|
Post by Vindication on Jul 26, 2010 2:44:34 GMT -5
So I bought a laptop about 2 months ago to use at work. I wanted specs close to my home PC, since I know that my home PC is capable of playing most games. The problem is, even crappy old games run like shit on the laptop. My desktop gets a score of 2100+ on the FF14 benchmark, my laptop cant even run it (slideshow). Power settings are at max for everything while plugged in.
I am starting to think there may be some defective hardware.
Specs:
Desktop: Windows XP: 3.5mb Ram, 2.6ghz dual core AMD processor, 9800gtx+ vid card 512 ram.
Laptop: Windows 7: 4mb ram, Intel Core i3 2.13ghz(dual core), nvidia geforce gt 240m, 512mb.
The vid card on the laptop is quite a bit better than the desktop one, and the laptop has .5mb more ram. The processor is of different make and a tiny bit weaker but it's supposed to be better quality.
I'm really confused, is it just that the intel processors are complete shit? Temp has this same issue, he has virtually same specs as my desktop but he has an intel processor. Thus he lags to hell and I get 60+ fps in raid.
|
|
|
Post by Vindication on Jul 26, 2010 2:50:47 GMT -5
WoW FPS:
Desktop: 60+ in raid max settings.
Laptop: 1-10 in raid max settings.
what the f?
|
|
|
Post by Nosferalatu on Jul 26, 2010 8:25:27 GMT -5
If it's an onboard video card it's going to suck period, not much you can do about that. From the specs you listed it almost sounds like it's a separate card though? I'd have to see the actual spec sheet, but if it's an onboard chip that's your issue.
Intel processors are generally better than AMD processors though the i3 processor you have on the laptop is Intel's new budget line so it's not their flagship chip. Comparing your computer to temps isn't really a good comparison to say AMD > Intel or the other way around since his machine is probably a bit older than yours and the specs on the chips may be drastically different.
|
|
|
Post by Vindication on Jul 26, 2010 11:45:19 GMT -5
I made sure to get a seperate card.
My computer is as old as temps, I just upgrade mine.
So I'm guessing I should call them to see what's up?
|
|
|
Post by Nosferalatu on Jul 26, 2010 12:06:16 GMT -5
What brand and model computer? Have you upgraded your video and sound drivers and such? You said the power settings are all at max when plugged in, but there's a chance that there's another power settings somewhere in BIOS or even a switch that reverts it over to a power saving mode.
|
|
|
Post by Vindication on Jul 26, 2010 16:07:10 GMT -5
Laptop is Dell-Alienware, every driver I could think of is updated. Checked bios too to make sure everything was at max.
Desktop-HP.
I assumed the I3 was dual core, is it? I researched it a little bit before I bought and most of the reviews said it was better than what was in my desktop.
The only other thing I can think of is background applications but baseline computer activity usage is 1-3% and memory usage ~24% with OS in consideration(and I dont think its counting video memory).
|
|
|
Post by Vindication on Jul 26, 2010 16:08:27 GMT -5
And on low res benchmark test for ff14 it is literally a slideshow, that should not be happening @ these specs. I am so confused >< something has to be broken.
|
|
|
Post by Nosferalatu on Jul 26, 2010 16:19:07 GMT -5
Yes the i3 is a dual core and is probably a better chip than what's in your desktop. Intel has changed their lines around a bit and i3 is the budget chip (think Celeron) i5 is the mainstream (regular pentium) and the i7 is the big dollar high-end chip (pentium extreme or similar), but doesn't necessarily mean the i3 is a bad chip.
If it's an alienware series laptop then it most certainly should be able to run the benchmark and get better FPS in WOW than you're getting - they're marketed as gaming computers. Something else is going on, did you check on Dell's site and type in your service tag to see if there's a BIOS or firmware update for something? Getting in touch with Dell for something like this will be a pain since they "can't guarantee performance for a certain game or application blah blah blah" but perhaps it's a known issue that they have a fix for.
|
|
|
Post by Vindication on Jul 26, 2010 20:09:41 GMT -5
Found out what the issue is. Apparently when i looked up the vid card, it showed the 240 desktop version, the laptop has 240m which is like 1/4 the power. The 9800gtx+ has a bandwith of 74, while the 240m has a bandwith of 24... I think this is why the laptop is fail. Problem is even the best laptop card you can get is only comparable to the 9800gtx+'s performance. I didnt know this
|
|
|
Post by Vindication on Jul 26, 2010 20:11:49 GMT -5
Is there a way to jerry rig desktop vid card to a laptop?
|
|
|
Post by sakkari on Jul 26, 2010 20:17:39 GMT -5
Duct tape! and Bubble Gum!
But most likely not.. usually the laptop will have the processing unit built into the motherboard.. desktops don't (PCI slots and whatnot)
|
|
udderlicious
Trial
For hire or rent- Group rates also available!
Posts: 145
|
Post by udderlicious on Jul 27, 2010 9:54:40 GMT -5
Can you scale the graphics back any? There isnt a lot of options for ya mookies - though if the next gen comes out, you may be able to find a similar vid card on ebay if they kept the design the same..
|
|
|
Post by Sosa on Jul 27, 2010 10:39:46 GMT -5
I was reading over this thread, and to be honest it doesn't seem like there's much you can do if it's an integrated card. The 240 is a *newer* card than the 9800 GTX, but it's actually a fair bit weaker in terms of raw power. When it comes to video cards, newer doesn't necessarily mean better - they are released in different classifications based on price structure and how new the technology is. As you pointed out later, it's also a 240m - not a 240. The specs listed above are actually for the desktop version of the card - the integrated version is much weaker. The ~512mb increase in physical RAM is an advantage that your laptop has, but Windows 7 is also a substantially more demanding OS than XP and it shouldn't make an enormous difference in your performance either way since both systems are well over what the game needs to perform well. Your best hope is to try and scale back advanced options like anti-aliasing/multisampling and some of the advanced lighting effects added in WotLK. If you find that you have good performance in old world/BC areas and then your performance nosedives after entering a WotLK area, it's a fairly good indication your card doesn't support the advanced features they've added in those areas. If that doesn't work, try decreasing your visible draw distance. By decreasing how much of the horizon the game has to draw, it should yield a very noticeable increase in performance... particularly in outdoor areas. As a last resort, try running the game at a lower resolution.
|
|
|
Post by Nosferalatu on Jul 27, 2010 11:50:43 GMT -5
I think his issue is he wants to play FF not WoW XD
|
|
|
Post by Sosa on Jul 27, 2010 14:45:19 GMT -5
I think his issue is he wants to play FF not WoW XD I used to have that issue myself. Unfortunately, I was never able to successfully resolve it. I just kind of accepted it and learned to live with it.
|
|