M11x Fixed Benchmark Comparison

I created this thread so that fixed benchmarks could be used to easily compare the new m11x cpu's to the old su7300. I know there is a m11xR2 benchmark thread but it is now over 40 pages long and most of the benchmarks are suspect at best. I know some people don't care for fixed benchmarks but this will at least allow us to compare the 2 cpu's without other variables.

I ran them all with my M11xR1, since I don't have a M11xR2 my hope is that someone else has as much free time as I do and has one of the i7 or i5 rigs. I along with alot of the early adopters would like to know if it is worth losing a couple hundred dollars switching.

All the benchmarks I used are free to download and can be ran multiple times. I admit I stole this idea from the m15x thread that Batboy started. The settings for each benchmark are listed next to its link. I attached all the pictures of my results.

I purposely didn't run any of the benchmarks in dx10 if available because the 335m isn't that powerful and I was afraid it would just drop the fps and make the gpu the bottleneck if it wasn't already.

M11x - su7300 @ 1.73 - 4GB ram - 320GB HDD – 64-Bit Win 7 – Dell Driver 197.12 – GPU @ stock clocks

SFIV DX9 -1366x768 - 2xAA - 16xFilter - All High Settings - No Extra Touch (I only added the AA and AF because otherwise it would bounce off the 60fps limit alot and hurt the validity of the results)

DMC4 DX9 - 1360x768 - No MSAA - All High Settings (had to take screenshot with fraps for some reason)

Final Fantasy 14 Low - 1280x720

The Last Remnant 1366x768 Full Screen

Resident Evil 5 DX9 - 1366x768 - Fixed Scene 1 - No AA - No Motion Blur - All Settings High (Had to take screenshot with Fraps for some reason)

Please don't post responses without benchmark results, links to other free benchmarks, or constructive criticism.

 

3Dmark06 1280x720 (only rez for basic edition) No AA - Optimal Filtering

3DMark06 1366x768 - No AA - Optimal Filtering

Fritz 9 Using 1 Core (to compare to turbo boost)

Fritz 9 Using 2 Cores (to compare to modern games that use 2 cores)

WPrime 32M - 1 Core and 2 Core scores listed

 

Uniengine Free DX9-DX11 benchmark but I could never get it run correctly but maybe someone can.

Vantage I have not run it because it requires at least a 1280x1024 resolution which the m11x does not support natively.

Stalker This benchmark completely downloaded for me twice from 2 different websites but when it was done Firefox crashed so I have not run it yet.

Call of Juarez Will download this and post results later.

If someone would like to run Crysis or Far Cry 2 I have them both but there is no free tool to download.

Cinebench 11.5 All 3 Benchmarks

 

+rep I think this will change some minds,many think that the r2 is WAY more powerful and thats not true... The OCed i7 is only about 20-22% more powerful than the OCed SU7300... Thats good but not good enough...

 

Dude? how can a 20% increase not be good enough?!

Anyways, I will try to add more benchmarks to this thread when my r2 arrives tomorrow. There are still more comparisons to be done and not because I think there should be any "envy" between r1 or r2 users (we have a great machine regardless) but because we need to see how exactly the new processors match up against the C2D's. Right now thats the big difference, sure in the next 12 months it will be the r3! but till then........

My biggest frustration is the lack of real side by side comparisons, not from us users, but from a professional media team! We are all scrambling to compare both models but at the moment lack the uniformity to acheive it. Please dont think I'm knocking this, the opposite infact, I praise it! Hence joining in this forum and wanting to help. Until then I support this thread and hope we can acheive a realistic side by side comparison until one of our online media friends finds it worthwhile to try themselves. We are almost there!

 

From experience I know that RE5 likes multi-core/thread PCs. On my desktop when I upgraded my Q6600 to a i7 920 the FPS jumped drastically, I look forward to seeing the i7 running the benchmark because then we can see how an optimized game will be able to take advantage of the added power.

 

don't we have an official R1 benchmark thread with tons of pics on settings and many of the popular free ones are posted? The only problem we have is getting R2 owners to benchmark to those settings.. or to even benchmark at all! Too many threads..

 

20% is decent, that can be the difference between holding on to a computer for a few more months and buying a new one

 

I'd love to do some of these benchmarks but I can't get any of the programs to recognize my 335m .

 

Yeah but for the price of the i7 over the SU7300? I don't think so.

 

If it is really 20% then that is pretty significant for just a CPU upgrade. It shows that the 335M was being bottlenecked by the CPU and its not like the Core i5/i7 is really expensive or anything. Its not much more than the R1 was when it was new.

 

It's not really 20% in anything yet, we have like one guy saying BC2 runs maybe 20% better, but everything else from everyone else that has tested has run within a couple FPS of the SU7300.

Hopefully as more people get them we will get more benchmarks of various games to get a good idea, but so far the new CPU's don't seem to be making a bit of difference.

 

anyway 20% isn't that much when we're talking already about low CPU clock speeds. I mean 20% would be more significant if we were talking like 3.0Ghz C2D to 3.6Ghz but 1.3/1.7 is kind of meh. Especially when we're talking about $150 over SU7300 for i5 and $300 for i7..

 

the cpu can't be upgraded, so why not go for the best one?

 

I don't think there is a question if you are buying your first M11X that getting an iX core makes good sense. However, for people with an R1 the point of these comparison threads is to determine if it is worth upgrading. So far all the benchmarks suggest that it is not at all worth upgrading.

 

value : performance

why on earth would you raise the price of the base model over 30% for just 1-3 fps more in games?

translate this to a car purchase. would you pay $7,000 more for a better engine if it put down 10-20 more HP at the flywheel, and got 1-2 mpg less fuel efficiency if the car's base price was $21,000?

the 'best' options aren't always the best solutions.

 

Levenly - that was a terrific analogy that I understand. Big car guy myself.

 

Only we aren't talking thousands of $, and not everyone just uses it for games.

 

we're still talking $300 dollars for something that typically last no longer than 2-4 years. I mean if I were to buy R2 today and never had R1, then sure I would probably opt for i7, but I wouldn't be able to get the SSD I have now with the SU7300..

 

And you would see lower performance across the board because you lost the SSD, the iX core processors don't add NEARLY the performance of an SSD.

 

When I went to look at pricing the different M11x models, the price difference from SU7300 to I7 was $175. I would not pay an extra $300 either. If you are a patient person I would wait it out a while, or if you don't plan on using the extra CPU speed get the SU7300 or the i5 (although the i5 price diff was like $60 then, not sure what it is now).

 

I see, yeah now- non-epp is SU7300 is 800 base, i5 starts at 950, and i7 1100 base. USD

 

proportionally, my anology is sound.

it's still hundreds of dollars higher than the base price for a very minute increase in gaming performance, and lets face it, no one is buying the m11x to do photoshop work. people are using it as a gaming netbook.

if i were buying a new m11x, i would probably opt for the i3 or i5 models, but i just don't feel the i7 model increases the value of the notebook.

i mean, i already have a desktop i use for gaming, so the extra money does not justify the purchase for me.

 

I could use the same proportions that results in penny differences, doesn't make it a good example. Why aren't you just using the provided numbers?

As I have already stated though, I also would not pay $300 premium. Doesn't make yours a good example, it just emphasizes your own point. Simply stating the facts should be sufficient for someone who is looking to buy to decide. If it is or isn't worth $300 to them, that is for them to decide.

Cost - $300
Performance gain: 1-3fps (or whatever was collectively decided)

More accurately I would find the difference in the particular game you are buying it for (or multiple games). Also consider what else you might end up doing with it.

 

You took the words from my mouth.

Come on! I had a mobile core 2 duo @ 3.0ghz and an i7 @ 4.2 ghz I know what performance means!, a 20% performance upgrade of LOW powered cpus IS NOT HUGE!. Pffft $300 USD more just because you get an i7 that runs hotter and gives worse battery life? Then I pass and burn those $300 USD on an intel ssd (160gb x2)...

Again! guys if PERFORMANCE is what you seek, then burn more money and get the m15x or the m17x... Even the base m15x is on par with the m11x when it comes to gaming and price!, it has a more powerful cpu and can be upgraded later....

 

You could argue that 20% increase with a slower cpu is more significant than a 20% increase for a fast processor.

If my slow processor takes 25 secs to do a task, saving 5 secs could be noticeable.

If I had a fast cpu that took 5 secs to do a task, saving 1 second wouldn't really be noticeable.

As for the m15x or m17x, I think theres a reason the M11x is so popular, people want the form factor. Alienware laptops haven't really been considered portable before the m11x came a long.

Of course we haven't really seen enough direct comparisons between the two systems to claim anything like a 20% increase. My point though is that a 20% increase is significant.

 

How long until we get up some actually comparisons?
Not that i don't love the guess work but it's in all the other threads.

 

Yeah most if not all the benchmarks I ran can be found in the R1 benchmark thread. Some solid benchmarks can also be found in the R2 benchmark thread as well and even others spread around. My hope for this thread was to have a 2 or 3 page thread, with nothing but fixed/reproducible benchmarks (no "well fraps said 22fps then 28fps then 29 fps" benchmarks in games where other variables besides the hardware can affect fps) comparing identical stock machines except for the cpu's. The r2 benchmark thread is a mess atm and no 3rd party comparison reviews have been made yet. Now all we need is a willing R2 owner.

This thread can be moved if the mods want to condense the threads.