My system with a 5900 vs another's with an ATI 9800 (Aquamark scores)

I'm a whopping 3.5 fps behind the ATI card and I am using the 45.33 drivers,
so nobody can whine that they are "cheating" drivers.

I'd say that although it's not on top, it's doing just fine. Only one card
can be on top at a time, but when there is only a 3fps differential...that's
pretty good.



#36 AquaMark Sco 43567 (CPU: 9331, GFX: 5685) -MY SYSTEM

CPU: Pentium(R) 4 processor , HT:On CR: 2992 MHz SRAM: 1023 MB OS:
Microsoft Windows XP
GFX: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra CM: 473 / 900 MHz VRAM: 256 MB
DRIVER: 6.14.10.4533
RES: 1024x768 x 32bit AA: Off AF: 4x DETAILS: Very High


#1 AquaMark Sco 47115 (CPU: 9120, GFX: 6351)

CPU: Pentium(R) 4 processor , HT:On CR: 2992 MHz SRAM: 1023 MB OS:
Microsoft Windows XP
GFX: RADEON 9800 PRO CM: 421 / 376 MHz VRAM: 128 MB DRIVER:
6.14.10.6378
RES: 1024x768 x 32bit AA: Off AF: 4x DETAILS: Very High

"not me" wrote in message
...
I'm a whopping 3.5 fps behind the ATI card and I am using the 45.33
drivers,
so nobody can whine that they are "cheating" drivers.

I'd say that although it's not on top, it's doing just fine. Only one card
can be on top at a time, but when there is only a 3fps
differential...that's
pretty good.



#36 AquaMark Sco 43567 (CPU: 9331, GFX: 5685) -MY SYSTEM

CPU: Pentium(R) 4 processor , HT:On CR: 2992 MHz SRAM: 1023 MB OS:
Microsoft Windows XP
GFX: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra CM: 473 / 900 MHz VRAM: 256 MB
DRIVER: 6.14.10.4533
RES: 1024x768 x 32bit AA: Off AF: 4x DETAILS: Very High

Can i ask you...turn on AA and AF to max settings if you will. I'd like to
see scores with everything set to max @ 1600x1200.

Those are the only scores i would like to see as that is what i will be
playing these games at.

"Richard Dower" wrote in message
...

"not me" wrote in message
...
I'm a whopping 3.5 fps behind the ATI card and I am using the 45.33
drivers,
so nobody can whine that they are "cheating" drivers.

I'd say that although it's not on top, it's doing just fine. Only one
card
can be on top at a time, but when there is only a 3fps
differential...that's
pretty good.



#36 AquaMark Sco 43567 (CPU: 9331, GFX: 5685) -MY SYSTEM

CPU: Pentium(R) 4 processor , HT:On CR: 2992 MHz SRAM: 1023 MB OS:
Microsoft Windows XP
GFX: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra CM: 473 / 900 MHz VRAM: 256 MB
DRIVER: 6.14.10.4533
RES: 1024x768 x 32bit AA: Off AF: 4x DETAILS: Very High

Can i ask you...turn on AA and AF to max settings if you will. I'd like to
see scores with everything set to max @ 1600x1200.

Those are the only scores i would like to see as that is what i will be
playing these games at.


Geez, can't whine about the Aquamark scores so now this. Yawn. If you want
to pay for my Aquamark I will. Otherwise troll elsewhere.

"Richard Dower" wrote in message
...

"not me" wrote in message
...
I'm a whopping 3.5 fps behind the ATI card and I am using the 45.33
drivers,
so nobody can whine that they are "cheating" drivers.

I'd say that although it's not on top, it's doing just fine. Only one
card
can be on top at a time, but when there is only a 3fps
differential...that's
pretty good.



#36 AquaMark Sco 43567 (CPU: 9331, GFX: 5685) -MY SYSTEM

CPU: Pentium(R) 4 processor , HT:On CR: 2992 MHz SRAM: 1023 MB OS:
Microsoft Windows XP
GFX: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra CM: 473 / 900 MHz VRAM: 256 MB
DRIVER: 6.14.10.4533
RES: 1024x768 x 32bit AA: Off AF: 4x DETAILS: Very High

Can i ask you...turn on AA and AF to max settings if you will. I'd like to
see scores with everything set to max @ 1600x1200.

Those are the only scores i would like to see as that is what i will be
playing these games at.

Download the AquaMark3 benchmark and pay them $9.95 and you can do it
yourself. The settings are locked in the free version.


Too_Much_Coffee ®

---
Got GigaNews?
http://www.giganews.com/customer/gn26215

"Too_Much_Coffee ®" wrote in message
...

Download the AquaMark3 benchmark and pay them $9.95 and you can do it
yourself. The settings are locked in the free version.

I have downloaded it, but i only have an MX440...which is why i asked about
the cards stated above. I am going to purchase one of these and scores and
user opinions will dictate my purchase.

"not me" wrote in message
...

"Richard Dower" wrote in message
...

"not me" wrote in message
...
I'm a whopping 3.5 fps behind the ATI card and I am using the 45.33
drivers,
so nobody can whine that they are "cheating" drivers.

I'd say that although it's not on top, it's doing just fine. Only one
card
can be on top at a time, but when there is only a 3fps
differential...that's
pretty good.



#36 AquaMark Sco 43567 (CPU: 9331, GFX: 5685) -MY SYSTEM

CPU: Pentium(R) 4 processor , HT:On CR: 2992 MHz SRAM: 1023 MB
OS:
Microsoft Windows XP
GFX: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra CM: 473 / 900 MHz VRAM: 256
MB
DRIVER: 6.14.10.4533
RES: 1024x768 x 32bit AA: Off AF: 4x DETAILS: Very High

Can i ask you...turn on AA and AF to max settings if you will. I'd like
to
see scores with everything set to max @ 1600x1200.

Those are the only scores i would like to see as that is what i will be
playing these games at.


Geez, can't whine about the Aquamark scores so now this. Yawn. If you want
to pay for my Aquamark I will. Otherwise troll elsewhere.

AquaMark3 comes out and people want to do benchmarks and a few have a cow.
Their computers are probably too slow to even run 3DMark2001.

They should take a few days off from reading and posting in this newsgroup
so they won't have to suffer.


Too_Much_Coffee ®

---
Got GigaNews?
http://www.giganews.com/customer/gn26215

I'm a whopping 3.5 fps behind the ATI card and I am using the 45.33
drivers,
so nobody can whine that they are "cheating" drivers.

Did you check the thread in the Aquamark forum about Nvidia not
rendering the same image as the ATI? I think they are indeed cheating.

rms

"Too_Much_Coffee ®" wrote in message
...

They should take a few days off from reading and posting in this newsgroup
so they won't have to suffer.

Mine is top of the line save for me holding out on a graphics card, i waited
to see results for HL2 and Doom III, which was supposd to be due in
November, before making up my mind on what graphics card to purchase.

I've even got two SATA Raptors running in RAID 0, everything is ready for a
high end card. But with the recent debate about cheating and ATI beating
Nvidia...i am not so sure now about purchasing an FX Ultra.

"Richard Dower" wrote in message
...

"Too_Much_Coffee ®" wrote in message
...

Download the AquaMark3 benchmark and pay them $9.95 and you can do it
yourself. The settings are locked in the free version.

I have downloaded it, but i only have an MX440...which is why i asked
about
the cards stated above. I am going to purchase one of these and scores and
user opinions will dictate my purchase.

I am sure several will purchase the Pro version of AquaMark3 and run the
test with everything maxed out. Even though you don't have one of the fast
cards, you'll still be able to go to www.aquamark3.com and view the scores.

Yes I did, but weren't they talking about the 51's and not the 45's?


"Roger Squires" wrote in message
m...
I'm a whopping 3.5 fps behind the ATI card and I am using the 45.33
drivers,
so nobody can whine that they are "cheating" drivers.

Did you check the thread in the Aquamark forum about Nvidia not
rendering the same image as the ATI? I think they are indeed cheating.

rms