Wow this sounds really amazing. Seems like you have received one of the better ones. Really cool scores I envy your for those.
I really need to get my hands on such a card :-)
Wow, great numbers! Nice to see that there are good results when tweaking the system and that it can handle such mods. For the dumba$$es out there like me, what utility did you use to overclock the video card?
Impressive numbers. Looks like you get strong AND cool runner.
Can you do a little favor and run UT2003 benchmark at 1600x1200 with all card settings on max quality, don't bother with in game settings, bench will run at max regardless of their values. I believe this utility even included in free game demo.
Before first test go to UT2003\Benchmark\Stuff and delete *.ini files. After that launch UT2003\System\Benchmark.exe, choose 1600x1200 and enjoy the show.
Also if you could can you run Aquamark3, this one considered the most valid synthetic benchmark nowadays.
PS. I think Aquamark3 is a little bit overrated! Its completly optimezed for P4 "HT" and so each non-HT CPU suxx versus a P4. "Our" Pentium M or P3-extended ;-) got much lower scores than it should be. Maybe we will see in near future "advanced" Benchmarks, optimized for Pentium M. :-P
Just wanted to know if I got a bad system, tried to OC with the powerstrip and the max I could get was core=278 and mem=242. My dell config is an 8600 15.4WUXGA, 512(2700 suppose to be mem) on a single dimm, 60 gig(7200) and a 1.7 pentium M running on a windows xp home edition. It seems like you guys are getting OC above 300, how is this?
I couldn't push my engine clock over 390. I got some bad pixtures if i let run 3DMark2003 many times. But my memory clock ist pretty nice - I set it to the max settings in Powerstrip and it runs without any problems.
I read abaut Sager notebooks that they could reach 400 MHz engine clocking without errors, but only ~260 MHz memory speed.
Anyway I like my Inspiron 8600 a lot. And with tools like SpeedswitchXP and 8kfanGUI its like a dream mashine. :-)
Im a little bit disappointed about the Wide Screen TFT. I selected the WUXGA and thought, I could run games at 1600x1200 in full screen. But my panel couldn't strach the image to WUXGA so i got allways black borders at the UXGA resolution. I tried Fn+F7 many times but it nothing happens. :-(
If I could, I would select a UXGA in place of a WUXGA panel.
I looked allready at the advanced display tabs, but for me the options are not available.
but thx for youre response!
Anyway I will return my Inspiron an will get a Clevo D500/Sager 5680 with UXGA. The Clevo was my 2. choice and it will be a better choice for a gaming Notebook. I hoped I would get with the Inspiron the ultimative-Centrinoquiet-gaming Notebook, but all I was got is a hot Centrino Notebook with a good GPU but with a not so good panel. (I had the Sharp WUXGA with no dead pixels)
You can "fix" the aspect ratio somewhere under the advanced display tabs.
Mine was always stretching games to full UXGA. Is nice, but characters are really fat then. So i prefered the black border options and checked the "keep aspect ratio" under the advanced options.
Optimal thing would be that games would support the Widescreen resolutions. I have some who do and those look really great, most do not support other than standard 4:3 resolutions though. A pitty...
My GeForce 4 Go 4200 gets 12000 3DMarks in 2001SE, with a moderate overclock, but it can't get near even 1500 3DMarks in 3DMark03. I guess that's where the M10 really shines.
A Geforce 4200 is a DX8 part and 3DMark2003 is a DX9 test. It's normal that the geforce 4200 does not score to well as it soes not have the required technology.
My nvidia 5650 Go scores a little better at ~2500 using the 52.16 drivers but this is also no match for the radeon 9600 scores (which easily get to 2800 and higher).
But all my current games (including DX9) titles run perfectly smooth in at least 1024 x 768 resolutions and good detail, so why care about the lower scores as long as it plays good?
starsheep
90 Posts
0
December 25th, 2003 12:00
I really need to get my hands on such a card :-)
Cu
StarSheep
AnotherAndyM
26 Posts
0
December 25th, 2003 15:00
Andrew WOT
194 Posts
0
December 25th, 2003 17:00
Impressive numbers. Looks like you get strong AND cool runner.
Can you do a little favor and run UT2003 benchmark at 1600x1200 with all card settings on max quality, don't bother with in game settings, bench will run at max regardless of their values. I believe this utility even included in free game demo.
Before first test go to UT2003\Benchmark\Stuff and delete *.ini files. After that launch UT2003\System\Benchmark.exe, choose 1600x1200 and enjoy the show.
Also if you could can you run Aquamark3, this one considered the most valid synthetic benchmark nowadays.
Thanks and congratulation on your purchase.
Conpain
27 Posts
0
December 25th, 2003 22:00
@AnotherAndyM
I used the latest Powerstrip Tool for OCing. Its very easy to OC with Powerstrip.
@Andrew WOT
I used UT2003 demo and the latest Aquamark3.
Here are some of my results:
DELL Inspiron 8600, P M 1.7, 1 GB RAM, M10-P-T, WUXGA, WinXP Home
M10-P-T clocking 243MHz memory, 337,5MHz engine (DEAFULT)
UT2003 1024x768
flyby -> 131.175476 fps
botmatch -> 70.696411 fps
UT2003 1600x1200
flyby -> 55.882561 fps
botmatch -> 43.200718 fps
Aquamark3
-> 21.628 fps
M10-P-T clocking 322MHz memory, 385MHz engine (OC)
UT2003 1024x768
flyby -> 157.361115 fps
botmatch -> 74.263878 fps
UT2003 1600x1200
flyby -> 69.144913 fps
botmatch -> 53.489277 fps
Aquamark3
-> 25.577 fps
3DMark2001
-> 11341
3DMark2003
-> 3343
Conpain
PS. I think Aquamark3 is a little bit overrated! Its completly optimezed for P4 "HT" and so each non-HT CPU suxx versus a P4. "Our" Pentium M or P3-extended ;-) got much lower scores than it should be. Maybe we will see in near future "advanced" Benchmarks, optimized for Pentium M. :-P
Message Edited by Conpain on 12-25-2003 06:47 PM
Message Edited by Conpain on 12-25-2003 06:47 PM
Message Edited by Conpain on 12-25-2003 06:48 PM
Andrew WOT
194 Posts
0
December 25th, 2003 23:00
Just great, even though it looks like Unreal engine favors GeForce4 a little better.
My results for UT2003:
Default frequency 196/390 1600x1200: 66/45
OCing 225/500 same resolution: 79/49
Message Edited by Andrew WOT on 12-25-2003 08:00 PM
Blueoak
17 Posts
0
December 26th, 2003 00:00
http://www.entechtaiwan.net/
RCGamer
1 Rookie
•
33 Posts
0
December 26th, 2003 00:00
do you got web site of Powerstrip Tool prog
thx
AnotherAndyM
26 Posts
0
December 26th, 2003 01:00
popeyeboom
2 Posts
0
December 26th, 2003 02:00
12/25/03
Just wanted to know if I got a bad system, tried to OC with the powerstrip and the max I could get was core=278 and mem=242. My dell config is an 8600 15.4WUXGA, 512(2700 suppose to be mem) on a single dimm, 60 gig(7200) and a 1.7 pentium M running on a windows xp home edition. It seems like you guys are getting OC above 300, how is this?
Popeyeboom
Buzz1977
24 Posts
0
December 26th, 2003 05:00
Did a quick try with engine @ 350 and memory @ 300.
3dMark 2001 - 10,743
Will try to OC more later...right now mighty pleased with the results :)
Message Edited by Buzz1977 on 12-26-2003 02:06 AM
Conpain
27 Posts
0
December 26th, 2003 09:00
@popeyeboom
I couldn't push my engine clock over 390. I got some bad pixtures if i let run 3DMark2003 many times. But my memory clock ist pretty nice - I set it to the max settings in Powerstrip and it runs without any problems.
I read abaut Sager notebooks that they could reach 400 MHz engine clocking without errors, but only ~260 MHz memory speed.
Anyway I like my Inspiron 8600 a lot. And with tools like SpeedswitchXP and 8kfanGUI its like a dream mashine. :-)
Im a little bit disappointed about the Wide Screen TFT. I selected the WUXGA and thought, I could run games at 1600x1200 in full screen. But my panel couldn't strach the image to WUXGA so i got allways black borders at the UXGA resolution. I tried Fn+F7 many times but it nothing happens. :-(
If I could, I would select a UXGA in place of a WUXGA panel.
Conpain
Conpain
27 Posts
0
December 29th, 2003 13:00
@godim
I looked allready at the advanced display tabs, but for me the options are not available.
but thx for youre response!
Anyway I will return my Inspiron an will get a Clevo D500/Sager 5680 with UXGA. The Clevo was my 2. choice and it will be a better choice for a gaming Notebook. I hoped I would get with the Inspiron the ultimative-Centrinoquiet-gaming Notebook, but all I was got is a hot Centrino Notebook with a good GPU but with a not so good panel. (I had the Sharp WUXGA with no dead pixels)
Conpain
godim
507 Posts
0
December 29th, 2003 13:00
You can "fix" the aspect ratio somewhere under the advanced display tabs.
Mine was always stretching games to full UXGA. Is nice, but characters are really fat then. So i prefered the black border options and checked the "keep aspect ratio" under the advanced options.
Optimal thing would be that games would support the Widescreen resolutions. I have some who do and those look really great, most do not support other than standard 4:3 resolutions though. A pitty...
minkylee99
36 Posts
0
December 29th, 2003 15:00
My GeForce 4 Go 4200 gets 12000 3DMarks in 2001SE, with a moderate overclock, but it can't get near even 1500 3DMarks in 3DMark03. I guess that's where the M10 really shines.
Impressive scores though,
RaPTuRe
godim
507 Posts
0
January 6th, 2004 08:00
A Geforce 4200 is a DX8 part and 3DMark2003 is a DX9 test. It's normal that the geforce 4200 does not score to well as it soes not have the required technology.
My nvidia 5650 Go scores a little better at ~2500 using the 52.16 drivers but this is also no match for the radeon 9600 scores (which easily get to 2800 and higher).
But all my current games (including DX9) titles run perfectly smooth in at least 1024 x 768 resolutions and good detail, so why care about the lower scores as long as it plays good?