Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:47 am
by awolfe63
Not a chance! I got it put back together once without breaking it. I'm not pushing my luck.
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:27 am
by jmshep
awolfe63 wrote:<snip!>
I'm hoping that someone else will get a machine and run some tests for comparison. Then I can decide what to do next.
I'd be happy to try and replicate the problem on my W500. Could you let me know what games/utils (and versions) you used to push the cores as well as the software used to log the temperature, as well as any other considerations that you think are important in replicating your results.
The only caveat is that I don't have a compatible dock at the moment.
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:03 pm
by awolfe63
I use MOBmeter to track frequency and temperature. I'm pretty sure it only works under XP. There must be other tools (CPU-Z?) that will work under vista.
I ran one copy of Prime95 and one of cpu burn-in v1.01 to get the load to 100%. Then I ran a game (Civilization IV) or 3Dmark06 to get the graphics going. That now peaks at about 86C stand alone and 91C in the dock.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:35 am
by eecon
Now just to refresh my memory ..... Is the discrete ATI 3650 256Mb GPU found in the T500 faster and better for 3D gaming than the ATI FireGL 5700 512 Mb GPU found in the W500 (with all other things being equal)?
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:04 pm
by awolfe63
They should be the same. It used to be that the Radeon chips used a "performance" driver that was 5-15% faster than the "ISV" driver that would be more stable that shipped with FireGL. The XP drivers are exactly the same for both chips right now. Probably the drivers have simply become stable enough that it is not worth doing two versions.
My 3dMark scores on the 5700 are about 5% slower than the published numbers on the 3650. I think that is because I used XP and they used Vista. The Vista drivers must be better tuned.