|
|
Aquamark for 5600
mobo ASUS P4C800-E
detonator 45.23 FX5600 not Ultra version Sco 15499 CPU: 10131 (OC'd bus=880mhz) GFX: 1677 will mow install 51.75 and check what happens. Lars A |
And with 51.75 I got a 4.7% increase of FPS, a 5.3% increase of GFX per
second, but a 1.2% decrease in CPU. Sco 16227 (CPU: 10007, GFX: 1767) Lars A "Lars A" skrev i meddelandet news:XmJ9b.4481$P51.6154@amstwist00... mobo ASUS P4C800-E detonator 45.23 FX5600 not Ultra version Sco 15499 CPU: 10131 (OC'd bus=880mhz) GFX: 1677 will mow install 51.75 and check what happens. Lars A |
On 9/16/2003 12:59 PM Lars A befouled our nation with:
And with 51.75 I got a 4.7% increase of FPS, a 5.3% increase of GFX per second, but a 1.2% decrease in CPU. Sco 16227 (CPU: 10007, GFX: 1767) Lars A "Lars A" skrev i meddelandet news:XmJ9b.4481$P51.6154@amstwist00... mobo ASUS P4C800-E detonator 45.23 FX5600 not Ultra version Sco 15499 CPU: 10131 (OC'd bus=880mhz) GFX: 1677 will mow install 51.75 and check what happens. Lars A With my XP2500/GF3 Ti500 45.23, I get: GFX sco 1581 CPU sco 4121 AquaMark sco 13066 http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_vie...unID=186478789 The GFX score difference between a FX 5600 and a two year old card is only 90 pts. What exactly does that mean? Probably that I won't be buying an FX 5600. The best Radeon 9600 (with approximately my processor) scores seem to be pushing 30000 total. -- Scientific American recently corrected an April news story that contended that, in one study, cloned pigs had variable numbers of teeth. In fact, they had variable numbers of teats. Steve [Inglo] |
"Inglo" wrote in message m... On 9/16/2003 12:59 PM Lars A befouled our nation with: And with 51.75 I got a 4.7% increase of FPS, a 5.3% increase of GFX per second, but a 1.2% decrease in CPU. Sco 16227 (CPU: 10007, GFX: 1767) Lars A "Lars A" skrev i meddelandet news:XmJ9b.4481$P51.6154@amstwist00... mobo ASUS P4C800-E detonator 45.23 FX5600 not Ultra version Sco 15499 CPU: 10131 (OC'd bus=880mhz) GFX: 1677 will mow install 51.75 and check what happens. Lars A With my XP2500/GF3 Ti500 45.23, I get: GFX sco 1581 CPU sco 4121 AquaMark sco 13066 http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_vie...unID=186478789 The GFX score difference between a FX 5600 and a two year old card is only 90 pts. What exactly does that mean? Probably that I won't be buying an FX 5600. The best Radeon 9600 (with approximately my processor) scores seem to be pushing 30000 total. Back when I wanted to upgrade from a GF2MX, the best choice was the Ti4200 IMO. Today I think either the FX5600 Ultra or the ATI 9600 Pro would be the best choice. For me now though the only upgrade choices, that I would be pleased with, would be either the FX5900 Ultra or the ATI 9800 Pro; both are WAAAAAAAY too expensive so I won't be upgrading anytime soon. With a 2500+ @ 2.1GHz and a non-OC'd Ti4200, my AquaMark3 score was 18, 236. According to the AM3 benchmark, a score of 20,000 is good. I can reach that with a little OC. My score is at the top: http://tinyurl.com/nful Too_Much_Coffee ® --- Got GigaNews? http://www.giganews.com/customer/gn26215 -- Scientific American recently corrected an April news story that contended that, in one study, cloned pigs had variable numbers of teeth. In fact, they had variable numbers of teats. Steve [Inglo] |
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:19:24 +0200 in
alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, "Lars A" wrote: mobo ASUS P4C800-E detonator 45.23 FX5600 not Ultra version Sco 15499 CPU: 10131 (OC'd bus=880mhz) GFX: 1677 wot CPU? Mine: mobo: Abit KR7A cpu: XP2000+ dets: 45.23 FX5600 (not ultra) no overclocking Sco 14,979 CPU: 5027 GFX: 1752 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com