nV News Forums


nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   Benchmarking And Overclocking (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   3dmark 2003 9700 vs. GFFX actual results here (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7437)

***CENSORED*** 02-11-03 02:58 PM

3dmark 2003 9700 vs. GFFX actual results here
From [H]ard OCP:


intercede007 02-11-03 03:06 PM

Wrong forum. Volt? :D

poursoul 02-11-03 03:08 PM



what cpu were they using for the gffx system? *notes 666 marks*

low ps perfomance. hmm.

intercede007 02-11-03 03:10 PM

Good point. Not much of a comparison if they aren't using the same setup, is it?

volt 02-11-03 03:15 PM

CENSORED: some software are benchmarks :D

ReDeeMeR 02-11-03 03:49 PM

OMG, PS and VS are slower on FX!!! WTF!?
And P&VS arent limited by other HW are they?

Man this is gettin worse by day.

ALobpreis 02-11-03 03:55 PM

According to this, they are both using the same CPU!! :eek:


Asus A7N8X, AthlonXP 3000+ @ 2.5Ghz (14x180Mhz), 512MB Kingston HyperX PC3500, Maxtor 40GB HDD, Windows XP w/SP1, DirectX 9.0
:confused: :confused:

Nutty 02-11-03 04:28 PM

Still came out top tho! Even with its broken/unoptimized pixel shaders.

Aglarond 02-11-03 04:34 PM

As you may have noticed the the GFFX got a big boost in preformance with the new drivers but no boost in the synthetic tests. It is therefore possible t´hat Nvidia could hawe done some optimizing (ie usefp processing quality for the benchmark)Yust like Cormack sad he will do For the FX with doom. The FX is usseless at high internal precission acording to Carmack its half of what the Radeon Currently has at 24.So maybe Nvidia forced 16 for older PS progs and uses 32 only for the pS 2.0 things.It would be great since not all shaders need the highest percision.The ATI card for example always uses 24 so this could be a good sign for the FX also I dont think that things will improve that much for the fx well back to my DX7 card!!:(

gmontem 02-11-03 04:46 PM

Wow. The R9700 got a beating in the multi-texturing fill rate test but aced the Pixel Shader 2.0 test big time. Do they tell you how the 3DMark score is calculated at all?

jnd3 02-11-03 04:49 PM

Note that the multitexturing fillrate on the FX is 44% higher than the 9700. Too bad the rest of it (PS/VS) seems to be hobbled. They've certainly got something in the drivers that will enable a big boost at a later time. Certainly... :rolleyes:


Sazar 02-11-03 04:54 PM

check this out...

"old" drivers


"new" drivers


notice the optimizations from the "new" drivers mainly affect the scores in the games that are being counted towards the 3dmark total ?


I'll let the driver "optimizations" speak for themselves...

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.