- This topic has 17 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Found this on bittech : http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2009/04/30/netbook-graphics-given-a-boost/1 .
gonna try it this afternoon and will report back.
I tried this app, but (and I noticed the comment on the article says it too) it requires .NET 2.0 to run – I think that would decrease my windows boot time just a little to much. ;))
I tried it a while ago, it’s nothing to get excited about, well when i tested it it wasn’t, not sure if there is a new version?. The performance it provides is barely noticable if at all.
I have just tried the latest version with Windows 7 RC with some surprising results, seems to have made a marked improvement under Crystalmark. If you look at the Graphics benchmarks especially the D2D Benchmark (2nd from bottom bar) you will see the most improvement.
Test 1 (without GMA Booster) :
Test 2 (with GMA Booster Enabled & 400Mhz) :
As you can see it does work, so i’ll retract my previous statement lol. The first time i tried it was a few months back and it was under XP with 3DMark 06 and it actually decresed my score then?. How well this will translate into real world gaming performance will have to be tested.
Just one more, here is my sammy running SetFSB CPU @ 1716Mhz with GMA Booster @ 400Mhz.
no problem, Im no expert so correct me here if im well off, but I think we would of seen even more of an improvement if we could still set graphics to 224Mb as the quicker bandwith GMA Booster allows (400Mhz) would allow it to address the memory faster. Possibly the reason why setting 224Mb showed little improvement was due to the bus bandwith chocking it therefore effectively making the extra ram avaliable useless.
If anyone else wants to run CrystalMark on Win7 you have to set the .exe as windows XP sp3 compatable and then it will run.
I like your avatar – is it a Japanese Macaque?
Quote:TCMuffin wrote…..I like your avatar – is it a Japanese Macaque?
Yeah a long tailed Macaque, love that grin hehe 🙂
Incidentally, how do you know it’s a 9 cell? I can’t seem to find any reference to the amount of cells in the description, and from the photos it looks around the same size as my 6 cell, can you be sure it’s not just a high capacity 6 cell?
[quote1241134999=Renton]
Incidentally, how do you know it’s a 9 cell? I can’t seem to find any reference to the amount of cells in the description, and from the photos it looks around the same size as my 6 cell, can you be sure it’s not just a high capacity 6 cell?
[/quote1241134999]Wrong Thread… 🙂
But to answer the question: Yes the 9-cell is quite bigger than the 6-cell battery pack.
Good read: http://www.umpcfever.com/news/?postid=1841
oops sorry, too many tabs 😛 maybe a mod can move these posts for us?
That link is indeed a good read, I wouldn’t mind the extra height at all. The extra weight might be an issue, I guess it all depends on how much longer the battery lasts.
EDIT 2: The above user posted in the wrong place, not me!
So are you saying that 128mb @ 400MHz is better than 224mb @ whatever it was before? This is really interesting lol.
EDIT: Posted in wrong place
Yep it was me.. sorry about that.
Back on topic though, I tried this program on my sammy running XP with Trackmania Nations Forever and there was absolutely no change from using this software, the best I could get with all graphics optimised was 14.6 fps running the benchmark option both before and after increasing the chip speed.
I’ve just installer Win 7RC so I’ll redo the benchmarks and post the results.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.