Surprise with ATI 7500!!!

Message

GoyoNeuff · #1 Post by **GoyoNeuff** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:12 pm

Hi All,
I was seriously suprise w/ my new T42 ATI 7500 32MB. Overall performance is GREAT!!! plus some results on 3DMark2001 SE:
4120, 4119, 4121.

I think ATI7500 is kind of old, but it still rocks!!!

K

eriqesque · #2 Post by **eriqesque** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:35 pm

Yes I have been surprised at the performance of the 9000 on mine
The only people whi whine are the hardcore gamers than whine if its not a 100 FPS

Chun-Yu · #3 Post by **Chun-Yu** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:40 pm

Perhaps you should try http://www.theprodukkt.com/kkrieger.html then...it runs at maybe 1-2fps on my T41 and is "barely" playable on a T41p.

Then again, this may be an extreme example.

eliu · #4 Post by **eliu** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:12 am

haha, that's about right

I used to have a Geforce2 Pro in my desktop (about equalivalent to the 7500), and I could play *all* the latest games on it. Resolution was 800x600 or 1024x768, and most display options were set on "low" or "medium," but everything was very playable.

Only the die-hard gamers really notice all the niceties of a brand new radeon x800 or whatever. Personally, when I'm running around shooting stuff, I don't have time to pay attention...

Only time I missed the extra 'prettiness' was like in FS2004.

-Eric

darrenf · #5 Post by **darrenf** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:27 am

-Chun-Yu,

Wow - that is a demanding game! My T42, 9600 w/64M can play Far-Cry at Max settings at a high framerate but lags on kkrieger (about 15-20fps I would guess).

BUT, what an amazing game! Or feat of programming rather. I thought I was looking at the TARDIS! It's 95 KILObytes (yes, that's not a typo) and has a full 3-D game with audio, background music and a scripted intro sequence.

That is quite possibly the most amazing thing I've seen in years. I'm still looking for the man behind the curtain!

-darren

Logi7 · #6 Post by **Logi7** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 3:24 am

why hasent IBM equiped the t42s with 9700s?

they were widly available before t42s came out

#7 Post by **K. Eng** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:14 am

IBM is pretty conservative when it comes to graphics chips and has always been one step behind the bleeding edge GPU. When the 9600 was king of the hill, IBM was using the 9000 in its non-workstation model ThinkPads.

I don't know the reasons for this, but I am pretty certain that most IBM customers (large companies) don't care about having the fastest GPU.

Logi7 wrote:why hasent IBM equiped the t42s with 9700s?

they were widly available before t42s came out

lophiomys · #8 Post by **lophiomys** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:40 am

I don't know the reasons for this, but I am pretty certain that most IBM customers (large companies) don't care about having the fastest GPU.

IMHO the IBM Thinkpad team is just too lethargic. Again for a company as mighty and resourceful as IBM and for a thing as prestigeous as a Thinkpad... at least one top (gamers/cad) model would make sense.
Also people reporting heat problems make you believe that current Thinkbad (:0) designs or coolers would not cope with hot GPUs.

#9 Post by **K. Eng** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 11:53 am

I don't think IBM targets or even cares about the gamer community. A few hundred or thousand gamers who might buy a ThinkPad are inconsequential compared to huge corporate customers who purchase tens of thousands of machines at a time.

Gaming and CAD aslo have significantly different requirements. Gaming generally requires fast DirectX performance (some titles like DOOM3 are OpenGL, but DX has become dominant) and the ability to handle vast amounts of textures. CAD requires more polygon processing at higher accuracy and superior OpenGL performance.

"Prestige" of the ThinkPad rests on features like good keyboards, sturdy build quality, and technical support. A fast GPU is pretty low on the list.

smakdown61 · #10 Post by **smakdown61** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:56 pm

Well you think if IBM wanted superior opengl performance they would have gone with nvidia as they have proven to have much more opengl optimized drivers.

#11 Post by **K. Eng** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 3:36 pm

That is true, but it would have necessitated the design of a different system board if IBM wanted an ATI part for its general ThinkPads and an nVidia part for its mobile workstations.

If the computer industry can decide on standard PCIe slot for notebooks, I would not be surprised if IBM offered nVidia products in the future.

GoyoNeuff · #12 Post by **GoyoNeuff** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:23 am

For a three years old, ATI 7500 is an OLD DOG!!! It is amazing that I got only 750 points of difference in 3DMark compare it with ATI 9000. For a $1360 (no taxes) babe, this machine rocks!!! I'm doing GoCad, a geological modeling CAD, with only 256 MB RAM (it'll be upgraded up to 768 soooonnnnnn!

) and ATI 7500, this is very good performance!!! IBM are not the games machines for the future, but sure they're work-proof always!!!

#13 Post by **K. Eng** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:31 am

I admit I was surprised that the Radeon 9000 did not provide that much of a performance boost over the Radeon 7500. I tested a Dell Latitude D600 with a Radeon 9000 and it only scored about 4800 or so at 1024x768x32 no AA/AF.

The Radeon 9000 does have the advantage of DX8.1 hardware support, so it will allow better effects in some games.

GoyoNeuff wrote:For a three years old, ATI 7500 is an OLD DOG!!! It is amazing that I got only 750 points of difference in 3DMark compare it with ATI 9000.

Surprise with ATI 7500!!!

Surprise with ATI 7500!!!

Who is online