After changing CPU the 3DMark 2001 SE Score is the same!!

MikePT · Nov 4, 2002, 06:10 PM

Hi everybody.

I have replaced my P4 1.6Ghz (Desktop Northwood) of my Notebook Asus L3800S for a P4 2.4Ghz.
This Notebook comes with a ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 with 32MB and the 3DMark 2001 SE score is almost the same i had (around 3900 in 1024x768x32) when i was using the P4 1.6GHZ.
It's not the CPU because in PCMark2002 i am having around 5600 and with the 1.6GHZ CPU i had 3800.

What the hell is hapening? It's the 32MB that causes the bottleneck or what? I tried several drivers.

Nov 4, 2002, 08:38 PM

Is it possible that "Disable advanced CPU instructions " is checked ??

In other words maybe your not getting any help from your CPU.

MikePT · Nov 4, 2002, 09:16 PM

Where can i check that option?

digitalwanderer · Nov 4, 2002, 09:23 PM

I think your card is holding you back, I think you'd already maxxed it out with your previous CPU and that's why you're seeing no difference. The card is running as fast as it can, it just ain't built to keep up with that kind of processing power.

JavaFox · Nov 4, 2002, 10:13 PM

I agree with DW. I just recently upgraded from a 1.4GHz Tbird to a 1600+. Even when overclocked to 1.8GHz, the 3DMark score is not all that different. I'd definitely say that your video adapter is holding your score back.

digitalwanderer · Nov 4, 2002, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
I agree with DW.

I think I'm gonna copy this and go stick it in that other thread....

LOL!

MikePT · Nov 4, 2002, 11:01 PM

If the cards is holding back why is Tom (www.tomshardware.com) is having a score of 5459 using a P4-M 2.0Ghz (Slower than mine) and a ATI Mobility Radeon 7500?!?

He clocked the ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 to 280Mhz Core 400Mhz Memory and i have done the same, i am getting arround 4450, same as i was getting with my older P4 1.6Ghz.

Here is the link:

http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/0...on9000-03.html

And i have browse the 3DMark2001 SE scores of ATI RADEON 7500 cards and with a P4 2.4Ghz they got results like 6000 and more.

Duh?!?!? I'm going CRAZY!!!

Nov 4, 2002, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikePT
If the cards is holding back why is Tom (www.tomshardware.com) is having a score of 5459 using a P4-M 2.0Ghz (Slower than mine) and a ATI Mobility Radeon 7500?!?

He clocked the ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 to 280Mhz Core 400Mhz Memory and i have done the same, i am getting arround 4450, same as i was getting with my older P4 1.6Ghz.

Here is the link:

http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/0...on9000-03.html

And i have browse the 3DMark2001 SE scores of ATI RADEON 7500 cards and with a P4 2.4Ghz they got results like 6000 and more.

Duh?!?!? I'm going CRAZY!!!

My friend there are alot of things that could be different on those systems with better scores.
In no way is having the same cpu and grafics card even the same clock settings gonna garantee that you can get the same scores.

Tweaking our Graphics card to its max is only the beginning of the hunt for the top score we also have to tweak our systems as well.

My suggestion is :
Dont worry yourself about that type of B.S. .
If your games play good do you really care about the damn benchmark results ??
Imagine how bad its gonna play if you burn your card trying to reach those scores ??

In the end its not really worth it after all the tweaking and extreme overclocking all you really gain is shortening you components life time.

MikePT · Nov 5, 2002, 12:35 AM

I just overclocked to see the if my system could have similar results to those of tom's, my card runs at normal speed when i am playing games.

And you statement that that similar systems don't give similar results it's false.
If you browse the madonion 3DMark2001 SE Database you will see that similar systems give similar results, and the millions of reviews found in the net shows that also, the results are somewhat similar.

And Tom didn't tweak anything else besides the Ati Mobility Radeon 7500.

It's not only 3DMark 2001 SE that shows me below average scores, UT 2003 also gives me below average results with the new 2.4GHZ CPU against similar machines acording to reviews found in the net (like the one of the Winbook J4 2.4Ghz in http://www.anandtech.com), it gives me the same fps that i had previously with my 1.6Ghz CPU.

I am just trying to figure out why my Mobility Radeon 7500 does not have better results with a 800Mhz faster CPU, it's not normal, i don't think the card is already to the max, maybe the memory of my card is bad or the bios of my notebook is locking something, i just wanted to figure it out.

DriveEuro · Nov 5, 2002, 12:43 AM

You maxed that stuff out, I've done the same thing with my old cpu, the card is running full out, you can't get anymore 3dmark points....

G@MeBoY · Nov 5, 2002, 03:55 AM

In Tom's hardware guide, they are gettin' 6303marks with radeon9000, I'm gettin' 6798.....So ? They are gettin' 9870 with Siluro Ti4200, My friend and I got 10780, In both cases, no OC-ing involved. We just didnn't use samsung memory banks, but we used infeneon and ET (infeneon is DDR 333 and ET is 266 and they give the same result !!! With samsung mem, 333, we got the SAME score as they did.) Anyway, he probablly has a different brand of memory, different mobo etc. etc. They might aslo be fakeing it, check madonion for systems JUST LIKE yours !!! Your system might be weaker in AGP BUS speed, or your Graphic Card might have different memory (e.g. another revision, perhaps worse ?)..you never know until you mach it with system JUST like yours....
I just switched from ECS K7S5A to ASUS A7V266-C and got 6800 marks instead of 6550 from ECS, no OC-ing, same settings, better mobo....

digitalwanderer · Nov 5, 2002, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikePT
If the cards is holding back why is Tom (www.tomshardware.com) is having a score of 5459 using a P4-M 2.0Ghz (Slower than mine) and a ATI Mobility Radeon 7500?!?

[SIZE=large]...SATAN?!?!?" [/SIZE]

[SIZE=small](In my best churchlady voice)[/SIZE]

Desert_Siege · Nov 5, 2002, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by G@MeBoY
In Tom's hardware guide, they are gettin' 6303marks with radeon9000, I'm gettin' 6798.....So ? They are gettin' 9870 with Siluro Ti4200, My friend and I got 10780, In both cases, no OC-ing involved. We just didnn't use samsung memory banks, but we used infeneon and ET (infeneon is DDR 333 and ET is 266 and they give the same result !!! With samsung mem, 333, we got the SAME score as they did.) Anyway, he probablly has a different brand of memory, different mobo etc. etc. They might aslo be fakeing it, check madonion for systems JUST LIKE yours !!! Your system might be weaker in AGP BUS speed, or your Graphic Card might have different memory (e.g. another revision, perhaps worse ?)..you never know until you mach it with system JUST like yours....
I just switched from ECS K7S5A to ASUS A7V266-C and got 6800 marks instead of 6550 from ECS, no OC-ing, same settings, better mobo....

I went from running an Epox 8K7A+ and an Athlong XP1600+ @ 1700, to an MSI KT3 Ultra 2R and all the exact same components I had before, processor is only running at 1667 now because of Vcore limitations, and my 3DMark score went from 10280, to 11479. Only thing different is mobo.

Nov 5, 2002, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikePT
And you statement that that similar systems don't give similar results it's false.
If you browse the madonion 3DMark2001 SE Database you will see that similar systems give similar results, and the millions of reviews found in the net shows that also, the results are somewhat similar.

No my friend i have to say that you are wrong.

A simple example is that you can setup two identical systems and still not get a 100% identical score.

In the TomsHardware test he may have not tweaked anything but be sure that his system is setup as good as possible.

And in the Madonion browser it doesnt say what type of ram one uses or the manufacturer of the vid card(this makes a big difference).

Matth · Nov 5, 2002, 05:25 PM

All tests have an error margin, application-realistic tests more so than pure theoretical - ok, I KNOW is shows the same pattern of moves, but a realtime, frame rate based test is more easily disturbed than a "timed completion test". Take the largest error between two runs on the same machine, and multiply that by a factor of two at least, for a supposedly identical machine - and a LOT more for a supposedly identical spec with different core components.

For the same CPU speed, and video card clock rates, the major factor may be bus transfer rate - also influenced by memory performance.

I have PC100 SDRAM, and a 200FSB Athlon 1200 - and I know I do considerably worse than systems with DDR or 266FSB and PC133 - the chipset is also significant.

Bearin mind also, that avid performance testers may be running "stripped down", with all nonessentials terminated.

G@MeBoY · Nov 5, 2002, 05:40 PM

I apollogize, 6303 marks on R9000 were on bench-house not on tom's hardwr.

here, some usefull links to compare your mobility radeon:

http://www.firing-squad.com (maybe it's without a dash, not sure)
http://www.bench-house.com
and of course, this forum

Maybe Tom's hardware guide is lying, you know, they had some issues before, like a large company pays for better ressults

MikePT · Nov 5, 2002, 08:00 PM

I know every benchmarks have a marging error, even on the same system, but more than 1000 diference in 3DMArk2001 SE is not margin, and half the FPS in UT2003 of a Winbook J4 2.4Ghz (reviewed in http://www.anandtech.com) is also not normal.

I think i figured it out, it's my Mobility Radeon with 32MB only has 64Bit bus, if it had 64MB it had a 128bit bus, i read that somewhere.

This card with 32MB it's maxxed out with this 2.4GHZ CPU.

I must say that my Notebook with this 2.4GHZ RULES!!! Even with the RADEON maxed out.

Agent Smith · Nov 5, 2002, 09:25 PM

Ive been readin this saga for a while and ill ive got to say is it took you this long to simply agree?

i mean your card has half the ram of the other one which you never mentioned before and you expected the same speed? lol

MikePT · Nov 6, 2002, 01:40 AM

It's not the amount of memory that does the difference, because my results in low resolutions like 640x480x16 are much lower than the ones i found around the net, and at that lower resolutions the cards memory it's not totally used.

It's the card fillrate (single and multitexturing) that is lower than average becase the radeon model i have as 32MB internal memory and it uses a 64Bit DDR bus.
There are 3 configurations for Mobility Radeon 7500

16MB internal = has 64bit DDR bus
16MB internal + 16MB external = has 128bit DDR bus
32MB internal = has 64bit DDR bus
32MB internal + 32Mb external = has 128bit DDR bus

Oh... and i did mention the 32MB in the VERY FIRST POST I MADE, i guess you are the one who is blind.

Agent Smith · Nov 6, 2002, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikePT
It's not the amount of memory that does the difference, because my results in low resolutions like 640x480x16 are much lower than the ones i found around the net, and at that lower resolutions the cards memory it's not totally used.

It's the card fillrate (single and multitexturing) that is lower than average becase the radeon model i have as 32MB internal memory and it uses a 64Bit DDR bus.
There are 3 configurations for Mobility Radeon 7500

16MB internal = has 64bit DDR bus
16MB internal + 16MB external = has 128bit DDR bus
32MB internal = has 64bit DDR bus
32MB internal + 32Mb external = has 128bit DDR bus

Oh... and i did mention the 32MB in the VERY FIRST POST I MADE, i guess you are the one who is blind.

really eh?

then read what i said again

i never said that you didnt say that your card was only 32MB

but you didnt mention that the toms one was 64MB till just a couple posts back not sooner

as for what i meant was that by having half of the memory and it being only one chip meant it only had half of the bus that the 64MB model had so only half of the effective thoroughput in some situations

trust me on hardware youll find me very hard to bust....i usually do not make errors.

G@MeBoY · Nov 6, 2002, 05:30 AM

You also didn't mention what OS are you runnin' ? I suposse that you are running XP since it probablly came with your Laptop/Notebook whatever...I got 61 flyby and 26 botmaatch under XP but in win98 67 flyby & 46 botmatch !!! huge difference in bot matches ! Win98 uses less mem, and XP is stupid with freeing up ressurcess....

MikePT · Nov 6, 2002, 09:52 AM

Agent Smith.

You have just made one mistake, the Mobility Radeon 7500 as only one chip no matter the memory configuration, the diference is that if it only has internal memory it runs at 64Bit and if it has external memory it runs at 128bit.

And about not posting that in tom's review the card was 64MB, i indicated the url, perhaps you would like me to post ALL REVIEW in here?!?!?

MikePT · Nov 6, 2002, 09:58 AM

Yes, i am using Windows XP Professional, the one that came with my notebook was XP Home.
Man, i don't do gaming for a living, i'm not going to install that huge virus!

Many of you seem to "look" at me and see a lamer, but hey, that's not remotely true, i'm just changed my processor (Desktop) of my notebook, i changed my hard disk, i had my notebook wide open (and my warranty was still valid

, like many other systems i had. So take it easy with me.

G@MeBoY · Nov 7, 2002, 02:10 AM

I dont consider you a lammer, never crrosed my mind...anyway, my XP was about1.8GB in some 3 weeks, win 98 never "spreaded" so much, not even in 3 months!!! (I reinstall all my sistems, allways, every three monts). I am not a gamer for the living, but after a whole day of working, I like to play whole evening

. XP doesnt want to run FarStone VirtualDrive, Gets confused with NeroImage drive (a have A LOT OF IMAGES that I made from my CD's and use them all the time) Win XP slows my surrfin' with all thoese security checkings that one ZOneAlarm and AtGuard does better....I am runnin' 256RAM, and it really should be more than enough for any OS, but not for XP !! He wants MORE !! and I won't give him !!

, also, I cant compare 4 secs of booting up Win98se, with 30 of XP... (I time to the point when everithing stops loading and hourglass dissapears). XP is god, but not for me...

Also, you cant get 128 bit pipeline by just adding ram module, it is internall arhitecture of vid card and how fast it comunicates with memory, the external memory could have 128 bit pipeline capability, but if your GPU works on 64, he wont work on 128 but only 64...It's like having CPU that is 64 bit, and than adding an 128 bit GPU and say that cpu now works on 128 bit pipeline with GPU, it doesent !!! Although, extra RAM could make such an performance increase, but judging from ATI,nVidia etc. All their board with more mem give somewhat lower results in benchmarks where 64mb is sufficient. That is due to increased time in accesing the larger quantities of RAM, card needs more time to write 128MB then 64MB... You radeon 7500 is doing just fine, Dont worry about benchmarks, scores you got are pretty high for r7500, check bench-house.com and their 32 different vid cards test (all at once, so you can compare the results), you'll see some different scores than Tom's....

Best Regards.

Agent Smith · Nov 7, 2002, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikePT
Agent Smith.

You have just made one mistake, the Mobility Radeon 7500 as only one chip no matter the memory configuration, the diference is that if it only has internal memory it runs at 64Bit and if it has external memory it runs at 128bit.

And about not posting that in tom's review the card was 64MB, i indicated the url, perhaps you would like me to post ALL REVIEW in here?!?!?

no i didnt make a mistake

when a card has 32MB internal ram and 32mb external ram that means there is an extra chip for that extra 32MB of ram

and youre right at this point i really do see a lamer....which is sorry to say

MikePT · Nov 7, 2002, 09:56 AM

Jeezz.... Of the course the other external 32MB is a chip and not your tinny little brain.

Just kidding man, this thread is over for me, thanks everybody.

Renegade[CSR] · Nov 7, 2002, 04:01 PM

First off, laptops are note designed for gaming performance, so you shouldn't be making such a big deal out of it.

Just go buy yourself a desktop pc (preferrably built by you) and stick an XP 2200+ or p4 northwood with a 9700 in that, with a good motherboard of course, and then you will be satisfied

Nov 8, 2002, 01:53 AM

I hope we dont have to close this thread...so please keep your flaming in the right forum.

THANKS

G@MeBoY · Nov 9, 2002, 04:15 AM

Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread !

By the power of the gray skull !!! I HAVE THE POWER !!!
You are HI-MAN , so, Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread !

)

Just kidin'

P.S. Close the tread !

Shaith · Nov 9, 2002, 07:35 AM

No, we're not closing the tread. Leave the tread alone. We'll have people sliding all over the place without tread.

Now, a few notes...

Identical systems will, within a few points, have identical scores. Trust me, I've done it, just as a curiosity thing, and the scores always came in within about 10-20 points of one another at most.

Now: things that could be different in your benchmark:

1) Just because you have identical memory, CPU, and video card (and you don't) isn't all - you've got to have identical configurations for BIOS and for software to make the "identical" claim valid. And because certain engineering aspects changed between your version of the video and Tom's, it's enough to make a difference.

2) On the subject of BIOS, there are a slew of things that can affect speed, including the use/disuse of any turbo settings, memory timings (a big one), wait states, AGP fast writes, etc - literally tens and hundreds (in some cases) of settings that can all make just a touch of a difference. I managed to go from the 8900's to the 9100's tonight simply by adjusting a few things in BIOS here and there, and not one of them involved any overclocking.

3) Results CAN be skewed, and I hate to say it, but I know for a fact that results CAN be faked. Zardon had the Madonion guys in quite an uproar a few months back when he let everyone in the world know how to create ludicrous benchmarks. And while that problem is fixed, I recently got sent a URL to look at a non-overclocked P4 2.something ghz running a TI4200 that supposedly got over 13000 3dmarks if I recall correctly. Have to ask Wyre, I think he's the one who sent me the link. Nevertheless, the fact remains - caveat emptor applies.

Instead of beating yourself on the head trying to figure out how to get THAT score, why not figure out how to better your own and worry about that score later? Go pour over BIOS tweak guides that deal with your hardware. Find a good Windows XP tweak guide and turn off all those unnecessary services. Unload EVERYTHING you don't need running and set your wallpaper to none, and your desktop to 1024x768 before you ever run your tests. There's a slew of things you can do that will affect your results - even the order in which you run things can make a difference.

Nov 4, 2002, 06:10 PM	#1
MikePT DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 0	After changing CPU the 3DMark 2001 SE Score is the same!! Hi everybody. I have replaced my P4 1.6Ghz (Desktop Northwood) of my Notebook Asus L3800S for a P4 2.4Ghz. This Notebook comes with a ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 with 32MB and the 3DMark 2001 SE score is almost the same i had (around 3900 in 1024x768x32) when i was using the P4 1.6GHZ. It's not the CPU because in PCMark2002 i am having around 5600 and with the 1.6GHZ CPU i had 3800. What the hell is hapening? It's the 32MB that causes the bottleneck or what? I tried several drivers.

Nov 4, 2002, 09:23 PM	#4
digitalwanderer Colour Commentator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 5,619 Rep Power: 0	Uhm, "mobility 7500" I think your card is holding you back, I think you'd already maxxed it out with your previous CPU and that's why you're seeing no difference. The card is running as fast as it can, it just ain't built to keep up with that kind of processing power. __________________ WTF is up with the sigs?

Nov 5, 2002, 12:43 AM	#10
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	YUP You maxed that stuff out, I've done the same thing with my old cpu, the card is running full out, you can't get anymore 3dmark points.... __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024

Nov 5, 2002, 03:55 AM	#11
G@MeBoY makes your mouse tremmble! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Serbia,Livingroom Posts: 247 Rep Power: 0	In Tom's hardware guide, they are gettin' 6303marks with radeon9000, I'm gettin' 6798.....So ? They are gettin' 9870 with Siluro Ti4200, My friend and I got 10780, In both cases, no OC-ing involved. We just didnn't use samsung memory banks, but we used infeneon and ET (infeneon is DDR 333 and ET is 266 and they give the same result !!! With samsung mem, 333, we got the SAME score as they did.) Anyway, he probablly has a different brand of memory, different mobo etc. etc. They might aslo be fakeing it, check madonion for systems JUST LIKE yours !!! Your system might be weaker in AGP BUS speed, or your Graphic Card might have different memory (e.g. another revision, perhaps worse ?)..you never know until you mach it with system JUST like yours.... I just switched from ECS K7S5A to ASUS A7V266-C and got 6800 marks instead of 6550 from ECS, no OC-ing, same settings, better mobo.... __________________ -= G@MeBoY =- ::Full color with 3DNOW! tech:: XP2000+ thoroughbred @ 10x230FSB - watter cooled by home made sistem - EpoX RDA3I - ASUS V9950SE/Td @470/820 - 2x256 DDR400 V-Data - !Live Player - 80GB Maxtor DiamondMax9+7200rpm - Tagan TG-380 black PSU - chieftek Matrix case - WinXP SP1

Nov 5, 2002, 05:25 PM	#15
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	All tests have an error margin, application-realistic tests more so than pure theoretical - ok, I KNOW is shows the same pattern of moves, but a realtime, frame rate based test is more easily disturbed than a "timed completion test". Take the largest error between two runs on the same machine, and multiply that by a factor of two at least, for a supposedly identical machine - and a LOT more for a supposedly identical spec with different core components. For the same CPU speed, and video card clock rates, the major factor may be bus transfer rate - also influenced by memory performance. I have PC100 SDRAM, and a 200FSB Athlon 1200 - and I know I do considerably worse than systems with DDR or 266FSB and PC133 - the chipset is also significant. Bearin mind also, that avid performance testers may be running "stripped down", with all nonessentials terminated. __________________ Mary had a little lamb, Her father shot it dead Now Mary takes her lamb to school, Between two crusts of bread

Nov 4, 2002, 08:38 PM	#2
GREEKRAGE Guest Posts: n/a	Is it possible that "Disable advanced CPU instructions " is checked ?? In other words maybe your not getting any help from your CPU.

Nov 4, 2002, 09:16 PM	Thread Starter #3
MikePT DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 0	Where can i check that option?

Nov 4, 2002, 10:13 PM	#5
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	I agree with DW. I just recently upgraded from a 1.4GHz Tbird to a 1600+. Even when overclocked to 1.8GHz, the 3DMark score is not all that different. I'd definitely say that your video adapter is holding your score back.

Nov 4, 2002, 11:01 PM	Thread Starter #7
MikePT DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 0	If the cards is holding back why is Tom (www.tomshardware.com) is having a score of 5459 using a P4-M 2.0Ghz (Slower than mine) and a ATI Mobility Radeon 7500?!? He clocked the ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 to 280Mhz Core 400Mhz Memory and i have done the same, i am getting arround 4450, same as i was getting with my older P4 1.6Ghz. Here is the link: http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/0...on9000-03.html And i have browse the 3DMark2001 SE scores of ATI RADEON 7500 cards and with a P4 2.4Ghz they got results like 6000 and more. Duh?!?!? I'm going CRAZY!!!

Nov 5, 2002, 12:35 AM	Thread Starter #9
MikePT DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 0	I just overclocked to see the if my system could have similar results to those of tom's, my card runs at normal speed when i am playing games. And you statement that that similar systems don't give similar results it's false. If you browse the madonion 3DMark2001 SE Database you will see that similar systems give similar results, and the millions of reviews found in the net shows that also, the results are somewhat similar. And Tom didn't tweak anything else besides the Ati Mobility Radeon 7500. It's not only 3DMark 2001 SE that shows me below average scores, UT 2003 also gives me below average results with the new 2.4GHZ CPU against similar machines acording to reviews found in the net (like the one of the Winbook J4 2.4Ghz in http://www.anandtech.com), it gives me the same fps that i had previously with my 1.6Ghz CPU. I am just trying to figure out why my Mobility Radeon 7500 does not have better results with a 800Mhz faster CPU, it's not normal, i don't think the card is already to the max, maybe the memory of my card is bad or the bios of my notebook is locking something, i just wanted to figure it out.

Nov 5, 2002, 05:40 PM	#16
G@MeBoY makes your mouse tremmble! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Serbia,Livingroom Posts: 247 Rep Power: 0	I apollogize, 6303 marks on R9000 were on bench-house not on tom's hardwr. here, some usefull links to compare your mobility radeon: http://www.firing-squad.com (maybe it's without a dash, not sure) http://www.bench-house.com and of course, this forum Maybe Tom's hardware guide is lying, you know, they had some issues before, like a large company pays for better ressults __________________ -= G@MeBoY =- ::Full color with 3DNOW! tech:: XP2000+ thoroughbred @ 10x230FSB - watter cooled by home made sistem - EpoX RDA3I - ASUS V9950SE/Td @470/820 - 2x256 DDR400 V-Data - !Live Player - 80GB Maxtor DiamondMax9+7200rpm - Tagan TG-380 black PSU - chieftek Matrix case - WinXP SP1

Nov 5, 2002, 08:00 PM	Thread Starter #17
MikePT DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 0	I know every benchmarks have a marging error, even on the same system, but more than 1000 diference in 3DMArk2001 SE is not margin, and half the FPS in UT2003 of a Winbook J4 2.4Ghz (reviewed in http://www.anandtech.com) is also not normal. I think i figured it out, it's my Mobility Radeon with 32MB only has 64Bit bus, if it had 64MB it had a 128bit bus, i read that somewhere. This card with 32MB it's maxxed out with this 2.4GHZ CPU. I must say that my Notebook with this 2.4GHZ RULES!!! Even with the RADEON maxed out.

Nov 5, 2002, 09:25 PM	#18
Agent Smith DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 30 Rep Power: 0	Ive been readin this saga for a while and ill ive got to say is it took you this long to simply agree? i mean your card has half the ram of the other one which you never mentioned before and you expected the same speed? lol

Nov 6, 2002, 01:40 AM	Thread Starter #19
MikePT DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 0	It's not the amount of memory that does the difference, because my results in low resolutions like 640x480x16 are much lower than the ones i found around the net, and at that lower resolutions the cards memory it's not totally used. It's the card fillrate (single and multitexturing) that is lower than average becase the radeon model i have as 32MB internal memory and it uses a 64Bit DDR bus. There are 3 configurations for Mobility Radeon 7500 16MB internal = has 64bit DDR bus 16MB internal + 16MB external = has 128bit DDR bus 32MB internal = has 64bit DDR bus 32MB internal + 32Mb external = has 128bit DDR bus Oh... and i did mention the 32MB in the VERY FIRST POST I MADE, i guess you are the one who is blind.

Nov 6, 2002, 05:30 AM	#21
G@MeBoY makes your mouse tremmble! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Serbia,Livingroom Posts: 247 Rep Power: 0	You also didn't mention what OS are you runnin' ? I suposse that you are running XP since it probablly came with your Laptop/Notebook whatever...I got 61 flyby and 26 botmaatch under XP but in win98 67 flyby & 46 botmatch !!! huge difference in bot matches ! Win98 uses less mem, and XP is stupid with freeing up ressurcess.... __________________ -= G@MeBoY =- ::Full color with 3DNOW! tech:: XP2000+ thoroughbred @ 10x230FSB - watter cooled by home made sistem - EpoX RDA3I - ASUS V9950SE/Td @470/820 - 2x256 DDR400 V-Data - !Live Player - 80GB Maxtor DiamondMax9+7200rpm - Tagan TG-380 black PSU - chieftek Matrix case - WinXP SP1

Nov 6, 2002, 09:52 AM	Thread Starter #22
MikePT DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 0	Agent Smith. You have just made one mistake, the Mobility Radeon 7500 as only one chip no matter the memory configuration, the diference is that if it only has internal memory it runs at 64Bit and if it has external memory it runs at 128bit. And about not posting that in tom's review the card was 64MB, i indicated the url, perhaps you would like me to post ALL REVIEW in here?!?!?

Nov 6, 2002, 09:58 AM	Thread Starter #23
MikePT DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 0	Yes, i am using Windows XP Professional, the one that came with my notebook was XP Home. Man, i don't do gaming for a living, i'm not going to install that huge virus! Many of you seem to "look" at me and see a lamer, but hey, that's not remotely true, i'm just changed my processor (Desktop) of my notebook, i changed my hard disk, i had my notebook wide open (and my warranty was still valid , like many other systems i had. So take it easy with me.

Nov 7, 2002, 02:10 AM	#24
G@MeBoY makes your mouse tremmble! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Serbia,Livingroom Posts: 247 Rep Power: 0	I dont consider you a lammer, never crrosed my mind...anyway, my XP was about1.8GB in some 3 weeks, win 98 never "spreaded" so much, not even in 3 months!!! (I reinstall all my sistems, allways, every three monts). I am not a gamer for the living, but after a whole day of working, I like to play whole evening . XP doesnt want to run FarStone VirtualDrive, Gets confused with NeroImage drive (a have A LOT OF IMAGES that I made from my CD's and use them all the time) Win XP slows my surrfin' with all thoese security checkings that one ZOneAlarm and AtGuard does better....I am runnin' 256RAM, and it really should be more than enough for any OS, but not for XP !! He wants MORE !! and I won't give him !! , also, I cant compare 4 secs of booting up Win98se, with 30 of XP... (I time to the point when everithing stops loading and hourglass dissapears). XP is god, but not for me... Also, you cant get 128 bit pipeline by just adding ram module, it is internall arhitecture of vid card and how fast it comunicates with memory, the external memory could have 128 bit pipeline capability, but if your GPU works on 64, he wont work on 128 but only 64...It's like having CPU that is 64 bit, and than adding an 128 bit GPU and say that cpu now works on 128 bit pipeline with GPU, it doesent !!! Although, extra RAM could make such an performance increase, but judging from ATI,nVidia etc. All their board with more mem give somewhat lower results in benchmarks where 64mb is sufficient. That is due to increased time in accesing the larger quantities of RAM, card needs more time to write 128MB then 64MB... You radeon 7500 is doing just fine, Dont worry about benchmarks, scores you got are pretty high for r7500, check bench-house.com and their 32 different vid cards test (all at once, so you can compare the results), you'll see some different scores than Tom's.... Best Regards. __________________ -= G@MeBoY =- ::Full color with 3DNOW! tech:: XP2000+ thoroughbred @ 10x230FSB - watter cooled by home made sistem - EpoX RDA3I - ASUS V9950SE/Td @470/820 - 2x256 DDR400 V-Data - !Live Player - 80GB Maxtor DiamondMax9+7200rpm - Tagan TG-380 black PSU - chieftek Matrix case - WinXP SP1

Nov 7, 2002, 09:56 AM	Thread Starter #26
MikePT DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 0	Jeezz.... Of the course the other external 32MB is a chip and not your tinny little brain. Just kidding man, this thread is over for me, thanks everybody.

Nov 7, 2002, 04:01 PM	#27
Renegade[CSR] DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Undisclosed Renegade Location Posts: 396 Rep Power: 0	First off, laptops are note designed for gaming performance, so you shouldn't be making such a big deal out of it. Just go buy yourself a desktop pc (preferrably built by you) and stick an XP 2200+ or p4 northwood with a 9700 in that, with a good motherboard of course, and then you will be satisfied

Nov 8, 2002, 01:53 AM	#28
GREEKRAGE Guest Posts: n/a	I hope we dont have to close this thread...so please keep your flaming in the right forum. THANKS

Nov 9, 2002, 04:15 AM	#29
G@MeBoY makes your mouse tremmble! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Serbia,Livingroom Posts: 247 Rep Power: 0	Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! By the power of the gray skull !!! I HAVE THE POWER !!! You are HI-MAN , so, Close the tread ! Close the tread ! Close the tread ! ) Just kidin' P.S. Close the tread ! __________________ -= G@MeBoY =- ::Full color with 3DNOW! tech:: XP2000+ thoroughbred @ 10x230FSB - watter cooled by home made sistem - EpoX RDA3I - ASUS V9950SE/Td @470/820 - 2x256 DDR400 V-Data - !Live Player - 80GB Maxtor DiamondMax9+7200rpm - Tagan TG-380 black PSU - chieftek Matrix case - WinXP SP1

Nov 9, 2002, 07:35 AM	#30
Shaith HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 916 Rep Power: 0	No, we're not closing the tread. Leave the tread alone. We'll have people sliding all over the place without tread. Now, a few notes... Identical systems will, within a few points, have identical scores. Trust me, I've done it, just as a curiosity thing, and the scores always came in within about 10-20 points of one another at most. Now: things that could be different in your benchmark: 1) Just because you have identical memory, CPU, and video card (and you don't) isn't all - you've got to have identical configurations for BIOS and for software to make the "identical" claim valid. And because certain engineering aspects changed between your version of the video and Tom's, it's enough to make a difference. 2) On the subject of BIOS, there are a slew of things that can affect speed, including the use/disuse of any turbo settings, memory timings (a big one), wait states, AGP fast writes, etc - literally tens and hundreds (in some cases) of settings that can all make just a touch of a difference. I managed to go from the 8900's to the 9100's tonight simply by adjusting a few things in BIOS here and there, and not one of them involved any overclocking. 3) Results CAN be skewed, and I hate to say it, but I know for a fact that results CAN be faked. Zardon had the Madonion guys in quite an uproar a few months back when he let everyone in the world know how to create ludicrous benchmarks. And while that problem is fixed, I recently got sent a URL to look at a non-overclocked P4 2.something ghz running a TI4200 that supposedly got over 13000 3dmarks if I recall correctly. Have to ask Wyre, I think he's the one who sent me the link. Nevertheless, the fact remains - caveat emptor applies. Instead of beating yourself on the head trying to figure out how to get THAT score, why not figure out how to better your own and worry about that score later? Go pour over BIOS tweak guides that deal with your hardware. Find a good Windows XP tweak guide and turn off all those unnecessary services. Unload EVERYTHING you don't need running and set your wallpaper to none, and your desktop to 1024x768 before you ever run your tests. There's a slew of things you can do that will affect your results - even the order in which you run things can make a difference.