ASUS G50VT-X1 with Nvidia 9800M Review and Initial Impression

As already explained, in one instance it was an isolated incident (not repeated later) and may have been due to battery dying and laptop going into standby -- perhaps incompletely due to a software bug.

The other instance is more serious, but may very well have been an isolated "lemon". It's not clear, not enough units have been sold and not enough feedback is available to make a judgment as to whether it's a recurring issue.

So don't panic just yet.

 

I dont see why this 9800m GS is regarded as a good card. Its powerful, sure, but it does worse than the 9700m GTS and almost the same as the 9700m GT! (Without OC)

I think this is a downclocked 9700m GTS that nVidia labeled a 9800M series to attract more attention...

 

nvm..........

 

Are you serious man!!

The 9700mGTS 48 shaders + 256 Bits Gets ~7930 in 3dmark06
The 9700mGT 32 shaders + 128 Bits Gets ~6242 in 3dmark06

While the 9800m-GS gets Min 8000+ in 3dmark06 (check page 13 here i think)

And you say it does worst than the 9700mGTS and almost same as 9700mGT??!!

You should have said it does same as or better than the 9700mGTS so that we can believe you...

Note: the benches are from notebookcheck and they are considered higher than real values (like with 9800mGTS they say it gets 9000+ while in reality it gets on 8000 something)

Keep dreaming my friend....

 

1) notebookcheck is a terrible source
2) its not on page 13, but the 8000+ score was NOT done at the standard 3dmark 06 resolution but at 1330x768, which equates to 1280x800, question is were those tests done at 1280x800 for the other cards? from what ive seen notebookcheck does their 3dmark tests in 1280x1024 (the standard resolution for 3dmark 06), by comparison 1280x800 has only 78% the amount of pixels thus the scores would be greatly inflated

 

Correction Page 11

You know benchmarks are annoying....each sys should have benches for its own with its native resolution and then compare it with other systems

All you people are missing the point......the price to get this performance is considered CHEAP!!!!

+1500$ for 9700mGTS vs 1250$ for 9800mGS

 

ok here's his quote for the 3dmark score

here's the problem: 1280x720 is only 921,600 pixels; 1280x1024 is 1,310,720
and 1280x800 is 1,024,000
pixels, thats ONLY 70% of standard 3dmark06 res., thus the score is inflated by 30%!!! (or 10% if you compare it to 1280x800) which means that the real score is 5996 at 1280x1024 and 7709 at 1280x800 (standard laptop test res I THINK)

keep in mind that none of these scores are adjusted for CPU speed differences which have a LARGE effect on 3dMark scores, a big problem IMO; the g50vt-x only has a 2.26Ghz CPU, while some of the people posting their 9800GTS benchies have up to an x9000, heavily misrepresenting the true graphics power of the card

 

installed call of duty 4 and cc cleaner and 3d mark 2006, no pirated software, no other program, dont think those were the cause.

 

upon returning at bestbuy, my battery was charged 100% full, so mine was not battery problem, and yes mine had black, white, gray, black, flickering, then death.

 

PS: during 3d mark 2006 test, i was given a list of options for resolution to test but 1280 x 800 was NOT an option.

 

Are you going to get another one howard??

 

im not going to buy another G50, I might get FX (albeit heavy) and return my desktop (still in return period) or I might keep desktop and get a sony 13.3 in lappy, not sure yet. The thing holding me back is i'm not sure how FX will hold up in red alert 3 during intense multi units combat.

 

thats because you have a 16:9 LCD (which is btw great for gaming)

the different resolution would NOT be a problem if the scores are then adjusted by 10% to equate them with 1280x800 levels (if that is indeed the standard used around here), but THEN you also have to adjust for the fact that the CPU is slower than the 2.5Ghz Penryns that many people around here have, not sure how much difference it makes in 3dmark but a few hundred points wouldnt be unreasonable

this IMO is the biggest downfall of 3dmark, that it uses CPU speed as a factor in the 3dmark score which most people use to assess GPU speed

ANYWAYS your adjusted score is then 7700 3dMark 06 (1280x800) with a 2.26 C2D CPU, now how THAT compares to a 9800 GTS with an identical CPU speed is what i want to know

edit: just to give some comparison, a 9800 GT with a 2.26 C2D gets about 9000 3dMarks in 1280x1024 (he got 9300 but im adjusting it for CPU speed)

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsId=4591

compare that with 6000 3dmarks that Howard got (or would have gotten if he ran it in 1280x1024) and you get a 50% performance improvement between the 9800 GS and 9800 GT

the 9800 GT has 96 stream processors and a 256-bit memory bus; the 9800 GS has 64 stream processors and a 256-bit bus is my guess, read below; the 9800 GTS should be faster than the GS because it has higher clock speeds and same number of stream processors, so about 6500
3dmarks at 1280x1024 (7670 at 1280x800)? not sure, but remember this is with a 2.25 CPU; sounds right?

why? take 9000 divide by 96 you get 93.75, which is 3dmarks per stream processor given same clocks and memory bus width, times by 64 stream processors of the GS and you get 6000 3dmark score; since they both have almost identical clock speeds this comparison works (i think :/)

edit: i put this in because some people were saying that this blows the sager np8660 (formerly 9800GT, now only 9800GTS) away on price but realize they are in completely different performance categories; ALTHOUGH, now, with only the 9800GTS being offered on the Sager it DOES INDEED blow it away on price/performance ratio, however the
9800GT version is still a good deal since you get 50% more performance for ~$600-700 more, not to mention a better warranty than the BestBuy Asus

IMO if you're not a hardcore gamer get the Asus you'll be plenty happy but if you like top settings the 9800GT version of the 8660 is the only game in town in the 15" format, not counting the alienware m15x (overpriced, overheated and too big for a 15" IMO)

 

That sounds interesting...

 

On the asus you wont be able to play at 1280*1024 (at least on the main screen)....doesnt matter how much you get on 3dmark

Also dont predict any number without testing.....really annoying

9650<9700gt why should the 9700>9800gs

 

who said you could? im using 1280x1024 because its the standard testing resolution thus all 3dmark scores must be scaled to it to be relevant, it has nothing to do with his laptop or gaming resolution

and you cant predict something after testing it, becase then it wouldnt be a prediction anymore

if my predictions annoy you so much then go ahead and find all the sources for all the cards and scores with that exact CPU config; i couldnt therefore i had to guess, they're not random guesses; we have a pretty good idea of how much 200mhz or 400mhz extra cpu speed per core influences 3dmark scores

 

I didnt read the whole thread, too much for me but does it also have the famous keyboard lag?

And it looks really good too, and I just got my m50vm Oh well.

 

At anarky

you removed my last line from your quote....i wonder why!!

I said the card has not been tested fully.....So you cant predict Scores from you mind....until it has been tested.....you get it now

I believe im writing in English....and its my second language of course!

 

Unfortunately, yes

at least as howard said

 

what's wrong with Howard's 3dMark score? all the BestBuy ones have the same specs, id say thats adequate 'testing' i didnt predict any scores for the 9800 GS, i just scaled them down to the correct resolution since Howard cant test at the right resolution due to his 16:9 LCD; its simple math to scale the scores based on the amount of pixels on the screen; its not EXACT only because of the cpu aspect of the score, but its CLOSE ENOUGH imo since people look at these scores in the 100's not down to each individual point

this is the last line of your post "9650<9700gt why should the 9700>9800gs"

first of all you didnt specify which 9700 (there are 2, GT and GTS, very differnet), second of all show me where i said that the 9800GS is weaker than a 9700GT? i never did so im not sure what you were trying to say there; my opinion is that the 9800GTS > 9800GS; however im not discounting the fact that it could be a 9700 GTS (ie. 48 stream processors) since i only have one 3dmark test to go on but right now im leaning toward DCd 9800GTS

 

The more I think about it the more it could (not sure) be a software issue. After I took the G50 home, turn it on set it up, of course we all know it goes through the endless download cycle for windows update, drivers update and what not. After its all done. Within 24 hours, this strange cycle started. All updates have been installed and configured, but it would still constantly want to update and configure the update when I turn it off and when I boot the windows. Mind you that there are absolutely no more updates to be downloaded, all updates are finished and configured long ago. For some strange reason it would still go through the configure cycle over and over again. Not sure if this would help anyone in an educated guess on the short lived G50's diagnosis.

 

ok DAY 2 :


I found out why the screen blacks out (at least for my pc).


The computer goes on sleep standby mood, i'm pretty sure you can set the time limit. The screen just goes black, utnil i press space... i'm not sure if this is the problem you encountered howard?


but i'll see how it goes.


Gears of war... dosnt work on vista.. ***u? but that has to do with vista not the g50

 

hm.. not the reason why mine died, computer was just turned on at bestbuy return counter and we were constantly using it, i set my computer to never go into standby mode and lcd wont go dark unless 20 mins of inactivity. It was only 10 minutes and we were constantly touching and using the laptop. Good thing yours is solved though.

 

What??

gear of war support vista

Check again

 

I think i'l have to download a patch via online then, just the initial boot... didn't work >.<


another notable thing about this laptop is... battery life - i'm cranking like 2 hours, i think i need to take some things off my laptop to maximize the batt

 

just ran 3dmark06 with an external monitor at 1280x1024, default everything.

Final score: 7683

SM 2.0 Score
3550
SM 3.0 Score
3242
CPU Score
1998

And i made a thread about this, i would like to see if you guys are having the same issue.

"when I go to the bios and turn off the POST intro sound, I start windows and theres no sound there either

If I enable POST intro sound then sound returns to windows, ***?"

 

yes same problem with G50V

Turn the sound volume to zero and leave the post sound on. Its in the common problems and fixes thread

7683 is good, thats about 1600 more than the 9700gt is getting in Vista.

 

Anyone know what the 9700GTS gets at 1280x1024?

 

by the way, whats the average battery life you guys are getting? im getting just like an hour in entertainment mode :S Im not sure if its supposed to be that bad.

 

Interesting... To my knowledge, here's how it goes down:

9700GT - 32 Stream Processors, 25.6 GB/s Bmax
9700GTS - 48 Stream Processors, 51.2 GB/s Bmax

9800GTS - 64 Stream Processors, 51.2 GB/s Bmax
9800GT - 96 Stream Processors, 51.2 GB/s Bmax

All have slightly different clocks as well.
What's there to observe is:
- Well, they have weird name conventions (note the GT < GTS < GTS < GT)
- 9800GS should be between 9700GTS and 9800GTS, but there's no "gap", so to speak, for it to fill in terms of processors and bandwidth.

So there's really only 2 cases:
1) It's a rebranded 9700GTS, maybe over-clocked
2) It's a downclocked 9800GTS

 

Here it says that the 9800gs is a lower clocked gts with the same number of shader units (?stream processors?) and the same 256 bit memory.
http://notebookcritic.com/2008/10/16/holy-hot-15-gaming-notebook-batman/

 

seen that, not convinced.

 

but it's true

 

it could be true, it could be false. i would like some proof.

 

Someone confirmed it has 64 shaders at this thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=310638&page=12

 

he also "confirmed" that its a 9800 GT; the fact is that the diagnostic programs that people are using cannot read the chipset correctly because they are not updated to detect it

oh nvidia how i hate thy naming schemes -_-

 

That could be true. The device manager also states 9800GT but the sticker on the laptop states Geforce 9800m GS 512k. I get a 5.8 on windows vista gaming graphics and 5.9 on graphics. 5.9 on hard disk transfer rate. Ram 5.9 Cpu 5.3 So I ended up with performance index of 5.3 since vista takes the lowest score.

Randy

 

That's true. I guess the only thing left to do would be to compare the clocks.

 

From Wikipedia:
9700M GTS
G94 core.
48 Stream Processors.
530 MHz core clock.
1325 MHz shader clock.
800 MHz memory clock.
256 bit memory interface.
51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth.
12.7 billion texels/s texture fill rate.
190.8 GigaFLOPS.

9800M GTS
G94 core.
64 Stream Processors.
600 MHz core clock.
1500 MHz shader clock.
800 MHz memory clock.
256 bit memory interface.
51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth.
19.2 billion texels/s texture fill rate.
288 GigaFLOPS.

From Randy's post:

NVIDIA Geforce 9800m GT(GS) we know it's a gs
GPU G94M
65nm
memory 512K DDR3
Shaders 64 unified
Directx support 10.0/SM4.0
Pixel Fillrate 8.5GPixels/s
Texture Fillrate 17 GTexels/s
Bus Width 256bit
Bandwidth 51.1 GB/s
GPU Clock 530mz
Memory 799MHz
Shader 1325mhz

There really is no hard evidence but they all use the G94 core so, I'm going to assume it has the same clocks as the 9700GTS but it also has all 64 shaders enabled. The texture fill rate for the 9800GS also fall in the middle. So:
9700GTS<9800GS<9800GTS

 

noone commented on this but this is a much higher score than what Howard got; also who has the numbers for the 9800 GTS for the SM scores?

these are the only ones i got for the 9800 GTS SM2.0 4245 - SM3.0 3923

can you try to overclock your GS to GTS levels to see if you get around those SM scores? that would settle the argument i think

 

Ok, i was wrong, first i calculated the 1280*1024 scores of the 9800m GS (**** Maths) and i was looking at the 9700m GT 1280*800 scores. But i was just trying to say that the 9800m GS is not a 9800m GT!

 

Is it safe to say then that the 9800GS is a downclocked 9800GTS?

 

i think that it is safe to say that the card is an downclocked 9800gts, however how would 9800gs card do with gaming on an external monitor? specifically 24 inch at 19 by 12 resolution? not lookign for spectacular but decent.

 

its safer than it was 5 pages ago

 

I think that it should at least be decent. However, I don't see the point in plugging an external monitor on a laptop unless it's for movies. If I want to play games on a 24in monitor at 1900x1200 I'll just use my desktop and get far better performance.

 

Actually I finished the 20-page of conversations about an exciting laptop. I have 7811FX with X9100, I am happy with it, BUT if this turns out to be 9800m GT, I may be going for it as well and here's the reason.

1. For games, yes, resolution is important, but if you can turn on the eye candies with 9800m GT/GS, it'd just look as good as high resolutions. For example:

A. 1366 x 768 with 4xAA 16xAF is just as 'beautiful' as 1900x1080/1900x1200 with 0xAA 16xAF....Well it does have difference, but having nice eye candies will already satisfy your needs.

2. Weight is really important. I don't even move my 7811FX as I don't even care to take it out. However, this Asus version is 2lbs lighter, which is a HUGE factor for customers' considerations. I don't care much about resolutions. As long as it's lighter, I would go for it.

3. Any chance to manually upgrade to Q9100 or QX9300. I hope some people would be able to do it here for us. Gateway FX users have been trying to get Q9100 on the laptop but it doesn't seem to work 'YET'. However, this laptop is released at this time, so I really hope it will be ok with Quad CPUs. If QX9300 really works on this laptop, what would you say?

 

Check this out:
http://alrightdeals.com/Item.htm?Id=S5_Computers....Portables_Laptop_Core.2.Duo_0___2265319

 

Hi guys. Just to chime in on the "black screen" issue- it does indeed go black when the battery reaches it's "sleep" setting, not due to some malfunction. This is not any kind of laptop problem, it's obviously designed to do this. I have mine set to hibernate at 6% (I changed it from 10%) and it goes black exactly then.

Howard911s's issue was a faulty laptop or software install, but he's the only one reporting the issue, so don't think this is a normal problem, sounds like he either got a lemon or bad software install. Mine works great, I love it and am glad the P-7811FX went out of stock b/c that was what I was originally after; I've read about the numerous problems with the Gateway even tho it got great professional reviews (and it still may be great, I'm not dissing it).

Anyway, just confirming that there doesn't seem to be a "black screen" issue, only Howard's went belly-up and that's a single case as of now.

 

And actually what's more, this laptop is out, meaning the m15x is already heading to extinction esp coz of the ridiculous price tag and price/performance ratio. I am still stunned to see m15x can support up to 1900x1200 in 15" LCD tho.

 

1680x1050, Ouch, BB version seems to be the basic and original one.

Any chance to look at other webs for upgrading to Quad Core possible?