Plz post 3dmark06 no AA/AF results.

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by aliquis-, Aug 16, 2007.

  1. aliquis- macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    #1
    Could someone please run 3dmark06 on their 128MB or 256MB (15.4" but 17" is ok aswell I guess) MBPs at:

    1440x900 if possible and at whatever the default res is in the demo version?

    Please post full results for each test / link / whatever.

    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Shepherd macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    3DMark06 Comparison Results:

    3DMark06 tests the graphics capabilities of a system.

    Notebook 3DMark 06 Results
    Apple MacBook Pro (2.40GHz Core 2 Duo Intel T7700, NVidia 8600M 256MB) 4,674 3D Marks
    Asus G1S (Core 2 Duo T7500 2.20GHz, NVidia 8600M) 3,816 3D Marks
    Asus G1J (Core 2 Duo, 2.0GHz, NVIDIA 7700) 2,389 3D Marks
    HP nc8430 (2.16GHz Core 2 Duo, ATI X1600 256MB) 1,745 3D Marks
    Apple MacBook Pro (2.0GHz Core Duo, ATI X1600 128MB) 1,528 3D Marks
    Dell Precison M90 (2.16GHz Core Duo, nVidia Quadro FX 1500M) 3,926 3D Marks
    Alienware M7700 (AMD Athlon FX-60 Nvidia GeForce Go7800GTX) 4,085 3D Marks
    Compal HEL80 (2.0GHz Core Duo, nVidia Go 7600 256MB) 1,654 3D Marks
    Dell XPS M1710 (2.16 GHz Core Duo, nVidia 7900 GTX 512MB) 4,744 3D Marks


    From notebookreview.com

    -Shepherd
     
  3. aliquis- thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    #3
    Who post those? Their own reviews? Same resolutions on all of them? To bad there where no 2.2GHz aswell.

    I wonder why the G1S are so much lower, if it didn't run 3dmark in 1680x1050?

    Is it max results so the macbook might have been overclocked?

    Edit: The MBP results seems to be from a 1024x768 run where the default for 3dmark06 is 1280x1024. And the G1S probably used the default since it can have a 1680x1050 screen. So that explains why the MBP looks faster.
     

Share This Page