Projected R3 versus R2 bechmarks

Insofar as Crysis 2 is concerned, can any of you many, many smart folks here estimate how fast an i7 R3 is over an i7 R2 with the same RAM and HD.

R3 seem to only one gpu option.

Will Crysis 2 likely be 10% - 30% better framerate with identical settings and rez ?


UPDATE:
When reviewing this thread, please first take a peak at this link below in blue. It points to very, very relevant posts further down in this same thread. This should provide you some initial insight before reading thru all of the posts here.

While this does not prove Crysis 2 runs faster with the R3, it does prove that the R2 has enough power to spare to match or beat the R3, CPU for CPU.


Happy reading.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...ted-r3-versus-r2-bechmarks-5.html#post7404608




I hope that this is helpful.

 

I believe it was notebookcheck.com or something along those lines that had a GPU comparo page. Quite useful. From what I remember seeing, I'd expect about a 10 - 15% performance increase. Not sure what chipset the tests were done with, probably not the sandy bridge...

 

Depends which R2 we are comparing. I believe a SetPLL'd i7 has a good chance against the R3 i7.

 

If it ends up being an approx 10%-15% framerate increase then R2 is a very good value at the price its at.

 

That could be true if you don't require a DX11 GPU, HDMI 1.4, Gigabit Ethernet, USB 3.0 and new built in audio.

Next year, there'll be Ivy Bridge with a chipset that supports native USB 3.0, thunderbolt and an Intel DX11 GPU.

The M11xR3 is like the Windows Vista of the M11x range. .. Me thinks.

The M11x was great in the past, will be awesome in the future, but at the moment we have the M11xR3.

 

notebookcheck.com already has a review of the r3 right now. Doesn't really compare the r3 vs the r2 but they have the 3d mark scores up and whatnot.

Review Alienware M11x R3 Gaming Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

The review said theirs was a pre-production unit at least as far as what bios and drivers might be available.

Wasn't sure if this is what your looking for or not.

 

7400 in 3dmark06 is pitiful....

 

Honestly, after reading one of these review I get the feeling that they are just made up and that the reviewer really did not have an actual m11x r3 however pretends that he does.

 

He has pictures of a red M11x, which is only an option on the R3.

 

I was thinking the same thing. It's sad, really. They just want website hits and e-fame.

 

Looks like Dell pictures.

 

I think the 3D Mark 06 dosen't tell the whole story. Look at vantage. Over 4k, right? Didn't the R2 barely break 2k? 100% improvement on at least one benchmark? I think thats respectable.

 

the R1 was 2700...
Review Alienware M11x Subnotebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews
The R2 wasn't any better...


the CPU benchmarks show that it(the cpu) is 2x as fast as the su7300...

 

Just tested my r2 in my sig with it overclocked too 156fsb and im getting 3780 so it seems like the sandy cpu is a bit better. But not sure if its worth upgrading too.

But battery life is nice if its true about the r3. But i don't think notebookcheck battery life is true.

 

I'd wager that the 540M is close to 20% faster than the 335M.

96 vs 72 shaders, and significantly higher clocks.

 

no, the R3 is getting 7495 in 3dm06, and MY MODDED R1 is getting 7800.

if i got the R3 id be downgrading. the GT335 may not have dx11 but who cares?

 

I would wait to see what the R3 can get with an overclocked gpu. You are comparing your overclocked system to a stock one.

 

but still, its better then a stock R3 at least in 3dm06. thats pretty unacceptable. i thought the r3 was better then that.

 

1. 3DMark06 is irrelevant

2. That's with a CPU and GPU overclock? Not exactly fair.

3. Run the Vantage GPU test at stock clocks. Spoiler: the 335M will lose, badly.

 

i dont run any of my systems at stock. and i cant really un-overclock my cpu. it was a hard mod to the motherboard pll.

overclocks do count. anything to increase the score counts.

 

As of right now im getting around 8700 too with overclocking the gpu.

I wonder how much more the r3 will get when it gets overclocked because from the announcement they said there's overclocking in bios. I thought sandys cpus in the m11x wouldn't be able too overclock much?

Right now i do have a choice too return my r2 with out any restocking fee from the dell rep i been talking too, But i did ony paid 820$ shipped for this and i also don't want too give it up for less performance or very little difference for the extra 370-400$ it would cost me.

And on the site the r2 isn't even available no more...

Might just wait it out for the r4.

 

oh and the GT540 is bottlenecked by the GDDR3 memory it has. speed wont be that much of an improvement at stock anyway.

 

thats a pretty good score dude. and you could overclock the processors on the r3 MAYBE 5-10mhz. im not saying the r3 is bad tho. the review shows good cpu increases.

 

Fine, then run Vantage at your max overclock, and post the results. Then I'll have someone with a 540M run at stock and overclocked.

 

Right, so since the 335 gets 2.5k in vantage and the 540 gets 10k in vantage, then the 540 will outperform the 335 by 4x in games? oh wait....

 

What... in the heck are you talking about?

This is what the thread is about. Let's settle it. Vantage GPU % of difference has proven to be solid.

 

I'd skip it and hold onto your R2 if you care about
Picture Quality on the built in panel. The R2's aren't great, but the R3's are
even worse!

There's a link to a review about it in the M14x board, top thread. The panel is worse.

I'm happily sticking with my R2 until they get a better panel with superior picture quality and a Matte screen option before I upgrade.

 

I just found it ironic that you would suggest to compare vantage scores while in the same breath asserting the irrelevance of 06, particularly since 06 (despite its age and being dx9) scales more closely with current real-world performance.

 

06 is a glorified CPU test. It's not meant to be used, to compare individual components.

Vantage has a dedicated GPU test, which takes next to no CPU power into account. It's a completely different scenario.

 

Unfortunately, no legitimate website reviewer is going to compare a setpll i7 with an r3. We'll have to rely on someone in the forums to do an unofficial comparison.

 

It's still a synthetic benchmark, and one that is particularly bad at predicting real-world performance, which is what people are more interested in here. A far more useful way to gauge the performance improvement of the new i7/540 combo would be to compare in-game timedemos, or other real-world tests. It's a shame that none of the reviews did this. Although if you look at Notebookreview's original R1 review, they get 38.6fps in COD:MW2 w/2xAA, vs 46.1fps for the R3 (AA not specified) - wow, a whopping 16% increase (/sarcasm). I wonder how much of a contribution the CPU makes to that extra 9fps. Someone needs to do an R2 vs R3 test.

 

I would love to but I don't have an i7.

The display can't get any worse. Blacks are already very dark blue.

Huh? What does that mean?

The R2 can break 3k. My i5 can do 3.5k.

The 540M is on a new architecture. That'll be like comparing the GTX 280 (GT200) against GTX 460 (GF 104) and saying the GTX 460 will be close to 30% faster because it has 96 more shaders and significantly higher clocks.

Oh wait.

And that's the problem with real world tests- they are not repeatable (if there is no timedemo, aka BFBC2) and the settings for them aren't always given. Your example with COD:MW2 shows this: The R3 may be less then 16% faster if AA was used. Likewise, it could be more then 16% faster if AA was used but not given. That is why synthetic benchmarks will always be a staple to reviews.

 

Ya think im going too hold on too the r2 sense i use my m11x on the go ony so it ony get used on the built in display, Heck it still pretty powerful and has no problems with any game on the market that i played, And it seems like there's not a huge performance increase either too be worth the 370-400$ extra. Even on those benchmarks they did i get about that money fps in those games they tested anyways, That extra money can go on something on my desktop which is my main machine.

I still find it weird that they sell the r1 with the r3 but the r2 got token off.

 

He's comparing it to Windows OS, comparing the R1 and R2 to good operating systems, like XP or Windows 7, while the R3 is a mistake, like Vista was. I don't believe that the R3 will be the Vista of the M11x line though. Can't wait for comparisons.

 

Oh I see. I just had a different view of Vista.

 

The problem is that I made it sound like conjecture.

Allow me to state it in the correct manner. The 540M is between 15 and 20 percent faster.

 

Weird, I thought he compared the r3 to vista because he thought that it's actually a pretty good machine, but the perception of it is bad, so it won't do well in the market. Heh go figure...

 

That remains to be seen. My point about the architecture stays.

Then what does this mean?

 

i get 800 more points on 3dmark06 at 1280 X 1024 than a stock R3 just goes to show how awesome tweaking and overclocking can be! 3dmark06 at 1280 X 1024 = 8.3k

stock i7 R3 that is! (i have the i5)

 

i just tried on my Modded R1 at 1280x1024 and i got just shy of 7640.
just goes to show the R1 is still just as capable. about 200 more points then a stock r3, and if you ask me, thats pretty darn good. when i do the 2ghz mod im sure it could be 500+ more points.

 

I think these benchmarks have convinced me to pull the trigger on an R2 i7 that goes to 166MHz and beyond.

 

IDK, I bought my R1 this time last year to game, not to run benchmarks and sing about how fast my notebook is. I'm more intrested in seeing how much better games will run on the R3.

 

The voice of reason. Screw synthetics. Game for game is what I want to see.

 

cpu based games will show a noticeable gain in performance. but otherwise i dont think there will be much of a difference. BC2 would benefit a lot. someone with a modded R1 could get about the same performance, in a non cpu based game.
the R1 with the volt mod on the gpu has the potential to be as fast, or faster.

but the benchmarks do give you a general idea of performance. my r1 getting 7800, vs the r3 (stock) getting 7400. on 3dm06.

there is no doubt that the r3 has a better cpu. but most games wont benifit too much from it.

 

Self - think carefully now, you hold your life in your very hands.

Those with a stable over-clocked GT335M, M11xR1(1.6Ghz+) and M11xR2(TS etc) are probably not going to all run out on mass and buy an M11xR3. Some will.

However the draw toward a future release of an M11x (Ivy Bridge and etc) will be so in-advance of the current M11xR1 and M11xR2, that there will probably be a greater turn over of M11x ownership if one stays true to the brand.

The M11xR1 and M11xR2 in a year or two will become the domain of those looking for a cheap secondhand 'netbook' style device, with the future M11x(Ivy Bride etc) leading the field.

New devotees will start out with the M11xR3.

If the current development life cycle of M11x notebooks stays true to current form(New model approx every 6 months and we don't all go out an buy tablets), those left in the middle with an M11xR3 may feel a bit duped if they upgraded from an M11xR1/R2.
But then those same people would probably just upgrade to a future M11x and wonder what the fluffy duck I'm bleating on about.

Thus the loosely alined comparison to Windows OS development life cycle where people stayed on WinXP and then hopped to Win7, thus skip one generation.

Not so much of the good, bad and evil of the dear, beloved and revered leader in PC OS. (Dear I speak the name)

I don't want to talk about this any more as everywhere I look I only see a boxed in corner.

So what about the R2 and R3 benchmarks then...

Update - (after DavyGT post) phew, I think I almost got away with that. Now, step back from the forum...no sudden moves...

 

It's ok to have your own opinion.

I'm hoping Ivy Bridge and it's chipset adds another clock generator. Not likely as this system works. Perfectly good clocking CPUs are being held back and beaten by overclocked older technology.

About the benchmarks: Cinebench 11.5 is open for the taking for a SetPLL'd i7, if my maths is correct. The R3 is less of challenge then expected with the 2657M- it's slower then the 2617M if NBC is to be believed.

 

To be fair, R3 can not be judged only on power benchmarks. For a Gaming subnotebook, Battery and Heat is VERY important. If R3 is significantly cooler or/and have longer battery, the power bump of 5-15% is completely justified IMO.

If people really want power, they simply need to bump it up to M14x. It's too bad we didn't get a small but fat formfactored 13''. I guess they just didn't want to compete with Acer 3820 or Sony Vaio's top 13''



It's too bad about the display though. I wonder if it's true what Notebookcheck said in their review.. That there simply aren't any better 11,6'' Displays made ever, anywhere:/

Why couldn't they just have gone with matte?

 

Internally, it runs hotter as the HH review shows because of slower fan settings. Battery is a wash between the reviews. It's longer but how much longer? We have 2 reviews showing similar numbers and another one showing better numbers. I'm ignoring this aspect until somebody else confirms, like Anand.

If people really want power at or under 2kg, they need to look at the M11x. Remember the 3820 was only available in Asia for months and the Sony Vaio Z is relatively expensive for a weaker GPU and better CPU.

The display hasn't improved from R1 and probably is a cut corner. Best you can hope for is an Seiko/Samsung screen, at least that is bright enough to use at minimum brightness.

Matte wouldn't matter as there is a sheet of glossy plastic over the screen.

 

Eurgh, God damn GT540m.

96 shaders.... yay, wait 2 (one) warp schedulers with 4 dispatch engines feeding 3 banks of 16 CUDA cores.... mmmm efficient.

16TMU's.... yay, wait no the 335m has 24 (3 TPC's with 8 TMU's per TPC).

4 Rops.... er.... , Hang on the 335m has 8.... FFS.

Whilst I presume the GT540m will appear faster than the 335m in games this will be down not only to it's pairing with a SB based mobile CPU but also the noticably higher core / shader clock. Clock up the 335m and couple it with the same SB CPU and I doubt there would be a difference at all. If anything in texture heavy scenarios the 335m should take the lead.

I am genuinely struggling to see, apart from an improved feature set, how the 540m can be considered "progress" especially considering its TDP is higher than the 335m.

 

Except in Vantage, where it's 300% faster.