Midrange graphics are great! Why would you expect to run any game on a laptop at high or max detail settings? Why do you care about detail settings? It doesn't effect how fun the game is. On a laptop, as long as you can run modern games at min-med settings and get decent frames that's all I would ever want. If you want to max everything out use your desktop. However, I would like to see the ability to turn off the discrete card and use integrated graphics become standard. And, in general, laptops need much better LCD's and better battery life, HP has a 24hour notebook, meaning the battery lasts 24 hours, LED backlight, why aren't LED backlights standard place?????
The HP "24 hour" notebook includes an extra battery attachment that sits under the notebook and weighs several pounds if I'm not mistaken. If you buy any of these laptops and six to eight extra batteries, you could get 24 hours as well. :-) Yeah, that's sort of extreme, but so is a huge battery sitting under a small laptop.
As for midrange graphics and gaming, let me reiterate: running at 1280x800 I couldn't break 20 FPS in Mass Effect or Crysis even at minimum detail, and GRID at medium-low detail was playable but looked like a four year old graphics engine. There are plenty of other games that start looking quite poor before you break 30 FPS. Graphics aren't everything, true, but they do make a difference. That's not to say you can't play any games on these midrange GPUs, but I would hate to give people the mistaken impression that midrange mobile GPUs run most games "fine" when that's simply not true.
Midrange mobile graphics *aren't* great, and in fact even the fastest mobile GPUs are slower than desktop "midrange" graphics: the 9600 GT costs under $100 and outperforms the 9800M GTS, and the ~$110 8800 GT 512MB is faster than any mobile GPU. (Same for the HD 4670 and even HD 3850.) If you want to play modern games on a notebook, get the Gateway P-7811 or some other more powerful (and larger) notebook. Otherwise, the vast majority of people will be better off with a midrange desktop for gaming and a true midrange solution.
For this very reason I'm wondering why you bothered running the full gaming tests on all of these. Wouldn't maybe a full test on one game plus minimum settings/resolution for the others be enough to offer a best case ceiling and say "See, don't look to play modern games on these"? Would save you significant time I'd imagine.
It would save time, but it wouldn't provide a ready comparison to other mobile GPUs, which is one thing I wanted to do. (That's also why I tested the Gateway M-152XL at settings other than 1280x800, just to show how the GPU would run with a different LCD.) If you just want 3DMark scores, you can find that at some other places, but no one plays 3DMark for fun.
Another problem: if you choose just one game, which one should you go with? Assassin's Creed DX9 is roughly half the speed of the faster 9800M GTS, and while that's a big difference you can easily turn down a few settings and get acceptable performance at 1280x800. On the other hand CoH is about 1/3 to 1/4 the performance of the same GPU. The best characterization of performance requires more testing, so some people would want scores for TF2, HL2, and a bunch of older games as well, but I had to draw the line somewhere.
At least now I can point to a (relatively large) battery of gaming tests and say, "This is why you shouldn't plan on using low or midrange laptop GPUs for gaming. It's not just one or two games that will struggle, but a large number of newer titles won't run well regardless of settings, and others will only run well when you set the detail levels to 'ugly'." :)
I could forward the list of email messages requesting AMD laptops to you if you'd like. I specifically asked a couple of companies for one of the HD 3200 laptops, because I think it's a very compelling platform. Why haven't I received one yet? No idea... but I'll check back with the contacts and hopefully get one soon.
It all depends on what you're after, but Lenovo is certainly a viable option. The T400 is good, but you'll probably want to spend more than $1100. I'd get 4GB RAM, 320GB HDD, LED backlighting, 6-cell battery, Vista Home Premium, DVDR, 802.11N WiFi, and Bluetooth. That puts the price at around $1450, which includes $450 savings (limited time offer) and only a 1-year warranty. Bump it up to 3-years and you're at $1550, which is actually still very good. Without the $500 savings it would be difficult to recommend that much, however.
You can easily configure a great T400 w/ 2 GB RAM, DVD-burner, discrete Radeon 3470, wireless-N (only $15 extra), LED screen (only $60 extra) and 6-cell battery (only $15 extra) for under $1200.
Not that it really matters since they're all pretty slow, but the HD 3470 is about half the performance of the HD 2600 and 8600M GS. Like I said in the review, though, if you really care about graphics performance you'll want a lot more than even the 8600M/HD 2600 (or 9600M/HD 3600).
Personally, the minimum configuration I'd go with on the T400 ends up at around $1350 - because the 80GB default HDD is way too small for me. I personally think the Thinkpad laptops work well but look pretty dull, but build quality has always been good on the systems I've seen/used. I'd love to get one for testing (and in particular I'd like to test the LCD - I've heard some models even have S-IPS panels, but maybe that was only on some of their previous laptops when they were still IBM), but so far no luck there.
Bottom line, you shouldn't be doing colour-calibration sensitive work on a laptop in the field anyway, and if you're doing it indoors, you'd probably want an external display for the added resolution if nothing else.
Because a typical laptop in the field will be subjected to various (changing) lighting conditions, so any colour calibration on the lcd will be moot. That and most laptop displays don't even give you the option to mess with the ICC profiles.
The W700 is not exactly "portable", so it is likely to stay anchored in an office.
The sad practical reality though is that practically no one is making S-IPS screens for laptops anymore (see the lenovo blogs on this issue), so we're stuck with TN-film until the market responds with a demand for higher quality panels.
Acer will have to do a lot to win me over. My company bought hundreds and now they are piling up in the corner, defect just after warranty expired. The Acers I'm talking about are centrinos and recent core duos. The construction is terrible. Those currently in use by my staff crashes (from overheating) when programmers are compiling applications. When you shake them it feels like old plastic of 1980's Toyotas, and often there are loose bolts inside.
My company gave me are core2duo and I use it at home, removed the bottom casing and installed a cooling pad. It still crashes sometimes when my girlfriend plays tetris.
The battery life and LCD display may seem ok in this lineup. But it is still unacceptable for me, give me a lower spec MacBook anytime. I had to get as far away as Acer as possible and got a MacBookPro, but a simple MacBook would have satisfied my office needs.
No, but I did go see the BYU/Washington game in person. It was awesome watching the Cougars pull off the win at the end. Despite all the complaints from WA fans, it's worth noting that they had something like three penalties the whole game, they didn't get called for the blatant holds on 4th and 10 during the final drive, and the refs also didn't call the illegal forward pass with one minute remaining where the QB was a yard over the line of scrimmage. After such a demoralizing loss, it's hardly a surprise that they rolled over and played dead for OU.
There was no excuse for the unsportsmanlike penalty. BYU fans can point a finger at other calls (which apparantly only they saw) leading up to the touchdown, but the referee influenced the outcome of the game. End of story. UW should have been kicking an EP, not a 35-yard FG.
The more BYU fans try to deflect that fact, the worse it makes the call look. Just say "hey, it was a bad call. We got lucky" and the whole incident will be over.
If you throw a ball 25 feet into the air after a TD, that's a penalty. The only people who think it was a "bad call" are WA fans or people that don't like BYU. If you think it's a "bad rule" that should be changed, fine, but that's a different debate.
I just loved Lou Holtz' commentary on ESPN: "He didn't throw the ball; he just raised his hands and the ball happened to be in them." LOL... That's as insightful as his repeated analysis of how great the Notre Dame team is always going to be.
Think I'm making this stuff up? How about a little physics to back things up?
The ball is stopped at the apex, which is half the time, so:
velocity final = vf = 0 m/s
time = t = 1.18 s
acceleration = a = -9.8 m/s2
Solve for distance (height) = d = ??
First use: vf = vi + a*t
vi = velocity initial
0 m/s = vi + (-9.8 m/s2)*(1.18 s)
0 m/s = vi - 11.564 m/s
vi = 11.564 m/s
Now use: vf^2 = vi^2 + 2*a*d
(0 m/s)^2 = (11.564 m/s)^2 + 2*(-9.8 m/s^2)*(d)
0 m^2/s^2 = (133.726096 m^2/s^2) + (-19.6 m/s^2)*d
-133.726096 m^2/s^2 = (-19.6 m/s^2)*d
(-133.726096 m^2/s^2)/(-19.6 m/s^2) = d
d = 6.82276 m
Don't know about you guys, but lofting a football 22.3843 feet into the air seems pretty "high" to me. That's the equivalent of throwing a football (at a 30 degree angle) around 25 yards - perhaps not the hardest he could throw it, but certainly not an "accident" or "toss".
Is the rule bad? Perhaps. If so, it's up to the schools to make the change, not the refs. If you want to blame someone other than Locker, don't blame the officials; blame PAC-10 and the other conferences that told the officials to clamp down on post-TD celebrations.
To reiterate: I was *at* the game. How many penalties went against WA? Three, two of which came on the final drive. (Okay, four if you count the offsides call on the final kickoff after their blocked PAT.) How many against BYU? Seven. This wasn't a dirty game, but WA didn't have a single false start or offsides called against them (there are always a couple), not a single hold (again, there are always a few of those), and yet they're going to blame the refs!?
Here's another completely blown call for you: one minute remaining, ball is on BYU's 41 yard line. Locker completes a pass to the 29 yard line for a first down... except he threw the ball from the 39 yard line (two *YARDS* over the line of scrimmage)!
Okay, that's the last I'm saying about this in the comments of a laptop review. Who in the heck brought up a football discussion anyway? Someone needs to get their priorities straight....
The same way as in http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=339...">previous articles, which is to say we ran the built-in test. It may not represent actual gameplay 100%, but that's not really possible with any benchmark of any game, since specific scenes/levels are always slower for faster. The idea is to show the relative performance of the laptops. If memory serves, the built-in performance test usually provided higher numbers than regular gameplay by 10-20%.
did you have to unlock anything? the reason i ask is because when i run the benchmark test i get 63fps avg from an x1800xt to a 4850 to a 8800gtx to a 9800gtx @ 1280x1024 - 1680x105....rigs have 2-3GB of ram and are running from x2 4200s to e2160@3Ghz to a quad rig
You'll need to manually create a shortcut to the game executable (RelicCOH.exe). Then right-click on the shortcut and choose properties. In the Shortcut tab, under target, add -novsync at the end of the line (after any quotes or other stuff). The 1.70 patch enabled VSYNC by default to provide a higher quality rendering experience, and the Readme file details the above command-line parameter.
thanks for the info - ended up w/ 106fps avg w/ a decent o/c'd 4850, e2160@3GHz and 3GB ddr2-667, so i am happy w/ that. pretty impressed w/ that 7811fx machine. thinking of myself moving up to a 24" 1920x1200 lcd here in a couple days and figure that my next rig will be crossfire since i will probably need it but not too shabby for the price i paid for this current gpu. only thing is the damn heat output :)
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
26 Comments
Back to Article
Hrel - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
Midrange graphics are great! Why would you expect to run any game on a laptop at high or max detail settings? Why do you care about detail settings? It doesn't effect how fun the game is. On a laptop, as long as you can run modern games at min-med settings and get decent frames that's all I would ever want. If you want to max everything out use your desktop. However, I would like to see the ability to turn off the discrete card and use integrated graphics become standard. And, in general, laptops need much better LCD's and better battery life, HP has a 24hour notebook, meaning the battery lasts 24 hours, LED backlight, why aren't LED backlights standard place?????JarredWalton - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
The HP "24 hour" notebook includes an extra battery attachment that sits under the notebook and weighs several pounds if I'm not mistaken. If you buy any of these laptops and six to eight extra batteries, you could get 24 hours as well. :-) Yeah, that's sort of extreme, but so is a huge battery sitting under a small laptop.As for midrange graphics and gaming, let me reiterate: running at 1280x800 I couldn't break 20 FPS in Mass Effect or Crysis even at minimum detail, and GRID at medium-low detail was playable but looked like a four year old graphics engine. There are plenty of other games that start looking quite poor before you break 30 FPS. Graphics aren't everything, true, but they do make a difference. That's not to say you can't play any games on these midrange GPUs, but I would hate to give people the mistaken impression that midrange mobile GPUs run most games "fine" when that's simply not true.
Midrange mobile graphics *aren't* great, and in fact even the fastest mobile GPUs are slower than desktop "midrange" graphics: the 9600 GT costs under $100 and outperforms the 9800M GTS, and the ~$110 8800 GT 512MB is faster than any mobile GPU. (Same for the HD 4670 and even HD 3850.) If you want to play modern games on a notebook, get the Gateway P-7811 or some other more powerful (and larger) notebook. Otherwise, the vast majority of people will be better off with a midrange desktop for gaming and a true midrange solution.
strikeback03 - Friday, September 19, 2008 - link
For this very reason I'm wondering why you bothered running the full gaming tests on all of these. Wouldn't maybe a full test on one game plus minimum settings/resolution for the others be enough to offer a best case ceiling and say "See, don't look to play modern games on these"? Would save you significant time I'd imagine.JarredWalton - Friday, September 19, 2008 - link
It would save time, but it wouldn't provide a ready comparison to other mobile GPUs, which is one thing I wanted to do. (That's also why I tested the Gateway M-152XL at settings other than 1280x800, just to show how the GPU would run with a different LCD.) If you just want 3DMark scores, you can find that at some other places, but no one plays 3DMark for fun.Another problem: if you choose just one game, which one should you go with? Assassin's Creed DX9 is roughly half the speed of the faster 9800M GTS, and while that's a big difference you can easily turn down a few settings and get acceptable performance at 1280x800. On the other hand CoH is about 1/3 to 1/4 the performance of the same GPU. The best characterization of performance requires more testing, so some people would want scores for TF2, HL2, and a bunch of older games as well, but I had to draw the line somewhere.
At least now I can point to a (relatively large) battery of gaming tests and say, "This is why you shouldn't plan on using low or midrange laptop GPUs for gaming. It's not just one or two games that will struggle, but a large number of newer titles won't run well regardless of settings, and others will only run well when you set the detail levels to 'ugly'." :)
JarredWalton - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
Edit: that last line is supposed to say "a true mobile solution".arjunp2085 - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
Why is that i have never seen a Single AMD based laptops on the list....780G is one great solution for graphics on laptops.. Y is there no article about PUMA????
Is it some BIAS??
JarredWalton - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
I could forward the list of email messages requesting AMD laptops to you if you'd like. I specifically asked a couple of companies for one of the HD 3200 laptops, because I think it's a very compelling platform. Why haven't I received one yet? No idea... but I'll check back with the contacts and hopefully get one soon.Voldenuit - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
For $1100, you can buy a Thinkpad T400.I don't see how anyone would prefer an Acer, Gateway, or AVADirect at these pricepoints.
JarredWalton - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
It all depends on what you're after, but Lenovo is certainly a viable option. The T400 is good, but you'll probably want to spend more than $1100. I'd get 4GB RAM, 320GB HDD, LED backlighting, 6-cell battery, Vista Home Premium, DVDR, 802.11N WiFi, and Bluetooth. That puts the price at around $1450, which includes $450 savings (limited time offer) and only a 1-year warranty. Bump it up to 3-years and you're at $1550, which is actually still very good. Without the $500 savings it would be difficult to recommend that much, however.Voldenuit - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
You can easily configure a great T400 w/ 2 GB RAM, DVD-burner, discrete Radeon 3470, wireless-N (only $15 extra), LED screen (only $60 extra) and 6-cell battery (only $15 extra) for under $1200.JarredWalton - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
Not that it really matters since they're all pretty slow, but the HD 3470 is about half the performance of the HD 2600 and 8600M GS. Like I said in the review, though, if you really care about graphics performance you'll want a lot more than even the 8600M/HD 2600 (or 9600M/HD 3600).Personally, the minimum configuration I'd go with on the T400 ends up at around $1350 - because the 80GB default HDD is way too small for me. I personally think the Thinkpad laptops work well but look pretty dull, but build quality has always been good on the systems I've seen/used. I'd love to get one for testing (and in particular I'd like to test the LCD - I've heard some models even have S-IPS panels, but maybe that was only on some of their previous laptops when they were still IBM), but so far no luck there.
Voldenuit - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
The T60p had an S-IPS panel, as did several other earlier models. The current crop of T400/500/W500 use TN-Film. Notebookreview compared the screen on the T400 favourably against the S-IPS on the T60:http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4...">http://www.notebookreview.com/default.a...D=4569&a...
Bottom line, you shouldn't be doing colour-calibration sensitive work on a laptop in the field anyway, and if you're doing it indoors, you'd probably want an external display for the added resolution if nothing else.
strikeback03 - Friday, September 19, 2008 - link
That review clearly shows that the TN screens still have along way to go to match the S-IPS in anything other than brightness.And if you had a decent display on a laptop, why not use it for color-sensitive work? Lenovo is guessing people will with the new W700.
Voldenuit - Saturday, September 20, 2008 - link
Because a typical laptop in the field will be subjected to various (changing) lighting conditions, so any colour calibration on the lcd will be moot. That and most laptop displays don't even give you the option to mess with the ICC profiles.The W700 is not exactly "portable", so it is likely to stay anchored in an office.
The sad practical reality though is that practically no one is making S-IPS screens for laptops anymore (see the lenovo blogs on this issue), so we're stuck with TN-film until the market responds with a demand for higher quality panels.
Loknar - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
Acer will have to do a lot to win me over. My company bought hundreds and now they are piling up in the corner, defect just after warranty expired. The Acers I'm talking about are centrinos and recent core duos. The construction is terrible. Those currently in use by my staff crashes (from overheating) when programmers are compiling applications. When you shake them it feels like old plastic of 1980's Toyotas, and often there are loose bolts inside.My company gave me are core2duo and I use it at home, removed the bottom casing and installed a cooling pad. It still crashes sometimes when my girlfriend plays tetris.
The battery life and LCD display may seem ok in this lineup. But it is still unacceptable for me, give me a lower spec MacBook anytime. I had to get as far away as Acer as possible and got a MacBookPro, but a simple MacBook would have satisfied my office needs.
Foxy1 - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Did anyone happen to catch the score of the OU/Washington game?JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
No, but I did go see the BYU/Washington game in person. It was awesome watching the Cougars pull off the win at the end. Despite all the complaints from WA fans, it's worth noting that they had something like three penalties the whole game, they didn't get called for the blatant holds on 4th and 10 during the final drive, and the refs also didn't call the illegal forward pass with one minute remaining where the QB was a yard over the line of scrimmage. After such a demoralizing loss, it's hardly a surprise that they rolled over and played dead for OU.Go Cougars!
Donkey2008 - Friday, September 19, 2008 - link
There was no excuse for the unsportsmanlike penalty. BYU fans can point a finger at other calls (which apparantly only they saw) leading up to the touchdown, but the referee influenced the outcome of the game. End of story. UW should have been kicking an EP, not a 35-yard FG.The more BYU fans try to deflect that fact, the worse it makes the call look. Just say "hey, it was a bad call. We got lucky" and the whole incident will be over.
JarredWalton - Friday, September 19, 2008 - link
Okay, TOTALLY 100% OFF TOPIC:If you throw a ball 25 feet into the air after a TD, that's a penalty. The only people who think it was a "bad call" are WA fans or people that don't like BYU. If you think it's a "bad rule" that should be changed, fine, but that's a different debate.
I just loved Lou Holtz' commentary on ESPN: "He didn't throw the ball; he just raised his hands and the ball happened to be in them." LOL... That's as insightful as his repeated analysis of how great the Notre Dame team is always going to be.
Think I'm making this stuff up? How about a little physics to back things up?
http://www.truveo.com/Endzone-View-of-Locker-Throw...">hang time = 2.36 s - nope, he didn't just "toss it over his shoulder" (unless it mysteriously disappeared for 2.36 seconds)
The ball is stopped at the apex, which is half the time, so:
velocity final = vf = 0 m/s
time = t = 1.18 s
acceleration = a = -9.8 m/s2
Solve for distance (height) = d = ??
First use: vf = vi + a*t
vi = velocity initial
0 m/s = vi + (-9.8 m/s2)*(1.18 s)
0 m/s = vi - 11.564 m/s
vi = 11.564 m/s
Now use: vf^2 = vi^2 + 2*a*d
(0 m/s)^2 = (11.564 m/s)^2 + 2*(-9.8 m/s^2)*(d)
0 m^2/s^2 = (133.726096 m^2/s^2) + (-19.6 m/s^2)*d
-133.726096 m^2/s^2 = (-19.6 m/s^2)*d
(-133.726096 m^2/s^2)/(-19.6 m/s^2) = d
d = 6.82276 m
Don't know about you guys, but lofting a football 22.3843 feet into the air seems pretty "high" to me. That's the equivalent of throwing a football (at a 30 degree angle) around 25 yards - perhaps not the hardest he could throw it, but certainly not an "accident" or "toss".
Is the rule bad? Perhaps. If so, it's up to the schools to make the change, not the refs. If you want to blame someone other than Locker, don't blame the officials; blame PAC-10 and the other conferences that told the officials to clamp down on post-TD celebrations.
To reiterate: I was *at* the game. How many penalties went against WA? Three, two of which came on the final drive. (Okay, four if you count the offsides call on the final kickoff after their blocked PAT.) How many against BYU? Seven. This wasn't a dirty game, but WA didn't have a single false start or offsides called against them (there are always a couple), not a single hold (again, there are always a few of those), and yet they're going to blame the refs!?
Here's another completely blown call for you: one minute remaining, ball is on BYU's 41 yard line. Locker completes a pass to the 29 yard line for a first down... except he threw the ball from the 39 yard line (two *YARDS* over the line of scrimmage)!
Okay, that's the last I'm saying about this in the comments of a laptop review. Who in the heck brought up a football discussion anyway? Someone needs to get their priorities straight....
[END OFF TOPIC DISCUSSION]
bob4432 - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
how did you bench company of heroes? fraps? the built in test? some custom test?JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
The same way as in http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=339...">previous articles, which is to say we ran the built-in test. It may not represent actual gameplay 100%, but that's not really possible with any benchmark of any game, since specific scenes/levels are always slower for faster. The idea is to show the relative performance of the laptops. If memory serves, the built-in performance test usually provided higher numbers than regular gameplay by 10-20%.bob4432 - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
did you have to unlock anything? the reason i ask is because when i run the benchmark test i get 63fps avg from an x1800xt to a 4850 to a 8800gtx to a 9800gtx @ 1280x1024 - 1680x105....rigs have 2-3GB of ram and are running from x2 4200s to e2160@3Ghz to a quad rigJarredWalton - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
You need to add the -novsync option to the command line argument.bob4432 - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
command line?JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
You'll need to manually create a shortcut to the game executable (RelicCOH.exe). Then right-click on the shortcut and choose properties. In the Shortcut tab, under target, add -novsync at the end of the line (after any quotes or other stuff). The 1.70 patch enabled VSYNC by default to provide a higher quality rendering experience, and the Readme file details the above command-line parameter.bob4432 - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
thanks for the info - ended up w/ 106fps avg w/ a decent o/c'd 4850, e2160@3GHz and 3GB ddr2-667, so i am happy w/ that. pretty impressed w/ that 7811fx machine. thinking of myself moving up to a 24" 1920x1200 lcd here in a couple days and figure that my next rig will be crossfire since i will probably need it but not too shabby for the price i paid for this current gpu. only thing is the damn heat output :)again, thanks