processor for laptops.

  • Performance-wise, the results are quite interesting: the mid-range Core i7-820QM (quad-core running at 1.73 GHz stock) is about as fast as the top of the line Core 2 Extreme QX9300, and it seems to cost arount 470 USD less.
  • Battery-wise, it is hard to extract firm conclusions because the power draw measurements were measured for the full system and in laptops with very different configurations (the Core i7 was paired with a GeForce GT 240M while the Core 2 Extreme was paired with a Quadro FX3700M (comparable to a GTX 280M). Anyway, the 6-cell battery (4,800 mAh) of the Core i7 laptop lasted for more than 200 minutes of light use, that’s very good for a high-performance laptop.

Stay tuned for more performance data of the Mobile Core i7 processors.

Found via: Portables4Gamers, Engadget, Fudzilla.

Update: more benchmarks. The advantage of the i7-920XM over the QX9300 is not embarrassing, but considerable. I’m still not convinced by the battery life tests.

Do you know what’s the best Core i7 processor for your next laptop? Have a look at the Core i7 laptops list.

Laptop vs Desktop: GeForce GTX 280M vs GTX 280 (Tom’s Hardware)

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

It was already known that the Nvidia GeForce GTX 280M was less powerful than the desktop version, because it used the older graphics core (very similar to that of the 9800M GTX+) and not the newer one found in the GTX 280. The guys at Tom’s Hardware have actually measured the difference. Long story short: it is a 40% slower, but click the link if you want to see the difference in several games and settings.