Tried Any Games On Your t4- Series Laptop?

Message

itzmheck · #1 Post by **itzmheck** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:57 pm

I was wondering about any games people have played on their T42p laptop. If so, please state your specs and the performance (fps, lag, etc.)

Conmee · #2 Post by **Conmee** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:18 pm

itzmheck,

Here's a link to a long thread about Doom3. http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=2588&start=0

I'd say that Doom3 and HL2 (throw CoD in for good measure) are the most taxing games out there in terms of pushing a ThinkPad to its limit. Keep in mind that none of the ThinkPads should be considered gaming machines, as IBM tends to focus more on stability, battery life, and heat dissipation than say, Alienware, Sager, etc.

Anyhow, here's some of what I posted in the thread I've given you the link for, which will give you quite a bit of detail and background on performance with Doom3 and IBM and modded ATI drivers. Consider these results in the same ballpark for CoD and HL2. As far as older games (pretty much any DirectX 7 or 8 game), it runs them very well (UT, Serious Sam, Tron, etc)...

Daniel.

"I performed benchmarks using the latest IBM-supplied ATI drivers and the beta driver above. I also tested various over-clocking settings for my system. Here's what I've got, in a nutshell:

My system is a T42p 14" 2373-GRU with 1GB RAM and FireGL T2 (see sig.)

ATI/IBM driver and Default FireGL clocking (317.25/202.50):
3DMark01se=9624
3DMark03=2628
Doom3TimeDemo(800x600, Med. Qual)=18.1 fps
Doom3TimeDemo(1024x768, Med. Qual)=13.5 fps

ATI/4.9Beta driver and Default FireGL clocking (317.25/202.50):
3DMark01se=9603
3DMark03=2623
Doom3TimeDemo(800x600, Med. Qual)=23.3 fps
Doom3TimeDemo(1024x768, Med. Qual)=16.5 fps

ATI/IBM driver and O/C FireGL clocking (420/234):
3DMark01se=11701
3DMark03=(Locked Up)
Doom3TimeDemo(800x600, Med. Qual)=21.2 fps
Doom3TimeDemo(1024x768, Med. Qual)=16.1 fps

ATI/4.9Beta driver and O/C FireGL clocking (420/234):
3DMark01se=11464
3DMark03=(Locked Up)
Doom3TimeDemo(800x600, Med. Qual)=27.1 fps
Doom3TimeDemo(1024x768, Med. Qual)=(Locked Up)

ATI/IBM driver and O/C FireGL clocking (348/228):
3DMark01se=10553
3DMark03=2910
Doom3TimeDemo(800x600, Med. Qual)=19.4 fps
Doom3TimeDemo(1024x768, Med. Qual)=14.6 fps

ATI/4.9Beta driver and O/C FireGL clocking (348/228):
3DMark01se=10564
3DMark03=2905
Doom3TimeDemo(800x600, Med. Qual)=25.1 fps
Doom3TimeDemo(1024x768, Med. Qual)=18.0 fps

ATI/IBM driver and Default FireGL Clocking:
Doom3TimeDemo(1024x768, Hi Qual)=13.0 fps
Doom3TimeDemo(1024x768, Ultra Qual)=10.4 fps
Doom3TimeDemo(640x480, Hi Qual)=20.6 fps

ATI/4.9Beta driver and O/C FireGL clocking (348/228):
Doom3TimeDemo(1024x768, Hi Qual)=17.0 fps
Doom3TimeDemo(1024x768, Ultra Qual)=15.1 fps
Doom3TimeDemo(640x480, Hi Qual)=28.9 fps

Bottom line is that the ATI Catalyst 4.9 Beta driver mod/patch (as described in the link above by one of our fellow users) when combined with some overclocking, results in the best scores. I'd say you'll get up to a 9 fps improvement over the standard drivers and default clocking. The driver change accounts for about 5 fps itself, so ATI has really tuned it for Doom3. However, the other benchmarks were either equal or in some cases somewhat slower with the Doom3-tuned driver. I basically wrote a script that changes this driver file on the fly before doom launches (don't need to reboot to switch the driver between the IBM-supplied and beta versions... it's just one file). I couldn't sustain the higher overclocking of the FireGL (420 core/234 memory) that the other user of the T41p described. My system would lock up with both 3DMark03 and Doom3 TimeDemo when overclocked that high. My system sweetspot (for stability and performance) seems to be the new 4.9Beta driver and overclocking the FireGL to (348 core/228 memory) for the best combination.

So basically, for those folks who don't want to fuss with their systems' drivers or clocking, 18 fps at 800x600 with medium quality settings is about what you can expect (applies to FireGL T2 w/128MB, because of the textures, you'll probably see slightly slower results on a MR9600 w/64MB, and you're in big trouble if you're using anything less). And if you don't mind 640x480 with hi quality settings, you'll get about 28.9 fps. So it's moderately playable with the default driver/clocking at 800x600, but the beta driver and overclocking will give you enough extra fps to make the game considerably smoother, IMO. "

Torque · #3 Post by **Torque** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:40 am

I play Lord of the rings: Battle for Middle-Earth on my T41p, at 1400x1050 and high (second highest) level graphics without any lag. An estimate 30fps.

skanky · #4 Post by **skanky** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:14 am

played HL2 on my 1.5ghz T42, 512mb, ati 7500 32mb, its not too bad at 800x600, plesantly surprised that it plays quite good.

Steve007 · #5 Post by **Steve007** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:59 am

Double Post.

Why can't I delete my post?!!!

Steve007 · #6 Post by **Steve007** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:04 am

itzmheck wrote:I was wondering about any games people have played on their T42p laptop. If so, please state your specs and the performance (fps, lag, etc.)

Can't be arsed to list the FPS and all that stuff, but I picked up Half Life 2 at the weekend and I'm running it on my T40p and the games runs perfectly well on medium/high detail @ 1400x1050.

My system is per this spec with 1GB RAM:

http://www-3.ibm.com/pc/support/site.ws ... ry=2373G3G

Those with T41/T42p's should have the game running a tad more smoothly than I can but it's still perfectly playable.

I own 2 T40 & T42 WH models but I haven't tried the likes of HL2 and Far Cry on them as the 32MB ATI Radeon 7500 struggles with advanced geometry but they run Unreal Tournament 2003 superbly with everything cranked up to high detail.

The other games I have games lik Far Cry, Command & Conquer Generals. Again, they all run perfectly well with no issues.

dcdomain · #7 Post by **dcdomain** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:49 am

I play Counter-Strike: Source on my T42 (9600), anyone have comparisons for the various drivers for this particular game and video card? I would play on my desktop but my mobile 9600 kicks my desktop's 9600SE's butt.

The only problems I really have is with the Dust boards, I guess because of all the smoke/dust particles. At times I'll only hit 20+ FPS. On other maps, it's a little better. Plus I have every setting turned down low, 800x600...

I'll try that beta drive/mod this coming weekend...

MichaelMeier · #8 Post by **MichaelMeier** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:02 pm

Steve007 · #9 Post by **Steve007** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:31 pm

MichaelMeier wrote:The last two I used in 1600x1200 for more graphical detail. They are CPU limited anyway. The rest I switched back to 800x600 for extremely smooth game play.

Do you find games can often look 'fuzzy' running under a 800x600 res? I find that 1024x768 gives a crisp image with a high frame rate whereas 1400x1050 gives an amazing image but causes the frame rate to drop a tad.

Champ · #10 Post by **Champ** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:13 pm

how much faster is the Firegl 128mb vs. teh 9600 64mb? is it documented anywhere?

Conmee · #11 Post by **Conmee** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:00 pm

Champ wrote:how much faster is the Firegl 128mb vs. teh 9600 64mb? is it documented anywhere?

Champ,

Many folks are confused about the differences in the video cards/GPUs used in ThinkPads, erroneously equating more memory with more speed. With regard to the MR9600 w/64MB and the FireGL T2 w/128MB, they are the same GPU core, and are clocked identically. So technically, the answer to your question is that they are the same speed.

The only time the FireGL T2 will outperform the MR9600 in a ThinkPad is if you have a newer/modded driver on one or the other that introduces performance enhancements, or overclock the core/mem speeds, or when a particular game/app utilizes the additional texture/video memory of the FireGL T2 and memory becomes a bottleneck. For comparison purposes, if you play pretty much any DirectX 8.0 title from more than 1 year ago, the performance will be identical from both video cards, assuming video driver sets are also identical.

Having said all that, here's some numbers I collected from my tests with T40/p, T41/p, R50/p, and T42 and T42p models. And as you can see from my earlier post in this thread, I pretty much did a comprehensive battery of benchmarks on the FireGL with and without overclocking, and with and without modded drivers. In 90% of those tests (excluding Doom3 and 3DMark05 which take advantage of DirectX 9.0 and the additional video memory of the FireGL), both the FireGL T2 and the MR9600 will perform within 2%-5% of each other.

In fact, the MR9600 with 64mb is a tad faster than the FireGL T2 when it comes to DirectX7/8 games, for two reasons which I documented months ago (I'll dig up the thread). #1 is that the ATI drivers for the MR9600 provide slightly faster DirectX support at the expense of potential stability and the fact that they aren't ISV Certified for use with various CAD apps (like the FireGL drivers), so they are more of a 'mainstream' driver set. #2 is that the memory is clocked ever so slightly higher on the 64MB MR9600 v. the FireGL T2... mainly a stability, power and heat consideration on IBM's part, I believe.

Here's some snippets from my original thread...

"ATI FireGL and Mobility Radeon 9600 (MR9600) Clock Speeds
Compaq nw8000 - FireGL T2 w/128MB - Core 330MHz/Memory 220MHz
IBM T42p (2373GRU) - FireGL T2 w/128MB - Core 317.25MHz/Memory 202.50MHz
IBM T42 (2373CYU) - MR9600 w/64MB - Core 317.25MHz/Memory 209.25MHz

From ATI, the MR9600 should/could be clocked at Core/Mem speeds of 300MHz/300MHz, respectively. The FireGL T2, essentially a MR9600 Pro (with the additional RAM) should allow for speeds up to 350MHz/350MHz for core/memory. So just to give you an idea of the differences, note that the Compaq is clocked higher than either the T42p or T42. And the T42 GPU memory speed is higher than the T42p. These speeds, in addition to drivers, affect performance. I've successfully overclocked my T42p (Core 348MHz/Memory 222MHz) and I've included the 3DMark scores. However, I only run my T42p at factory speeds. I was just using the higher speeds for testing purposes.

My test for the T42/T42p used the latest IBM/ATI driver build (at the time I wrote this summary, as of 07-2004). The IBM package number 7.983-040210m can be found under Display Properties|Settings|Advanced|Options. Clicking on the details for the driver, the ATI driver revision is 6.14.10.6422. This is the current version off the IBM site, and all new T42 models should have it.

3DMark2001se and 3DMark03 Benchmarks:

T42p (2373GRU-FireGL 128MB): 3DMark01=9290 3DMark03=2580 (overclocked to core/mem of 348MHz/222MHz): 3DMark01=10083 3DMark03=2813
T42 (2373CYU-MR9600 64MB): 3DMark01=9377 3DMark03=2465
T41p (2373GEU-FireGL 128MB): 3DMark01=8945 3DMark03=2517
T40p (2373G3U-FireGL 64MB): 3DMark01=7227 3DMark03= 735 "

As far as T40/T40p and ThinkPads based on the FireGL 64mb or MR9000 32mb, you should see very playable performance with Direct X 7/8 games. And for those folks playing Doom3, HL2, etc on those machines, the games will play well with low/medium detail, but won't render any high quality scenes simply because they don't support the latest pixel shader/Direct X 9 instructions (you can select high quality in Doom3 using a 9000/7500 part, but you're not going to see how it really looks on a Direct X 9 capable GPU like the FireGL T2 and MR9600).

So to summarize: FireGL T2 core = MR9600 core. The only differences are in driver set and amount of video memory. And the latter will only have a positive effect on speed if the game/app being run requires or utilizes more than 64MB of video ram (e.g. CoD, HL2, Doom3, CAD, etc).

Daniel.

Conmee · #12 Post by **Conmee** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:05 pm

P.S. If you take a look at my signature, you'll see that with the latest ATI drivers from IBM, I've got a nice increase in performance over the drivers that shipped with my ThinkPad back in July.

Daniel.

fbrdphreak · #13 Post by **fbrdphreak** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:46 am

EDIT: All played with latest IBM ATI drivers
Manhunt -- 1400x1050 w/all details -- plays perfectly
Max Payne 1 -- 1400x1050 w/all details -- plays perfectly
Need for Speed High Stakes (like a DX6 game

) -- 1400x1050 w/patching
Need for Speed Underground -- 1024x768, plays well with most graphical settings enabled (Wasn't very smooth @ 1280x1024)
Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 -- 1280x1024, plays perfectly except when lots of smoke & dirt

I think that's about it for now. Will play Counter Strike: Condition Zero if I ever get around to it

csj0952 · #14 Post by **csj0952** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:52 am

What are the best video drivers to use? I've been told the Omega drivers are nice but they compromise battery time when not running in 3d mode.....

fbrdphreak · #15 Post by **fbrdphreak** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:38 pm

I started another thread about the batt life issue, and others have said that the VC is underclocked when on battery as long as the option is enabled in the Battery Maximizer.

kjarrett · #16 Post by **kjarrett** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:31 pm

I love NFSU2 on my T42p but needed the Omega Drivers to get a decent framerate above 800x600 and High detail ... it would NOT work at higher res. Now, I crank everything to High and run at 1280x1024 and it's awesome. I've run it at 1600x1200 but that's asking a bit much!

-kj-

fbrdphreak · #17 Post by **fbrdphreak** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:16 am

Just uninstalled the IBM/ATI drivers, ran DriverCleaner, and installed the latest Omega's. WOW. IQ and perf WAY up in NFSU. I don't play much more modern games on the laptop, but I might be tempted to try HL2 on this badboy

Go Omeeegaa!!
Somebody also mentioned to me that the Omega's resulted in increased power consumption on battery. Anyone have this experience? Will report back when i've tested mine

skanky · #18 Post by **skanky** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:50 am

got a link for the omega drivers? will i see much improvement on a ati 7500 32mb equipped t42?

half life2 is "playable" for me at 800x600, though im not that far into the game yet so cant say it runs perfectly yet.

when half life came out, i had a pc which could run the game fine.. till i got to xen, at that point it all went slideshowy on me!

fbrdphreak · #19 Post by **fbrdphreak** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:35 pm

This link should work
http://www.omegadrivers.net/ati/win2k_xp.php
Make sure you uninstall the IBM ones, reboot into safe mode, run driver cleaner, reboot & install.

Silencer · #20 Post by **Silencer** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:11 pm

Recently bought used T40p. Have tried Doom 3 - it playable in 640x480 with medium details. Now playing World of Warcraft in 1400x1050 with 20fps outdoors and 50fps indoors which is REALLY great! I love IBM

Tried Any Games On Your t4- Series Laptop?

Tried Any Games On Your t4- Series Laptop?

Re: Tried Any Games On Your t4- Series Laptop?

Re: Tried Any Games On Your t4- Series Laptop?

Who is online