[Quadophile]

Taken from majorgeeks site on 3dmark 2005:

System Requirements:
- DirectX 9 compatible graphics adapter with support for Pixel Shader 2.0 or later, and graphics memory of 128 MB or above.

[KGB-911]

Didn't see that!

I spent 2 hurs downloading it, but when i came to install it, nothing happened, i am now downloading the 03 version, will this one work, i can't find the specs!

KGB

[KGB-911]

OK, downloaded the 03 version,

score: 90 (ninty) - after looking on there site and most people were up in th high thousands, i think that something went wrong! can it be this low?

KGB

[Quadophile]

KGB-911,

Laptops generally come up with very low figures and in your case I would not be surprised since you have shared architecture when it comes to graphics card, meaning you do not have a stand alone graphics card with its own memory. You have a system which shares the memory with main memory so if you alot 64 mb to graphics contoller it will be taken from the 512 you have on your system. Computers with shared architecture are basically a compromise when it comes to graphics.

Despite of all this you need to tweak your system fully before you test out the 3dmark software for benchmarking. Your system should be virus free, hard disk should be defragmented, anti virus switched off, all updates installed, clean boot before the start of 3dmark software etc etc.

Laptops with stand alone graphics card of 128 mb ram are more suitable for gaming, one of the laptops comes to mind is an IBM T41p, although it is not a gaming machine but it meets the specs of 3dmark 2005, I think they may have come up with a new one as well T42p but not sure. These laptops are top of the line when it comes to graphics and designers find it very handy. They are not cheap at almost 3000 quid!

There was another thread where this discussion took place and the most of us had the same thing to say to the prospective buyer - laptops are not equipped for for serious gaming, at least not yet!

[KGB-911]

Mine handles all games, no problem.

that program was complaning that it could only complete one test, could this be a problem?

KGB

[Quadophile]

KGB-911,

That sure is a problem!

The specs are not upto the standard the 3dmark requires.

You should check the gaming on proper desktops and you will notice a very big difference in graphics quality. Handling the games is not a problem, the main thing is how good the quality of graphics are.

[christopherpostill]

Nice review...but... I don't think i could justify spending a whole thousand pounds on a laptop that dosent perform as well as some £300 computers.

My sisters PC (Athlon XP2000, 256Mb DDR266, 40Gb 5400rpm, 64Mb shared GeForce 2 MX graphics) managed to scrape 92 points.

That will play BF1942 and everything no probs either...

£1000 does seem far too pricey...

[Quadophile]

Guys,

The importance of graphics card should not be underestimated in case one is benchmarking by using the futuremark software. If the graphics is not upto standard even a 6 Ghz machine will give you 100 or 200 points.

I remember when I did the test 4 years back using 3dmark 2000, my score with a Matrox card was 2900 with a PIII machine with 667 Mhz processor and 256 MB CL2 Ram. The hard disk was a Quantum Fireball Plus 7200rpm with 8ms seek time (one of the fastest drives in those days). The newer software has different scoring but the score I had achieved was second fasted with the given spec having a Matrox G400 card.

The newer software concentrates on Directx 9 graphics card only with atleast 128 mb ram, anything lower will either not run on this software or will yield very low score.

[KGB-911]

Chris, just to annoy you mere, it was £1,600!

Quad, i will try 3DMark01 to see if that works!

KGB

[KGB-911]

3DMark01 score: 1965 is this good?

KGB