performance

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.

Empire: Total War in low-end laptops

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

I have seen some questions in other forums asking about a the ability of a certain laptop to play Empire: Total War, and I was curious to see that game and to test it on my laptop, so I promptly launched Steam and downloaded the demo.

The graphics card of my laptop is an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 (256 MB DDR2) and the processor is an Intel Core 2 Duo T5800 (2.0 GHz). More details in my Dell Studio 1537 review.

I set the resolution to 1280×800 and Low graphics. Gameplay was OK, with framerates of 23-26 FPS most of the time, that occasionally dropped to around 15 when looking closely at a battle, but nothing that could difficult the control of you units. So I have to say that, at least in the battle conditions of the demo, the game is playable.

The problem is that Empire: Total War is plain ugly at Low settings. Please look at this screenshot, and notice the blurry mounted units at left and the soldiers at right.

Empire: Total War at Low settings

This does not happen at Medium settings, but my laptop gets 8-14 FPS even at 800×600 and with AA off (Medium settings include a x2 AA).

You can expect similar playability with other low-end graphics cards: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3410, 3430, 3470 and Nvidia GeForce 9200M GS and 9300M GS. Newer low-end graphics cards such as an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4330 or the Nvidia GeForce G 105M should perform better, but not dramatically. If I were looking for a laptop to play Empire: Total War, I’d pick at least an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 (but a 4530 or 4570 would probably be OK), Nvidia GeForce 9600M, GT 120M or similar. With an ATI 3200 it could be playable at 1024×768, but I have my doubts about an Intel GMA 4500MHD, even at 800×600.

Empire: Total War is known to be very processor-intensive and, while I think the slowdowns I have experienced are related to the graphics card, it’s quite possible than in battles larger than the ones seen in the demo a slow processor could be a bottleneck. So a 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T6400 or Pentium Dual Core T4200 (or a 2.4 GHz AMD Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86) are OK, but a faster processor (such as an Intel Core 2 Duo P8400 2.26 GHz or better) is a safer bet. Probably any current dual core processor is OK in most situations.

To summarize, if you don’t mind graphical quality, you would be probably OK with any laptop with a low-end dedicated graphics card and a dual core processor, but in my opinion a faster graphics card is a must to really enjoy the game.

ATI Radeon HD 4770: great performance/price ratio but high idle power consumption

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

ATI released today the Radeon HD 4770, world’s first graphics card built on a 40 nm manufacturing process (but the Mobility Radeon HD 4830 and 4860 were announced first). Here you have the first available reviews:

The main conclusion is that this card has an excellent performance/price ratio: with a recommended price of 109 USD its performance is higher than that of the HD 4830 and similar to that of the HD 4850.

I was personally interested on this card because I’m thinking about upgrading my HD 3450, but I see that in my case it is a bad option: my computer is on may hours, but I play games very seldom, so I’m looking for a graphics card with a very low idle power consumption and I was thinking on the HD 4670. The HD 4770, in spite of the 40 nm manufacturing process, has an idle power consumption much higher than the HD 4670. So my first option still is the HD 4670, even with a much lower performance. The power consumption of the HD 4770 under heavy load IS much lower than that of graphics cards of similar performance, so in this situation the 40 nm manufacturing process shows its efficiency.

At the moment none of my sponsors has the HD 4770 available.

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 gaming benchmarks (Call of Duty 4, Crysis, World of Warcraft, F.E.A.R. 2, Sacred 2, Red Alert 3, Unreal Tournament 3, World in Conflict, GRID, Far Cry, Half Life 2)

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

GPU-Z ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 is a quite common graphics card, often found in cheap laptops and its gaming performance higher than integrated graphics cards. While it is not a gaming graphics card, it delivers an acceptable performance in not very demanding games and, when resolution and detail level are kept low, even in the lastest titles. We are going to examine its performance in the demos of the games Call of Duty 4, Crysis, F.E.A.R. 2, Sacred 2, Red Alert 3, Unreal Tournament 3, World in Conflict, Race Driver: GRID, Far Cry y Half Life 2.  If not otherwise noted, all fps measurements were taken using FRAPS.

All tests have been performed in the demo versions, not in the full games. What impact can you expect on the measured performance? Usually the full game is better optimized, specially after one of more patches have been released, so performance can be better in the full game; but it is also usual that the full game has scenes of a higher visual complexity than the demo, resulting in a lower performance in such scenes.

All tests have been performed on a Dell Studio 15 sporting an Intel Core 2 Duo T5800 (2.0 GHz), 3 GB de RAM DDR2-800 and Windows Vista Home Premium SP1. Stock drivers were used. So both a faster processor and newer drivers can deliver better results. Results are expressed in fps (frames per second).

Call of Duty 4 (COD4)

  • Best performance: 800×600, everything Low or Off: 33-84 fps (average 50.4).
  • Native resolution: 1280×800, everything Low or Off: 8-48 fps (average 27.1)
  • Good compromise 1: 1024×768, Normal textures, all other settings Low or Off: 12-61 fps (average 31.1 fps)
  • Good compromise 2 (picture): 800×600, Low textures, all other settings Low or Off excepting Shadows On, Dynamic lights Low: 15-62 fps (average 30.0 fps)

At 800×600 and all settings at the minimum it is completely smooth, but visually the game is ugly and, removing shadows and most effects, it feels quite unrealistic. With shadows on and dynamic lights the game is more realistic and it is still quite playable. In conclusion, it is very playable if resolution and detail settings are kept low.

Call of Duty 4

Crysis

  • Best performance: 800×600, everything Low: 13-40 fps (average 25.3).

The demo is playable at 800×600 and even at 1024×768, but gameplay is not very smooth and can be annoying. In addition, some effects, such as fog and smoke, cause a noticeable reduction in fps, and this can be a problem in the full game: caution. The game is visually nice, but Crysis at minimum settings is not Crysis…

Crysis

World of Warcraft

  •  1280×800, Fair settings but High resolution textures: 22-30 fps (average 25.1).
  • Also playable at 800×600, Good settings (fps not measured).

I took the 10-days free trial. It’s very playable at 1280×800 and Fair settings, and you can even use High resolucion textures. Beware of expansions (mainly Wrath of the Lich King), because they need more graphics power.

World of Warcraft

F.E.A.R. 2 : Project Origin

  • 800×600, everything at minimum, shadows On: 10-61 fps (average 30.7).

I was surprised that one of the lastest games, F.E.A.R. 2, is playable in my modest laptop. Visual quality is quite good, but performance is lower when there are spectres and phantoms nearby, scoring 10-32 fps (average 29.7), so caution with the full game. Removing shadows will result in better performance, but in a game like this one I think it is very nice to keep them on.

F.E.A.R. 2

I uploaded a short video (30 s) to Youtube.

Sacred 2: Fallen Angel

  • Best performance: 1024×768, Low: 15-53 fps (average 33.5).
  • Native resolution: 1280×800, Low (picture): 13-38 fps (average 30.0).

It is good to find a game that works nicely at the native resolution of the monitor. fps scores are not very impressive, but this kind of game does not need as many fps as first person shooters. Perfectly playable.

Sacred 2

Red Alert 3

  • Native resolution: 1280×800, Low: around 30 fps.

Perfectly playable at 1280×800 and Low settings, but going to Medium quality results in slow moving units and laggy scroll, and that is a pity, because Medium graphics look really nice.

Red Alert 3

Race Driver: GRID

  • Best performance: 800×600, Low (picture): 30-40 fps (average 45.0).
  • Native resolution: 1280×800, Low: 13-31 fps (average 24.5).
  • Better quality: 800×600, Medium, MSAA Off: 14-22 fps (average 18.8).

Perfectly playable at 1280×800 and Low details, but it becomes too laggy for me at Medium details, even at 800×600.

Race Driver: GRID

World in Conflict

Tests performed using the built-in demo benchmark tool, not with FRAPS:

  • Good performance: 1024×768, Low: 12-114 fps (average 40 fps).
  • Native resolution: 1280×800, Very Low: 10-110 fps (average 42.0 fps).
  • Good compromise (picture): 1280×800, Low: 10-96 fps (average 34.0 fps).

The demo benchmark tool gives low fps when the big bomb is released, but playing the demo gameplay is smooth and visual quality is good. It is possible that, if big explosions are usual in the full game, playability can suffer, so caution.

World in Conflict

Unreal Tournament 3

  • Best performance: 800×600, everything quality 1 (picture): 31-57 fps (average 42).
  • Better resolution: 1024×768, everything quality 1 : 22-34 fps (average 27).
  • Better quality: 800×600, everything quality 2: 24-49 fps (average 35.7).

All tests performed in the map ShangriLa, that seems to be more demanding. In a multiplayer deathmatch you really want 30 fps at least, but you can get them. While graphic detail is low, gameplay is very smooth and visual quality is not bad (compare the textures below with the ones in the COD4 picture).

Unreal Tournament 3

Far Cry

  • Best performance: 800×600, everything Low: 110-200 fps (average 148).
  • High quality: 1280×800, everything High (texture filter quality Medium): 19-31 fps (average 26.7).
  • Good compromise: 1280×800, everything Medium (picture): 27-50 fps (average 40.0).

Far Cry is from 2004, but at that time it was one of the more demanding games in the market: at 1280×800 and medium details I still wish it was a bit more smooth. Anyway, it is very playable and visual quality is good.

Far Cry

Half Life 2

While contemporary of Far Cry, it is perfectly playable at 1280×800 and maximum quality: it is so smooth I did not bother recording the fps. Counter Strike: Source uses the same graphics engine (Source) and is from 2004 too, so it is likely that you can play this game at high details too.

Half Life 2

Other current games

Sadly many new popular games do not have an available demo, but you can guess if they are going to be playable:

  • Far Cry 2: playable on similar cards such as the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3200 at 1024×600 and Low details, so it has to be playable on the 3450.
  • Fallout 3: playable on an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3470 with a mix of medium and low details, so it is probably playable at low details on the 3450.
  • Left 4 Dead: seems to run very well on a desktop 3450, that is marginally more powerfull than the Mobility version, so it is likely playable at an acceptable quality.
  • GTA IV: it is a poorly optimized game that needs a powerful computer. Probably NOT playable.

Conclusions

Is the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 a gaming graphics card? NO! But lets you play many current games at low detail and resolution. As that the tests have been performed in the demo version and not the full game, I would be cautious before buying a game when the demo was barely playable. If you enjoy playing current games at good quality, it is better for you to look for a “600 series” graphics card at least: Mobility Radeon HD 2600 or 3650, or Nvidia 8600 or 9600. You can be interested on the laptop graphics card comparison or on other articles in the benchmarks section.

If you play games on this card, leave a comment and tell us your experiences!

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3670 gaming benchmarks vs Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT

Monday, January 19th, 2009

The new Dell Studio XPS 16 (1640) sports an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3670 and maybe you are disappointed, because you expected a Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT. So what is the actual gaming performance of the Mobility Radeon HD 3670? The first reviews have popped out, so we can compare a few scores:

Game and configuration HD 3670 (fps) 9600M GT (fps) Source
Crysis: Medium details, 1024×768, AA off, AF off 16.2 17.8* PC Magazine
Crysis: High details, 1920×1080, AA off, AF 4x 1.6 1.8* PC Magazine
World in Conflict: Medium details, 1024×768, AA off, AF off 18 20* PC Magazine
World in Conflict: High details, 1920×1080, AA off, AF 4x 6 7* PC Magazine
Unreal Tournament 3: unspecified details, 1280×800, AA off, AF off 57.3 64.3** CNET
F.E.A.R.: Autodetect, 1024×768 77 77* Laptop Magazine
F.E.A.R.: Maximum detail, 1920×1080 24 N.D. Laptop Magazine

* 512 MB DDR2 version, with an Intel Core 2 Duo T9600 (2.8 GHz, 6 MB cache)
** 512 MB GDDR3 version, with an Intel Core 2 Duo T9600 (2.8 GHz, 6 MB cache)

All benchmarks for the Mobility Radeon HD 3670 (512 MB GDDR3) were performed using an Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 (2.4 GHz, 3 MB cache). So it is hard to tell if the 10% advantage in favor of the Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT DDR2 is because of the graphics card itself or because of the faster processor. Anyway, both the Mobility Radeon HD 3670 and the GeForce 9600M GT DDR2 are clearly very similar in performance.

Please tell me about any more gaming benchmarks you can find!

Laptop reviews: Dell Latitude E4300, Acer Aspire 6930G, Asus N10, Samsung X460 and others

Sunday, December 14th, 2008

Laptop reviews of the week:

Other interesting reviews:

Asus N10 gaming benchmarks (Intel Atom + Nvidia GeForce 9300M). It looks like the Atom processor is an important bottleneck in most games.

Do you want to be always up-to-date in laptop reviews? Subscribe to the news section of Towards the optimal laptop.

PC games system requirements

Monday, December 1st, 2008

I play games PC games very seldom, but I have to admit that I’m fascinated by gaming, and I’m very interested on everything related to gaming benchmarks, because most laptop graphics cards are not upgradeable and it is very important to compare the performance offered by a laptop with the performance demanded by games. I recently found a very useful tool: the Yougamers’ Game-o-meter.

This tool, that is donwloaded and executed from the browser, makes a fast assessment of your computer based on its Virtualmark score (based on 3DMark) and compares it to the one of the minimum and recommended components according to the game’s developer. It is not as informative as benchmarks for the same card, that show you the playable settings, but it is much better that a comparison with older graphics cards: is my Radeon HD 3450 faster or slower than a GeForce 6800 GT? Humm…

PC games system requirements

It looks like my PC is borderline to run Fallout 3…

The list of games is not huge, but it does include the most popular games. In my opinion, it is very useful.

PC Games at Buy.com

Intel Core i7 (Nehalem) performance

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

Yesterday the first independent reviews of the new generation of Intel processors, the Core i7 (formerly known as Nehalem), were published. As usual, the results are good, but not as much as expected from the data published by Intel:

  • Comparing Core i7 processors with Core 2 Quad and Extreme running at the same frequency, the Core i7 are between a 0 and a 40% faster.
  • The performance increase greatly depends on the kind of task: in single-threaded tasks, the increase is small or inexistent.
  • In most general applications the performance increase is 5-10%.
  • In digital content creation applications and video transcoding the performance increase is 10-25%, and in some specific cases can go over 35%.
  • Power consumption is marginally higher than that of Core 2 processors. As performance per W is higher, Core i7 processors are more efficient than Core 2 ones, but full system power usage is around 10% higher. If this increase is due to memory, chipset or other components is yet to be determined.
  • Pricing of Core i7 processors is going to be similar to Core 2 ones of the same frequency, but the need of new motherboards (Intel X58 chipset), DDR3 memory and new cooling solutions will bring the price up. The higher price of the whole platform can be worth it if you have to replace your computer for a new one or if you need the increase in specific applications.
  • Intel Core i7 processors and Intel X58 boards will be available later in November. At the moment there are no news about a version for laptop computers According to our user Arioch, the laptop version (code-named Clarksfield, Calpella platform) is planned for Q3 2009.

Here you have the reviews: ExtremeTech, PC Perspective, Tom’s Hardware, AnandTech; there are others compiled by Engadget.

And, speaking about desktop computer components, Dell just launched the XPS 430 in some countries.

Far Cry 2 on laptops benchmarks: what graphics card do you need to run it?

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

Far Cry 2

So Far Cry 2 is already here and you want to know if your laptop is going to play it fine… Or maybe you are going to purchase a new laptop and want to be sure that it is powerful enough to play Far Cry 2 at high quality. People are posting benchmarks here and there and now we have some information.

Can be played with any current low-end dedicated graphics card. Users are reporting playable frame rates (25-30 FPS) with an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3200 at 1024×600 and low settings. Other users are happily playing it with an Nvidia GeForce 8400M GS (at 720×480 and 2x AA).

It is very enjoyable with any good graphics card. Users are reporting good frame rates (over 35 FPS) with an overclocked Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT DDR2 at 1280×800 and a mixture of High and Very High settings.

High-end dual cards get a lot of performance. Users are reporting 50+ FPS with a Nvidia GeForce 9800M GTX SLI at 1680×1050 and Ultra High settings.

Source: Notebook Review message boards. You can look at my laptop graphics card comparison to compare these cards with yours.

As said in Guru3D: if you can play Crysis, you can play Far Cry 2 better.

Nvidia GeForce 9400M benchmarks (Crysis, Call of Duty 4, Spore, Warhammer Online…)

Thursday, October 16th, 2008


MacBook now up to 2.4 GHz

There is a lot of interest about the graphics card of the new aluminium Macbook, but there is little information available at the moment. I will try to summarize here the available benchmarks:

3DMark 06

  • Notebookcheck estimates a score of 2000 at default settings. No info about how the estimation was calculated. 3DMark scores of other cards.
  • At the review of the new Macbook, PC Magazine publishes scores of 2344 at 1024×768, AA/AF off, and 2044 at 1280×800, 0x/4x.

Games

In addition, AnandTech publishes a comparison of current integrated graphics, including the GeForce 9400, but the desktop version. The difference in performance between the desktop and Macbook versions of the GeForce 9400 is unknown.

Did you find more benchmarks? Post a comment and tell us.