5950 Review

[poursoul]

that's a great review so far (haven't finished) but all of the UT2004 bar graphs are label UT2003. I'll let you know how i feel when i finish.

[Clay]

that's a great review so far (haven't finished) but all of the UT2004 bar graphs are label UT2003. I'll let you know how i feel when i finish.
Good eye, we've fixed the labeling typo. :)

[{Sniping}Waste]

Using non approved drivers again on 3DMark 03. It would be nice to put in the score of the approved drivers.

edit
when are yal going to update the 5900U review?
Yal stated that yal will update the 3DMark 03 page.

[Clay]

Using non approved drivers again on 3DMark 03. It would be nice to put in the score of the approved drivers.

edit
when are yal going to update the 5900U review?
Yal stated that yal will update the 3DMark 03 page.You are the only person that this seems to be bothering. ;) Not that that justifies the mistake...I'm getting to it.

EDIT: If ya'll is so bothered by this honest mistake than are you following through in this principle crusade and notifying all of the hundreds of other review authors that have the same issue?

[{Sniping}Waste]

It dosen't matter how many other review site do the same thing. If its wrong, its wrong. I have posted in many other feedback fourms that did the same thing and not just NVNews.

[Clay]

It dosen't matter how many other review site do the same thing. If its wrong, its wrong. I have posted in many other feedback fourms that did the same thing and not just NVNews.That's cool, my point is that this is like a statute of limitations kinda thing ;) I'll drop back to 52.16 drivers and repost next chance I get.

[OWA]

Why drop back? Does anyone actually refuse to update their drivers or use the latest because they're not approved by Futuremark? I'd prefer seeing benches done on the drivers I'm going to use, not some version that I can't really relate to (I can't even remember the last time I tried the 52.16s).

[{Sniping}Waste]

OWA only on the 3Dmark 03 bench.

[JonathanM]

Heh, I'd just get rid of the 3dMark score. Nobody gives sh*t about it anyway. ;)

[Rytr]

I do agree that the ForceWare v56.56 drivers are not approved by FutureMark and I could have omitted the results of the basic test of 3DMark2003. However, I do use this benchmark regularly as one part of testing for stability both of the drivers and cards. I just posted the results for comparison and information although I know the benchmark is controversial.
As far as using the 'approved' 52.16's, these drivers (56.56) were 'brand new' when the reveiw was begun and a significant part of this review was intended to provide instruction on the use of the ForceWare driver displays and going back to the 52.16's just did not fit in. Again, maybe I should have just ommitted it entirely, my mistake.
BTW, there is a differential of approximately 200 marks with the drivers and this card at default timings and settings.
I do appreciate your observations and comments as I do try to perform impartial reviews with the intent of providing good sound information.

[OWA]

OWA only on the 3Dmark 03 bench.
After thinking about it some more, I guess I can see why you'd want that if you were trying to compare an ATI card to an Nvidia card. I don't really use 3DMark03 that way. I usually just use it to compare similar hardware... like what would it give me to upgrade my 5900U to a 5950 or how much would it help by using 56.72 over 45.33 or if my cpu was such and such how much would that help, how much is my overclock helping or hurting, etc. I rarely compare the results between my AIW 9800 Pro and 5900U since they don't seem to relate well (heh, but maybe it's b/c I never use the approved drivers). :) Anyway, I see your point and since most people would probably be trying to compare different brands, it would probably be better to make sure the drivers are approved.

As far as this review though, I didn't have any problems with it. I was mainly just asking why someone would want the reviewer to use approved drivers.

{Sniping}Waste, how about reviewers providing both? The approved set and whatever the latest set is? That way, for people like me, I can still get something useful from the 3DMark03 benchmark but people wanting to compare brands will also have a more fair comparison.

BTW, there is a differential of approximately 200 marks with the drivers and this card at default timings and settings.
It's good to know they're close I guess. :)

[{Sniping}Waste]

Both are fine only if its stated that the driver is not FM approved if its not.