If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
3.10 slower than 3.9
3DMark2001 SE ---- 3.9 = 14580 3.10 = 14440
3DMark03 ---------- 3.9 = 4653 3.10 = 4582 9700 Pro - default settings for both drivers 1024*768*32 @ 85 MHz MOH:AA had some weird texture problems in one map, but I think it was caused by the mod that was running. Tried 4 other maps and all were OK. COD worked perfectly, no glitches. Refresh override still works good. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I wish the driver writers would quit worring about FPS and benchmarks and
keep focused on image quality, compatability and stability. What good are a few extra FPS if the system crashes or displays distorted textures? I guess it's the benchmarks and FPS that are cited in reviews and that sells cards. -Kent |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"KCB" wrote in message
news:ezuEb.396698$Dw6.1247555@attbi_s02... 3DMark2001 SE ---- 3.9 = 14580 3.10 = 14440 3DMark03 ---------- 3.9 = 4653 3.10 = 4582 9700 Pro - default settings for both drivers 1024*768*32 @ 85 MHz MOH:AA had some weird texture problems in one map, but I think it was caused by the mod that was running. Tried 4 other maps and all were OK. COD worked perfectly, no glitches. Refresh override still works good. divide 14580 by 14440. Its not even one percent. divide 4653 by 4582. Its only 1.5 percent. i think this is well within the deviation for benchmarks. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
You are referring to ~100 points difference. From what I've seen, that is
the margin of error/variaton, for those progs. +/- 100 points, in either, is negligable. - KCB stood up at show-n-tell, in ezuEb.396698$Dw6.1247555@attbi_s02, and said: 3DMark2001 SE ---- 3.9 = 14580 3.10 = 14440 3DMark03 ---------- 3.9 = 4653 3.10 = 4582 9700 Pro - default settings for both drivers 1024*768*32 @ 85 MHz MOH:AA had some weird texture problems in one map, but I think it was caused by the mod that was running. Tried 4 other maps and all were OK. COD worked perfectly, no glitches. Refresh override still works good. -- Strontium "It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Strontium" wrote in message ... You are referring to ~100 points difference. From what I've seen, that is the margin of error/variaton, for those progs. +/- 100 points, in either, is negligable. The margin may be small, but the fact is they are still slower, and the results are repeatable. I've seen a post here where somebody said he gained 600 points by changing to the 3.10's. I'm merely making the point that *did not* occur here. - KCB stood up at show-n-tell, in ezuEb.396698$Dw6.1247555@attbi_s02, and said: 3DMark2001 SE ---- 3.9 = 14580 3.10 = 14440 3DMark03 ---------- 3.9 = 4653 3.10 = 4582 9700 Pro - default settings for both drivers 1024*768*32 @ 85 MHz MOH:AA had some weird texture problems in one map, but I think it was caused by the mod that was running. Tried 4 other maps and all were OK. COD worked perfectly, no glitches. Refresh override still works good. -- Strontium "It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
- KCB stood up at show-n-tell, in y5AEb.427323$275.1303279@attbi_s53, and said: "Strontium" wrote in message ... You are referring to ~100 points difference. From what I've seen, that is the margin of error/variaton, for those progs. +/- 100 points, in either, is negligable. The margin may be small, but the fact is they are still slower, and the results are repeatable. I've seen a post here where somebody said he gained 600 points by changing to the 3.10's. I'm merely making the point that *did not* occur here. And, I'm making the point that 100 points, whether repeatable or not, is not worth spit. The benchmarks, you are using, are biased to begin with. That's besides the point. A 100 point difference, plus or minus, is within the tolerance level. If you want to judge the drivers, do it with your real world use...unless, of course, that's all you do with your machine is run biased, sponsored benchmarks...then have at it. 100 points, even then, is still negligable. snip -- Strontium "It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"KCB" wrote in message news:y5AEb.427323$275.1303279@attbi_s53... The margin may be small, but the fact is they are still slower, and the results are repeatable. I've seen a post here where somebody said he gained 600 points by changing to the 3.10's. I'm merely making the point that *did not* occur here. You're talking about a synthetic benchmark here, and a DX8 one as well. Run some *real-world* benchmarks with *real* games and see how fast the drivers are. 3dmark is made for people who are too lazy or ignorant of how to benchmark their system properly. K |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I wish the driver writers would quit worring about FPS and benchmarks and
keep focused on image quality, compatability and stability. What good are a few extra FPS if the system crashes or displays distorted textures? I guess it's the benchmarks and FPS that are cited in reviews and that sells cards. Yup. Nvidia set off that speed craziness when they were still fighting 3dfx, because their image quality was miserable in comparison. Gamers took the bait, and it became a major selling factor up to today. Actually I like the way Ati handles this. They do aim for good IQ, but carefully enough not to lose in the speed race. Objectively seen, everything above 60 FPS is a waste. Unless the game is programmed sloppily, higher FPS become unnoticeable. Any current card can achieve 60 FPS in any current game. And also any current card has to drop below eventually in newer games. Yet even 30 FPS is still playable. Cards that are faster have a longer life, because they drop below 60/30 later. Yet that isn't really in the interest of video card companies, since they want to sell their newer models. But as long as speed plays the major role it does, cards will have more speed than necessary. Of course the companies make up for that with the insane prices of their top end cards, because they won't sell a new card to buyers of these for some time. I really don't think a Radeon 9800 XT is that much more expensive to produce than a 9600 XT as the price suggests. But the 9600 will require upgrading about a year earlier, so they can sell it much cheaper. I have used my good old 3dfx Voodoo 5 5500 for full 3 years. An upgrade simply wasn't necessary earlier. Up to UT 2003 it could handle every game at playable FPS. Only now did I have to upgrade, because the V5 simply cannot do DX 8.1/9 or anything higher than OpenGL 1.1. But still, 3 years of service isn't bad at all, considering that there have been next to no driver updates in all that time, except for a few fan-made ones. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What are you talking about? 3D Mark (all of them) are excellent games. I
play them all the time. ;-) Brad |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Word.
Stability and looks is IMHO more interesting than some xtra FPS. 3.10 works great here. No probs at all. 9800PRO P-4 2,6 1GB RAM 2X 120GB 7200 WD, 8MB 17" TFT SB AUDIGY / C. "Kent_Diego" skrev i meddelandet news:yTuEb.37066$hf1.10764@lakeread06... I wish the driver writers would quit worring about FPS and benchmarks and keep focused on image quality, compatability and stability. What good are a few extra FPS if the system crashes or displays distorted textures? I guess it's the benchmarks and FPS that are cited in reviews and that sells cards. -Kent |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HELP! new Athlon 64 slower than athlon XP | Idolator#556 | Homebuilt PC's | 6 | November 22nd 04 07:40 PM |
P4P800-E Deluxe - Slower to boot Win2K Server | Jessica Loriena | Asus Motherboards | 4 | August 18th 04 11:13 AM |
A7N8X Deluxe - more memory = slower? or Corsair XMS = slower? | Erik Harris | Asus Motherboards | 2 | August 8th 04 06:56 PM |
system gradually runs slower...and.....slower........a.n..d.......... | ~Aart | Homebuilt PC's | 11 | June 1st 04 02:21 PM |
Fast RAM Cas 3 at Slower RAM CAS 2 speed | SRV | Overclocking AMD Processors | 3 | February 19th 04 09:14 PM |