Hellbinder
01-30-03, 11:13 PM
Very disturbing
http://www.3dchips.net/main/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=83
This attitude had however no influence on the graphic card, for in a Dauertestlauf under Maya with abundance Scene Anti Aliasing 4x in a solution of 1280X1024 picture points, the surprise came then: the card first ran for this extremely demanding Benchmark in 13 pictures per second (FPS). After short time the ventilator of the FX 2000 caught was choked to revolve at maximally, at the same time the achievement of the graphic card, delivered the Benchmark only 9 FPS. Subsequently the ventilator regulated itself again on moderated numbers of revolutions, the 9 FPS remained however admissible the measure of all things. First with a new start of the Benchmarks, again the 13 FPS are reached, to the renewed overheating, goes the game again by ahead loose. In spite of costly Belüftung, open housing or other player eggs, it is not arrive us to hold the GeForce FX on a durable achievement level.
Read that, or translate it if necessary. It says point blank that the Quadro 2000's cooling solution is uneffective. Especially under a heavy graphics load. They start a test it gets 13FPS then it starts to overheat and the benchmarks drop to 9, then they shut it off and let it cool, then it gets 13 again.. then it overheats.. then they cool it down..
You get the idea. Just posting this becuase I am already seeing posts where people at Some specific sites are FALSLEY Reporting (like riva station) that
"look see??? I told you GFFX does not need that dustbuster"
It also begs the question of wether the GFFX ULtra is really running at a constant 500mhz or not. Multitexture tests posted at anand, and Extremetech would indicate a clockspeed closer to 450mhz. At least by the time it gets to the fill rate tests.
3dMark Fillrate test multitexture
From extremetech.com
GFFX ULTRA 3557.8
9700 Pro 2564.1
From Anand
GFFX ULTRA 3477.9
Radeon 9700 2536.7
I'm surprised no web sites commented on these scores. The 9700 Pro is clocked at 325 mhz engine. That gives a theoretical maximum of 2600 in the 3D Mark multitexture fillrate test. The actual score is 2564, which is 98.6% of the maximum. Anandtecchs scores are nearly the same. Now look at the GeForce FX. Theoretical maximum at 500 mhz would be 4000, yet it achieves 3558 which is about 89% of the maximum. That seems very odd. Now, take 3558 and round it up to 3600 and now compute the clock speed: 450 mhz. Quite frankly, the multitexture test should be a very reliable way to calculate clock speed. Not that its indicating EXACTLY 450mhz.. but something less than 500 seems certain.
Interesting eh?
http://www.3dchips.net/main/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=83
This attitude had however no influence on the graphic card, for in a Dauertestlauf under Maya with abundance Scene Anti Aliasing 4x in a solution of 1280X1024 picture points, the surprise came then: the card first ran for this extremely demanding Benchmark in 13 pictures per second (FPS). After short time the ventilator of the FX 2000 caught was choked to revolve at maximally, at the same time the achievement of the graphic card, delivered the Benchmark only 9 FPS. Subsequently the ventilator regulated itself again on moderated numbers of revolutions, the 9 FPS remained however admissible the measure of all things. First with a new start of the Benchmarks, again the 13 FPS are reached, to the renewed overheating, goes the game again by ahead loose. In spite of costly Belüftung, open housing or other player eggs, it is not arrive us to hold the GeForce FX on a durable achievement level.
Read that, or translate it if necessary. It says point blank that the Quadro 2000's cooling solution is uneffective. Especially under a heavy graphics load. They start a test it gets 13FPS then it starts to overheat and the benchmarks drop to 9, then they shut it off and let it cool, then it gets 13 again.. then it overheats.. then they cool it down..
You get the idea. Just posting this becuase I am already seeing posts where people at Some specific sites are FALSLEY Reporting (like riva station) that
"look see??? I told you GFFX does not need that dustbuster"
It also begs the question of wether the GFFX ULtra is really running at a constant 500mhz or not. Multitexture tests posted at anand, and Extremetech would indicate a clockspeed closer to 450mhz. At least by the time it gets to the fill rate tests.
3dMark Fillrate test multitexture
From extremetech.com
GFFX ULTRA 3557.8
9700 Pro 2564.1
From Anand
GFFX ULTRA 3477.9
Radeon 9700 2536.7
I'm surprised no web sites commented on these scores. The 9700 Pro is clocked at 325 mhz engine. That gives a theoretical maximum of 2600 in the 3D Mark multitexture fillrate test. The actual score is 2564, which is 98.6% of the maximum. Anandtecchs scores are nearly the same. Now look at the GeForce FX. Theoretical maximum at 500 mhz would be 4000, yet it achieves 3558 which is about 89% of the maximum. That seems very odd. Now, take 3558 and round it up to 3600 and now compute the clock speed: 450 mhz. Quite frankly, the multitexture test should be a very reliable way to calculate clock speed. Not that its indicating EXACTLY 450mhz.. but something less than 500 seems certain.
Interesting eh?