VERY poor 3DMark score, any ideas why?

[sunking101]

Hi there, BX396XP with 1.83 GHz core 2 duo and Radeon Mobility X1600 with 256mb hypermemory.

I was expecting a much better 2003 3DMark score than 1486. Can anyone think of any reasons why the score was so low? I was running on mains power and the cpu was set to 'adaptive' in the Vaio power management settings.

[seb21__]

The Radeaon X1600 isn't a very powerful graphic chipset, and yours has hypermemory.
The true videoram is maybe 32MB or 64MB, and the rest is shared with systemram. That's a way to save costs and to increase battery lifetime

Anyway, this VAIO is made for business and not for gaming. You get smooth videoplayback. Not more not less.

[sunking101]

The Radeaon X1600 isn't a very powerful graphic chipset, and yours has hypermemory.
The true videoram is maybe 32MB or 64MB, and the rest is shared with systemram. That's a way to save costs and to increase battery lifetime

Anyway, this VAIO is made for business and not for gaming. You get smooth videoplayback. Not more not less.

I know all that and I'm not expecting a games machine. HOWEVER, I am expecting a reasonable 3D score on a 2003 test. This is a late 2006 pc! My pc has a reasonable graphics card for 3D applications so why am I getting such a low score? Don't get me wrong, I hear what you're saying but surely I should be getting an average kind of score on such an old test? My older laptop with a supposedly worse graphics card scores higher so I'm sure I'm not barking up the wrong tree on this. My machine is underperforming and I was wondering if anyone knows how to adjust it or if it's faulty?

[kee-lo_]

Well, you could

a) upgrade the RAM
b) upgrade the hard disk

I'm not 100% sure this would take you over the 2000 mark, but it would possibly add a better score.

As Seb said the main issue here is that chipset for your graphics, it's shared, and it's integrated, and they're usually the main issue in slow graphics performance.

[sunking101]

Well, you could

a) upgrade the RAM
b) upgrade the hard disk

I'm not 100% sure this would take you over the 2000 mark, but it would possibly add a better score.

As Seb said the main issue here is that chipset for your graphics, it's shared, and it's integrated, and they're usually the main issue in slow graphics performance.

Then why am I seeing reviews for other pcs that have the same Core 2 Duo cpu and the same graphics card scoring over 8000 points compared to my 1486??? I think you're misreading my thread, thinking that I'm expecting startling graphics performance. I'm not. I am expecting average results in a 2003 3D test though, not an extremely mediocre score.

These are the actual tested scores for my card:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-X1600.2163.0.html

3DMark01: 16300 points
3DMark03: 8000 points
3DMark05: 3500 points
3DMark06: 1800 points

[kee-lo_]

I can understand your frustrations, the only thing I can think of is the bandwidth isn't as good, or the drivers are not as well put together.

It's always a good idea to read a few reviews and compare the 3DMark tests before buying, as graphics seem to be an important part of your computer use.

[sunking101]

Turned all the Vaio power management crap off and ran the 2003 3D mark again....

New score = 5002


There, a perfectly acceptable score. I'm relieved now!