A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Nvidia Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

~ONE ticked off mofo!!!!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 30th 05, 05:27 AM
Augustus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ~ONE ticked off mofo!!!!


"Spidious" wrote in message
news:zMV8f.524054$xm3.23321@attbi_s21...
I now am the proud owner of a 6600GT..
One thing to say

WOW

The scores I have managed to get on 3DMark03 absolutely blew away my
9800XT

9800XT was 4078
and the
6600GT was 8315 ! http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4361128


You must have had one of the slowest 9800XT's around. My 9800 Pro would do
6150 at XT clockings on a stock Barton 3200.


  #12  
Old October 30th 05, 04:05 PM
Spidious
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ~ONE ticked off mofo!!!!

I think one of the reason it was slower is that it was a counterfeit one I
bought off of EBay ! Finally got my money back from PayPal. and got the
6600GT. Another reason I think the score is lower, I have a lot of other
programs running at the same time. currently 42 processes on at this time..
UGGG

Think I will cancel them all and get a true score...


"Augustus" wrote in message
news:eZX8f.90872$Io.25134@clgrps13...

"Spidious" wrote in message
news:zMV8f.524054$xm3.23321@attbi_s21...
I now am the proud owner of a 6600GT..
One thing to say

WOW

The scores I have managed to get on 3DMark03 absolutely blew away my
9800XT

9800XT was 4078
and the
6600GT was 8315 ! http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4361128


You must have had one of the slowest 9800XT's around. My 9800 Pro would do
6150 at XT clockings on a stock Barton 3200.



  #13  
Old October 30th 05, 06:01 PM
vellu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ~ONE ticked off mofo!!!!

Spidious kirjoitti:
I think one of the reason it was slower is that it was a counterfeit one I
bought off of EBay ! Finally got my money back from PayPal. and got the
6600GT. Another reason I think the score is lower, I have a lot of other
programs running at the same time. currently 42 processes on at this time..
UGGG

Think I will cancel them all and get a true score...


42 doesn't sound that bad. Mine is around there right after boot, and
apart from one or two all are necessary for everyday use
(firewall/antivirus/spyware services, couple of monitoring/diagnostic
type programs on top of basic windows services and drivers) which are
always running no matter what I do. So why not benchmark with them on
and get a "real life" score. Of course, the best possible score is
achieved with turning some of them of. But to me that's not important;
who cares what the performance can be at that state, when the computer
is never running in that state.
  #14  
Old October 31st 05, 05:09 PM
Geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ~ONE ticked off mofo!!!!

you mean one of these pieces of crap?

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-RADEON-9800-...QQcmdZViewItem

so called 9800XT
with 128bit memory, ebay garbarge....

"Spidious" wrote in message
news:Li59f.525422$xm3.150391@attbi_s21...
I think one of the reason it was slower is that it was a counterfeit one I
bought off of EBay ! Finally got my money back from PayPal. and got the
6600GT. Another reason I think the score is lower, I have a lot of other
programs running at the same time. currently 42 processes on at this time..
UGGG

Think I will cancel them all and get a true score...



You must have had one of the slowest 9800XT's around. My 9800 Pro would
do 6150 at XT clockings on a stock Barton 3200.





  #15  
Old October 31st 05, 08:27 PM
Larry Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ~ONE ticked off mofo!!!!

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:09:15 -0000, "Geoff"
wrote:

you mean one of these pieces of crap?

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-RADEON-9800-...QQcmdZViewItem

so called 9800XT
with 128bit memory, ebay garbarge....


It looks to be a 9600Pro/XT maybe. I wonder if the ATI drivers
see it as a 9800XT?
  #16  
Old November 1st 05, 04:54 AM
Spidious
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ~ONE ticked off mofo!!!!

Close........... mine was

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=5237765 811

I got it before I actually knew what all the specs were suppose to be...

Here is what they say..

Specifications:

Model Brand AGPtek Retail Box
Model VG-AT98XT-256D
Chipset GPU Radeon 9800XT
Core clock 400Mhz............ Way to low..... And mine never even got this
high when testing it with the ATI Tool !
Memory Clock: 3.3Ns 400Mhz
PixelPipelines 8 .............. Should be 16 ?

Memory Size 256MB
Memory Interface 128-bit
Memory Type DDR
3D API
DirectX DirectX 9
OpenGL OpenGL 2.0
Interface : AGP 4X/8X
Ports :VGA & DVI &TV-Out S-Video Out

Here is what a actual 9800XT is as posted on ATI

Specifications
System Requirements
a.. Radeon® 9800 Series of products requires connection to your PC's
internal power supply for operation. Consult your system builder or OEM to
ensure your system has an adequate power supply. Otherwise, ATI recommends a
300-Watt power supply or greater to ensure normal system operation where a
number of other internal devices are installed.
b.. Intel® Pentium® 4, AMD® Athlon® or higher with AGP 8X (0.8v), 4X
(1.5V) or Universal AGP 3.0 bus configuration (8X/4X)
c.. 128MB of system memory
d.. Installation software requires CD-ROM drive
e.. DVD playback requires DVD drive
Graphics Technology
a.. Radeon® 9800 XT, Radeon® 9800 PRO, or Radeon® 9800 graphics
technology
Memory Configuration
a.. 128MB or 256MB of double data rate SDRAM
Operating Systems Support
a.. Windows® XP
b.. Windows® 2000
c.. Windows® Me
Features
a.. Eight parallel rendering pipelines
b.. Four parallel geometry engines
c.. 256-bit DDR memory interface
d.. AGP 8X support
e.. SmartShaderT 2.1
a.. Full support for Microsoft® DirectX® 9.0 programmable vertex and
pixel shaders in hardware
b.. 2.0 Vertex Shaders support vertex programs up to 65,280
instructions with flow control
c.. 2.0 Pixel Shaders support up to 16 textures per rendering pass
d.. New F-buffer technology supports pixel shader programs with
unlimited instructions
e.. 128-bit, 64-bit & 32-bit per pixel floating point color formats
f.. Multiple Render Target (MRT) support
g.. Shadow volume rendering acceleration
h.. Complete feature set also supported in OpenGL® via extensions
f.. SmoothVisionT 2.1
a.. 2x/4x/6x full scene anti-aliasing modes
b.. Adaptive algorithm with programmable sample patterns
c.. 2x/4x/8x/16x anisotropic filtering modes
a.. Adaptive algorithm with bi-linear (performance) and tri-linear
(quality) options
g.. HyperZT III+
a.. 3-level Hierarchical Z-Buffer with early Z test
b.. Lossless Z-Buffer compression (up to 24:1)
c.. Fast Z-Buffer Clear
d.. Z cache optimized for real-time shadow rendering
h.. TruFormT 2.0
a.. 2nd generation N-Patch higher order surface support
b.. Discrete and continuous tessellation levels per polygon
c.. Displacement mapping
i.. VideoShaderT
a.. Seamless integration of pixel shaders with video
b.. FullStreamT video de-blocking technology
c.. Noise removal filtering for captured video
j.. MPEG-2 decoding with motion compensation, iDCT and color space
conversion
k.. All-format DTV/HDTV decoding
l.. YPrPb component output*
m.. Adaptive de-interlacing and frame rate conversion
n.. Dual integrated display controllers
o.. Dual integrated 10-bit per channel 400 MHz DACs
p.. Integrated 165 MHz TMDS transmitter (DVI 1.0 compliant and HDCP
ready)
q.. Integrated TV Output support up to 1024x768 resolution
r.. Windows® Logo Program compliant


  #17  
Old November 1st 05, 02:56 PM
RaceFace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ~ONE ticked off mofo!!!!


"vellu" wrote in message
...
42 doesn't sound that bad. Mine is around there right after boot, and
apart from one or two all are necessary for everyday use
(firewall/antivirus/spyware services, couple of monitoring/diagnostic type
programs on top of basic windows services and drivers) which are always
running no matter what I do. So why not benchmark with them on and get a
"real life" score. Of course, the best possible score is achieved with
turning some of them of. But to me that's not important; who cares what
the performance can be at that state, when the computer is never running
in that state.


42 processes? I have 26 running for everyday usage, including firewall,
antivirus, etc. You probably have a lot of stuff that's not necessary. By
default XP runs a ton of things no home user will ever need, some of which
can even make your system less secure.

Here's a guide to which services you should be able to disable safely:

http://www.overclockersclub.com/guid...p_services.php

RF.



  #18  
Old November 1st 05, 05:14 PM
vellu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ~ONE ticked off mofo!!!!

RaceFace kirjoitti:
"vellu" wrote in message
...

42 doesn't sound that bad. Mine is around there right after boot, and
apart from one or two all are necessary for everyday use
(firewall/antivirus/spyware services, couple of monitoring/diagnostic type
programs on top of basic windows services and drivers) which are always
running no matter what I do. So why not benchmark with them on and get a
"real life" score. Of course, the best possible score is achieved with
turning some of them of. But to me that's not important; who cares what
the performance can be at that state, when the computer is never running
in that state.



42 processes? I have 26 running for everyday usage, including firewall,
antivirus, etc. You probably have a lot of stuff that's not necessary. By
default XP runs a ton of things no home user will ever need, some of which
can even make your system less secure.


Not really. Maybe one or two indifferent ones, but for the most part no;
sort of semi-server machine for a home-lan. High number of processes
alone doesn't necessarily mean a resource heavy system. Most of them are
idling anyway. Dropping some system services propably wouldn't change
the process count much anyway. No doubt some optimization could be done,
but I see no real reason to do so.

iirc, a plain vanilla winxp pro installation with absolutely nothing
else installed runs at about 35 processes (some of them indeed not
necessary). Add to that third party security programs, hardware drivers
(graphics, sound, printer, scanner) and some other minor things, and I'd
propably go over fifty.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dual AMD X16 AMD64 Mofo such a beast ??? On Holidays Overclocking AMD Processors 10 May 24th 05 02:36 PM
end of pain, it was the mobo (mofo) F r e e Nvidia Videocards 1 April 2nd 04 08:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.