What is my laptop capable of?

[Anchel]

Ok, so I've already read through tons of messages all around these forums and I still haven't found a clear answer to what I seek.

My laptop is a Sony Vaio FZ21S with a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 Gb of RAM and an NVidia 8600M GS (256Mb dedicated video memory). Using latest drivers 169.28 which seem to work without crashes for me and better performance than others. My Windows Vista is Home Premium 32bits.

At first I thought that should be enough to play most modern games at least with some decent settings, but I can barely play any new games on any resolution higher than 800 x 600, no matter how low I set the effects (ok, so maybe Bioshock on LOW graphic settings and 1024 x 768 works smooth, but that's far from what a machine of these specs should be able to do, right?).

What seems to kill most modern games is the shaders. Any new game that is using shader effects starts working choppy as soon as the effects kick in (Bioshock in High settings, Crysis with shaders in any other setting than Low [that is the same as saying with shaders off] and even on 800 x 600, Collin McRae Dirt...).

So what can people with similar specs tell me about their laptops? What games can they run and at what settings?

Is the behaviour of my laptop abnormal?

Thanks in advance

[Bill]

How does UT3 run with those drivers for you?

You would get a lot better performance using windows XP. Forcing DX9 would also help.

[Anchel]

I don't have UT3... (the demo I downloaded refueses to install... don't know why)

As for XP... I'm not to return to it anytime soon. I use way too many of Vista's functions and I'm quite happy with it.

Finally... yes, I've forced DX9 in those games and while the performance does increase a little, it's nowhere near what should be ideal.

One simple example is Crysis: even with all the settings on low at 800 x 600, the cutscenes work choppy, every single one of them. So choppy that you can't see the lips of the characters moving when they talk, you just see them wide open or wide shut (ok, so sometimes it gets to stop in the middle of closing/opening them :) ). And yes, I have installed the latest Crysis patch and I have the Vista patches from NVidia (and using SP1 in Vista, I should add).

[Guyver1]

the 8600 simply isnt a 'gaming' card, not even the desktop version is.

you simply dont have the raw GPU power to run the most recent games at any decent resolution or gfx detail.

if you'd bought a laptop with a 7950GTX it would have walked all over that 8600

[Anchel]

That's exactly what I don't understand. Why do some people post about their playing Crysis at 1280 x 800 at medium-high on their 8600??

And at the same time, I moved from an 8400M GT (64 Mb) to an 8600M GS (256 Mb) and yet I still have to see a game that shows some noticiable difference in performance from one to the other (I highly doubt the cards should give the same performance...).

I just want to know if everyone else with this specs is having the same problem or if it is just me!

[Guyver1]

knowing the vaio you probably have about 60-70 background tasks running that you dont even know about.

right click on your taskbar and select Task Manager. click on the processes tab, tick the tickbox 'show processes from all users'

while vista has changed the memory management (compared to XP) in that it fills ram up with the most used apps until an application needs to use more ram in which case it will be allocated. There will still be loads of useless stuff running there from installed apps etc.

Whats your 3DMark03/05/06 scores compared to these people who claim to be able to play Crysis at higher res and details settings?

[Anchel]

Sorry for the late answer, I thought I had posted the answer but somehow it didn't.

I had already cleaned up all the useless Vaio stuff that came with the notebook (Google Desktop is even more useless on Vista, and Vaio Photo Story... well, why talk about it? Or even Vaio Media Center, when Windows Vista already has a splendid Media Center).

So the processes are mostly trash-free, with my processor usually being on 0% to 1% right before playing a game and the RAM only using up 950 Mb out of 2 Gb (and that's because Vista, as you said, is storing up the applications I use most frequently).

As for my 3DMark 06 scores, they are the following (at 1280 x 800):

3DMark Score 2956 3DMarks

SM 2.0 Score 1118 Marks

SM 3.0 Score 1098 Marks

CPU Score 1905 Marks

Once again, thanks for your help

Edited January 16, 2008 by Anchel

[Bill]

Those scores do seem really low.

You should set up an extra partition for XP and see how much you get with that.

[Guyver1]

my god that score was around about the same score i used to get on a desktop 6800GS :/

theres something wrong there.

I have a feeling the vaio might be telling a porky pie on the 'dedicated' graphics memory.

for a laptop of that spec I would seriously recommend you either switch to XP or at the very minimum make a new partition for XP and run all your games from XP under DX9.

ok I just looked on the sony website for your lappy:

this is what bothers me:

Graphics Graphic NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GS

Producer NVIDIA®

Comments Total Available Graphics Memory of 1023MB and dedicated Video Memory of 256MB

that comment implies to me that some sort of sharing is going on with the main RAM. I could be totally wrong, but if this was a proper MXM III or IV card then why say it had a total of 1Gb available unless Vista has some sort of memory management whereby it can allocate RAM to GFX calculations?

Other than that there is always the possiblity that you have a dud gfx card......

[Anchel]

Umm... so far the XP solution can't be done. Mainly because I don't have either the required disk space to install a new partition with XP and because I don't have an XP installation CD either.

I have thought of trying Sony Vaio phone support, but I'm sure they will say that game performance is relative and that I should contact the game maker instead. Trying to contact NVidia will surely end up in receiving no answer.

Oh and by the way, I haven't been able to overclock my card yet with any program, not nTune, not RivaTuner. Whenever I click Apply after setting the overclocking, the sliders just reset back to their original positions in BOTH programs and with every driver I've tried (even those people assure allow overclocking). Is something funny going on with my card?

I mean, this would have to be the THIRD computer I have in just 6 months! I had to send back another Vaio (FZ18M) because it was defective, and now THIS?

So what scores do you think this card should be giving instead?

And about shared memory, I have always wondered HOW games detect that shared memory and use it, since I still have to see a game detecting more than 256Mb of video memory in my laptop.

[Guyver1]

i think you should be easily hitting the 5000-6000 mark in 3dmark06 with that card.

[Anchel]

WoW! Ok, I think that was a bit way too much. A score of 5000??

Ok, I've been checking some other people's score with my same drivers (169.28) and even with an 8400M GT they get higher scores than I do!

Maybe my card is underclocked? RivaTuner shows 500/1000/702 in Performance 3D and nTune shows 63 ºC when just doing nothing. But then again, I cannot change the performance from RivaTuner nor nTune because they just reset the settings as soon as I hit APPLY.

UPDATE: Ok, this is weirder now, I've managed to UNDERCLOCK with RivaTuner to 498/996/702 and it did save the settings... BUT NOW I CAN'T GO BACK TO 500/1000/702!!

What the heck is going on here?

I can downgrade the clock speeds as much as I want and save the settings, but then that will become the fastest I can go! It just sticks there so if I now have 493/986/702, that is the maximum clock speed it allows me now :S

UPDATE 2: So now even clicking on DEFAULT sets the speeds back to what they were, but as soon as I press Apply, they go to 493/986/702 again!

Great, now my card is slower than before... :)

UPDATE 3: Oh well... I knew a score of 5000 in my card would be way too much at 1280 x 800. I've seen scores taken from much better cards (like the Geforce Go 7950 GTX) and they mostly get a score of 5205 when not overclocking. So either my card is too slow or their card is too slow, but both statements can't be true.

BTW, I'm still stuck with underclocking... I'm goning to need some help here guys... :)

Help will be appreciated

Edited January 16, 2008 by Anchel

[Bill]

i think you should be easily hitting the 5000-6000 mark in 3dmark06 with that card.

Are you sure about that?

8700M GTs hit the 5500-6500 range, I would think a 8600M GS would only be like 4000-5000. He will also get a much lower score with that slow only dual core CPU.

A fresh driver/ntune install should return the clock speeds to normal as this is a driver clock adjustment, not VBIOS adjustment.

[Anchel]

Well... an Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.2 GHz is not precisely a slow processor at all... in fact as far as I know it is one of the best when it comes to multimedia laptops.

As for the uninstallation of nTune... I somehow can't uninstall it. I guess I should reboot the laptop and try again, maybe then... But that will have to wait as I am doing some work at the same time.

Thanks for the info though!

[Bill]

How can you possibly think that is even close to the best?

That is a very low end core 2 duo CPU.

Even my budget quad core is more than twice as fast (4x2.4 GHz core 2 duo)

Someone lied to you really bad if they told you that was close to the best for multimedia laptops.

Now it should be good enough to run 1080p video easily, but newer games and things will be CPU limited. (especially UE3 games)

[Anchel]

I'm not saying it is the best of the best, but when talking about mainstream laptops designed for multimedia tasks (and I'm not talking about powerhouse laptops, that is a quite different market) it is a very good processor. Even the most expensive Alienware Area-51 has a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo.

My laptop is not just a gaming laptop. I move with it quite a lot in a small bag every single day when I go to classes at college and use it to take notes (OneNote works perfect for this). That is why I haven't bought a 17" laptop or one with a more powerful video card, because I needed mobility first and then gaming after that. For those needs, my laptop should be more than enough.

[anonymous1986]

Well my 8600m GT 256 ram ddr2 has a 3dmark of 3500 with the latest drivers without any overclocking and i heard that the GT is better than the GS so i think that a score around 3000 3d marks is correct for your driver. You could go to notebookcheck.com and check out for yourself:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphi...List.844.0.html and:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForc...-GS.3707.0.html

[Anchel]

Yup, the GT is better than the GS. But also take into account that my GS is ddr3, so maybe that could make a difference (not reaching the GT levels, but at least better than standard ddr2 GS levels, right?)

[Guest zac007]

Anchel:

Well after reading ALL of your posts on your profile, and looking over others replies (many of which are misleading and shallow btw) it seems to me that you still have some driver issue. I say this as I went through your experience almost exactly the same way. My Vista laptop with 8600M GS felt slower than my old Athlon desktop, and indeed FRAPS showed that they were even in Age III even though my new laptop is an order of magnitude "faster" than the old Athlon.

However, after fully updating Vista cleaning the crap and finding the right drivers it is now way faster than any XP system I have had.

With the 8600M GS it normally comes underclocked. So you cant expect it to run any modern games fast. For example my old system had a Radeon 9800 128MB and an ancient Athlon 2000+ and it ran Age III at 1024x768 20FPS with a mixture of settings. The 8600M GS with 169.04 drivers and re-clocked to Manufacturers specs (600/400) is running 22-28FPS at 1440x900 with max quality and AA. That is a huge improvement when you realize that this is Vista which slows down all games by about 15-20 FPS as proved by Maximum PC.

So you have to find a driver which allows overclocking your card, if you cant then it must be some problem caused by Sony (which is very likely)

btw 2900 is an awesome score, my best even with a 660/460 OC was 2800 at 1164x862 or whatever that weird res is!

I hope this rediculously long post will help somewhat.

[Anchel]

That was a really clear and complete answer, thanks zac007.

I have already tried cleaning up all the Sony software that I could (most of it is completely useless, except for a few Adobe applications like Photoshop Elements or Premiere Elements which I DO use, but are awfully slow to load).

Also, I've tried several drivers, with 169.28 being the first ones to actually allow me to play games without glitches, Aero working smooth and Blu Ray playback working (I don't know how that's possible though, usually non-signed drivers don't work with Blu Ray playback). Still, the performance isn't as good as I thought it would be, as you mentioned.

So the only thing left for me to try is overclocking. If, as you say, reclocking back to manufacturer's specs would really improve performance, then I will surely try it. You say 600/400 is a safe try, right? If I can somehow manage to overclock, I will try those settings and monitor stability and temperature just in case. What do you reckong would be a good temperature? Right now it shows 61 ºC with only Internet Explorer working.

Next to try, using driver cleaner to see if re-installing drivers will allow me to overclock.

EDIT:

Just tried using Driver Cleaner Pro to fully uninstall old drivers, but to no avail. It would just automatically go back to 167.43 drivers no matter what I do. So right now I can't overclock. It just sticks there :)

Edited January 21, 2008 by Anchel

[Guest zac007]

Anchel:

Two things:

1 To clarify; the only recent drivers that allow OC are the 169.04, so if you are using any newer ones they will not OC regardless if they are more stable.

2 My system shows 55-61 deg at idle and 73-82 deg during Crysis. So you are well within acceptable limits of heat. :)

[Anchel]

So if 169.28 drivers are not OC then how is some people getting to OC them?? All around these forums people claim that all drivers are overclockable... Well, I'll try your suggestion. It's just too bad that I have to go back to lower drivers...

EDIT:

Well, if I have to downgrade to older drivers in order to use overclocking, then I'd better stay with Sony's latest drivers. After all, those are signed and work for me with Blu Rays...

Could anybody overclock those? I will post my impressions

EDIT 2:

I just downgraded to drivers 167.43 (Sony) but to no avail in overclocking.

Is there any possibility my graphics card came locked so it wouldn't be overclocked?

Anyone with a Vaio FZ laptop could confirm?

Thanks!

Edited January 22, 2008 by Anchel

[Guest zac007]

Well I am following your case very closely because I have not gotten any other drivers to work with the OC feature except for the 169.04 drivers. If i go to HP drivers yes my system is slightly more stable but no OC.

Yes others have gotten newer drivers to OC, but this is precisely why lappies are so frustrating. Just because they worked on his laptop does not mean they will on mine. I have tried to date:

167.26 OC but slow

169.04 OC fast stable (relative)

169.09 No OC but fast and stable

171.16 No OC but superfast, unstable

Also keep in mind you have a Blu-Ray drive. That requires special drivers, so if you use any of the LTV2Go drivers they might be incompatible with your lappy.

Also the reason I am going with Nvidia detonator drivers (the ones from LTV2Go which are Nvidia but with INF changes) is that they unlock the power of your video card, whereas the ones from HP (or in your case Sony) are hobbled and do not keep up with the gaming industry. And of course OC.

So I am curious if you will ever find WHQL drivers that allow OC for an 8600M GS. Why? The boards seem to indicate that some few specific cards will OC with any of the drivers while others (such as mine) will OC with only certain drivers.

[Guest zac007]

Sorry when I say detonator I mean forceware. :)

Old Nvidia speak

[Anchel]

Just one word: WOW!!

I just tried 169.04 drivers after reading what you last said, zac007 and I finally managed to oveclock!!

In fact, I have been able to reach so far 647/1294/757 and it is stable and stays at 75º maximum when playing Crysis.

My 3DMark '06 score has gone up from 2956 to 3638!!!!

That was mostly unexpected for me!!

But Crysis still could do much better, I'm sure of that.

So the next thing I need to know is if there is some way I can get the rest of the drivers to overclock.

The 169.04 drivers may be able to OC, but they awfully slow when compared to 167.43 Sony drivers. So if only those Sony ones were able to OC... that would be a dream come true.

I mean, if some people were able to do it with all drivers even on other laptops, then maybe there is some way to enable that on mine? Mind you that I know not a lot about computers, so I don't know what would be possible and what not.

But so far, a huge thank you for zac007. You really made my day.

Too bad Blu Ray playback is not supported with these... but I'm confident there will be some solution someday, both to the OC problem and the Blu Ray playback one.

Once again, thank you very much for your help.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Anchel