Aquamark score for FX5200

GFX:990
CPU:4,860
Overall: 8,982

Prolinks FX 5200 128megs
XP 2400+
K7s5a version 1
512 megs Micron ram

On 9/16/2003 6:59 PM Stan Linder befouled our nation with:

GFX:990
CPU:4,860
Overall: 8,982

Prolinks FX 5200 128megs
XP 2400+
K7s5a version 1
512 megs Micron ram




XP 2500+

Graphics hardwa
Description NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500
Device 514 GeForce3 Ti 500
Core clock (MHz) 246
Memory clock (MHz) 544
Version 6.14.10.4533
Video Memory 67108864 64 MB

Operating system:
Version Microsoft Windows XP
Build Service Pack 1 2600


Benchmark results:

GFX sco 1509
CPU sco 6721

AquaMark sco 13461

From the results I've seen the 5200 and 5600 just aren't that
impressive with this benchmark.

--
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]

Ill guess you should grab your GF3 card and ram it up yr a**.

5200 and 5600 arent that impressive because they are low budget items.
You sound like a brrrrreinless spoiled kid in a sandbox that needs to claim
yr (or yr best gayish friends) dick is a monster. We are publishin these
figures just for reference, and its a good way to check different pricetags
agains performance. Bonehead!

If I should purchase a toy today I would choose this:

http://www.xgitech.com/products/products_duo_specv8.htm


=)






"Inglo" skrev i meddelandet
.. .
On 9/16/2003 6:59 PM Stan Linder befouled our nation with:

GFX:990
CPU:4,860
Overall: 8,982

Prolinks FX 5200 128megs
XP 2400+
K7s5a version 1
512 megs Micron ram




XP 2500+

Graphics hardwa
Description NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500
Device 514 GeForce3 Ti 500
Core clock (MHz) 246
Memory clock (MHz) 544
Version 6.14.10.4533
Video Memory 67108864 64 MB

Operating system:
Version Microsoft Windows XP
Build Service Pack 1 2600


Benchmark results:

GFX sco 1509
CPU sco 6721

AquaMark sco 13461

From the results I've seen the 5200 and 5600 just aren't that
impressive with this benchmark.

--
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 9/16/2003 8:12 PM Lars A befouled our nation with:

Ill guess you should grab your GF3 card and ram it up yr a**.

5200 and 5600 arent that impressive because they are low budget items.
You sound like a brrrrreinless spoiled kid in a sandbox that needs to claim
yr (or yr best gayish friends) dick is a monster. We are publishin these
figures just for reference, and its a good way to check different pricetags
agains performance. Bonehead!



The 5600 is not a low budget item, it's midrange. The 5200 up until the
aquamark test has posted scores relatively close to the old GF3. The
only statement I made was that both of the FX chipsets below the top
level are not making a very good showing with the Aquamark. I find this
interesting, though as of right now I don't really know what it means,
Aquamark is so new. I don't know what you read into my statement, but
that's all that I meant. I'm certainly not crowing about the score my
card had, its about what I expected from an older generation card, I
would have thought a card with more DX9 features built in, which is what
the FX's are, would fare better.
Either you're drunk or you have an incredibly poor command and
understanding of the English language. Your reaction is uncalled for.

--

Steve [Inglo]

"Inglo" wrote in message
.com...
On 9/16/2003 8:12 PM Lars A befouled our nation with:

Ill guess you should grab your GF3 card and ram it up yr a**.

5200 and 5600 arent that impressive because they are low budget items.
You sound like a brrrrreinless spoiled kid in a sandbox that needs to
claim
yr (or yr best gayish friends) dick is a monster. We are publishin these
figures just for reference, and its a good way to check different
pricetags
agains performance. Bonehead!



The 5600 is not a low budget item, it's midrange. The 5200 up until the
aquamark test has posted scores relatively close to the old GF3. The
only statement I made was that both of the FX chipsets below the top
level are not making a very good showing with the Aquamark. I find this
interesting, though as of right now I don't really know what it means,
Aquamark is so new. I don't know what you read into my statement, but
that's all that I meant. I'm certainly not crowing about the score my
card had, its about what I expected from an older generation card, I
would have thought a card with more DX9 features built in, which is what
the FX's are, would fare better.
Either you're drunk or you have an incredibly poor command and
understanding of the English language. Your reaction is uncalled for.

I agree, Inglo. I saw your post as just what you said it was. You were
simply pointing out that an older card performed better than a couple of the
newer ones that ARE DX9.

You just have to ignore posts like his. Don't waste your time arguing with
him.


Too_Much_Coffee ®

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

--

Steve [Inglo]

On 9/16/2003 10:04 PM Too_Much_Coffee ® befouled our nation with:



I agree, Inglo. I saw your post as just what you said it was. You were
simply pointing out that an older card performed better than a couple of the
newer ones that ARE DX9.

You just have to ignore posts like his. Don't waste your time arguing with
him.


Too_Much_Coffee ®





I'm not really concerned with arguing with him. I was more in shock to
his heated reply to such an innocuous statement. I just felt it
necessary to sort it out for myself. I don't really get that excited
about computer hardware, guess some people do.

--

Steve [Inglo]

Would have been nice to see other peoples results with the 5200 though,
instead of all this crap.
"Inglo" wrote in message
.com...
On 9/16/2003 10:04 PM Too_Much_Coffee ® befouled our nation with:



I agree, Inglo. I saw your post as just what you said it was. You were
simply pointing out that an older card performed better than a couple of
the
newer ones that ARE DX9.

You just have to ignore posts like his. Don't waste your time arguing
with
him.


Too_Much_Coffee ®





I'm not really concerned with arguing with him. I was more in shock to
his heated reply to such an innocuous statement. I just felt it
necessary to sort it out for myself. I don't really get that excited
about computer hardware, guess some people do.

--

Steve [Inglo]

Inglo wrote in message ...
On 9/16/2003 6:59 PM Stan Linder befouled our nation with:

GFX:990
CPU:4,860
Overall: 8,982

Prolinks FX 5200 128megs
XP 2400+
K7s5a version 1
512 megs Micron ram




XP 2500+

Graphics hardwa
Description NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500
Device 514 GeForce3 Ti 500
Core clock (MHz) 246
Memory clock (MHz) 544
Version 6.14.10.4533
Video Memory 67108864 64 MB

Operating system:
Version Microsoft Windows XP
Build Service Pack 1 2600


Benchmark results:

GFX sco 1509
CPU sco 6721

AquaMark sco 13461

From the results I've seen the 5200 and 5600 just aren't that
impressive with this benchmark.

No ****! The Only thing the FX5200 is impressive with is the prize!

"Anybody" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
Would have been nice to see other peoples results with the 5200 though,
instead of all this crap.

You can go to the www.aquamark3.com website and do a search that only
includes the FX5200 card. You'll get hundreds of scores to look at. You
might have to register and post a score to get access to the results
browser. Try this link:
http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_userhome.php


Too_Much_Coffee ®

---
Got GigaNews?
http://www.giganews.com/customer/gn26215
"Inglo" wrote in message
.com...
On 9/16/2003 10:04 PM Too_Much_Coffee ® befouled our nation with:



I agree, Inglo. I saw your post as just what you said it was. You were
simply pointing out that an older card performed better than a couple
of
the
newer ones that ARE DX9.

You just have to ignore posts like his. Don't waste your time arguing
with
him.


Too_Much_Coffee ®





I'm not really concerned with arguing with him. I was more in shock to
his heated reply to such an innocuous statement. I just felt it
necessary to sort it out for myself. I don't really get that excited
about computer hardware, guess some people do.

--

Steve [Inglo]

"Inglo" wrote in message
.. .
On 9/16/2003 6:59 PM Stan Linder befouled our nation with:

snip


From the results I've seen the 5200 and 5600 just aren't that
impressive with this benchmark.

Two results from the AquaMark database:

FX5600 Ultra:
2400+ @ 2GHz, 45.23 drivers, 24520
2600+ @ 2.26GHz, 51.75 drivers, 28157

TMC