Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-11-03, 01:39 PM   #41
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by The Baron
Huh. Very VERY odd results. Need to run it again.
What kind of "odd" are we talking? High "odd" or low "odd"?
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 01:40 PM   #42
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Don't know original results, but a 5700U at stock clocks gets 3347 (hey, wasn't that what my 9600 Pro got? scary).

(oddly enough, the first time I ran it, I got 1496, but for example, GT1 ran fine, GT2 ran fine for three seconds and then got around .3FPS, same with GT3 and 4, very ugly. don't know, probably a bug. the elephant in whatever test it's in appeared all black as well.)

anyway, detailed scores:

GT1: 152.8FPS
GT2: 21.4FPS
GT3: 18.3FPS
GT4: 15.0FPS

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1553380
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 01:45 PM   #43
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by The Baron
Don't know original results, but a 5700U at stock clocks gets 3347 (hey, wasn't that what my 9600 Pro got? scary).
Some 9600 Pro's get better than others I guess. (Although I'll grant ya it ain't exactly "default" )
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 01:47 PM   #44
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Some 9600 Pro's get better than others I guess. (Although I'll grant ya it ain't exactly "default" )
I haven't overclocked yet, Snookums.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-03, 01:50 PM   #45
Jas28
Registered User
 
Jas28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 88
Default

Man, my day is ruined....my 3dmark score will go down now. But, I guess I am glad that my games run fine with my 5900!!
__________________
Intel Core i7 860 @3.85GHz w/ Corsair H50
MSI P55-CD53
4Gb A-DATA DDR3 1600
EVGA GeForce GTX 470 Superclocked 1280MB GDDR5
SoundBlaster X-Fi XtremeMusic
Windows 7 64-Bit
Jas28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:11 PM   #46
Ady
...
 
Ady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 502
Default

Interesting to see PS2.0 scores seem to be intact. So what tricks do you think NV are using to get these invalid performance gains?
__________________
Dying is not going to kill me.
Ady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:19 PM   #47
Hanners
Elite Bastard
 
Hanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 984
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ady
Interesting to see PS2.0 scores seem to be intact. So what tricks do you think NV are using to get these invalid performance gains?
I would guess shader replacement in GT4, but they've left the other Pixel Shader 2.0 test alone (as it doesn't contribute to the final score).
__________________
Owner / Editor-in-Chief - Elite Bastards
Hanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:27 PM   #48
Blacklash
8^9^3
 
Blacklash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Old Vizima
Posts: 3,679
Default r

I'd like to run a test myself. Anyone have a 9600pro or XT? If so humor me and run Halo at 1280X960, 4XAF and SPECULAR on. Feel free to OC as much as possible. Of course get FRAPS and grab some screens.

I ran my card at above settings with mip map at "quality" as well as driver.

For closest comparison just fire up the demo at start and go.

here's what the 5700 did with specular on /4XAF at 1280x960 all quality settings. I don't think its too shabby for those settings and being a "mainstream" card. These are oudoor shots so FPS is going to be lower as compared to an indoor hallway shot.

http://members.cox.net/malficar/halo%203.jpg
http://members.cox.net/malficar/halo%204.jpg
http://members.cox.net/malficar/halo%205.jpg
http://members.cox.net/malficar/halo%206.jpg
http://members.cox.net/malficar/halo%207.jpg
__________________
Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.96GHz (1.36v)|Mushkin 998681 XP3-12800 (3x2GB)
ASUS TUF Sabertooth (X58)|ASUS GTX 580 DirectCU II (980|4604)|ASUS PA246Q
WD VelociRaptor 150GB HD (x2)|Pioneer DVR-2920Q|LG GH22LS30|Klipsch PM20 2.0
SilverStone OP1000-E|SilverStone TJ10-B|Thermalright U-120 Extreme|Win 7 HP x64

Last edited by Blacklash; 11-11-03 at 02:35 PM.
Blacklash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:28 PM   #49
Ady
...
 
Ady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 502
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hanners
(as it doesn't contribute to the final score).
thats a good point. I thought it used to kick out some awful ps2.0 scores with older drivers, or I am just remember the horrid nv30 ps2.0 performance?

looking at the results at nordic hardware it seems the 5950 doesn't have a problem beating the 9800PRO in PS2.0 performance
__________________
Dying is not going to kill me.
Ady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:33 PM   #50
Hanners
Elite Bastard
 
Hanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 984
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ady
looking at the results at nordic hardware it seems the 5950 doesn't have a problem beating the 9800PRO in PS2.0 performance
Maybe the compiler in the 52.16s is actually doing it's job well in that particular case? Maybe it's has some easy to restructure shaders that allows the drivers to gain an impressive (but still legal) performance boost.
__________________
Owner / Editor-in-Chief - Elite Bastards
Hanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:39 PM   #51
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hanners
Maybe the compiler in the 52.16s is actually doing it's job well in that particular case? Maybe it's has some easy to restructure shaders that allows the drivers to gain an impressive (but still legal) performance boost.
I think hanners so far that has been the general consensus

it would appear that more work/revisions with the restructuring will allow for better overall performance AND quality.. and eliminate some of the bugs that apparently popped up with the forceware drivers...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:41 PM   #52
AthlonXP1800
Registered User
 
AthlonXP1800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,352
Default

I found what patch 340 changed:

Quote:
Technical Details Associated with the New Patch:

Patch changes the program's build number to 340;

Maximum point sprite size is now limited to 256x256 instead of the maximum supported by the hardware;

Incorporates new version of the Entech library (used to detect the clock frequency of the graphics chip core and memory);

Provides more detailed and accurate system information and improved detection of hyperthreaded CPUs
So nothing to do with cheating!

I think 744 3D Marks loss is due to the limited of 256x256 point sprite size, is that same thing with texture? I think Geforce FX supported maximum of 4096x4096 texture. I still not understand why FutureMark restricted it to lame 256x256, it is so old now, it should use the maximum size.
__________________
Intel Core i7 3770K, Corsair H80 liquid cooler with Noctua S12-1200 fan, ASUS P8Z77V with UEFI 2104, 16GB Samsung Green 30nm DDR3-RAM, Pioneer BDR-S09XLT 16x Blu-ray writer, Corsair AX850 PSU, Western Digital 2TB SATA3 hard drive, CanonScan LiDE 210 scanner, Microsoft Internet Keyboard, Microsoft Touch Explorer mouse, 32inch Sharp LC32LE600 LED TV, EVGA Geforce GTX 670 SC 4GB with Geforce 370.50 driver, 50Mb broadband Virgin Media VMDG480 Super Hub, Aspire Xplorer Midi Tower, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit.
AthlonXP1800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:45 PM   #53
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by AthlonXP1800
I found what patch 340 changed:



So nothing to do with cheating!

I think 744 3D Marks loss is due to the limited of 256x256 point sprite size, is that same thing with texture? I think Geforce FX supported maximum of 4096x4096 texture. I still not understand why FutureMark restricted it to lame 256x256, it is so old now, it should use the maximum size.
I think I'll wait for dave and [worm] to provide a proper changelog..

ta
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:51 PM   #54
Blacklash
8^9^3
 
Blacklash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Old Vizima
Posts: 3,679
Default r

"Maximum point sprite size is now limited to 256x256 instead of the maximum supported by the hardware"


Gah! I was going to say. The way I run Halo and Morrowind I was very suspicious of my cards new 'power' rating.
__________________
Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.96GHz (1.36v)|Mushkin 998681 XP3-12800 (3x2GB)
ASUS TUF Sabertooth (X58)|ASUS GTX 580 DirectCU II (980|4604)|ASUS PA246Q
WD VelociRaptor 150GB HD (x2)|Pioneer DVR-2920Q|LG GH22LS30|Klipsch PM20 2.0
SilverStone OP1000-E|SilverStone TJ10-B|Thermalright U-120 Extreme|Win 7 HP x64
Blacklash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:52 PM   #55
Ady
...
 
Ady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 502
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by AthlonXP1800
I found what patch 340 changed:

So nothing to do with cheating!

I think 744 3D Marks loss is due to the limited of 256x256 point sprite size, is that same thing with texture? I think Geforce FX supported maximum of 4096x4096 texture. I still not understand why FutureMark restricted it to lame 256x256, it is so old now, it should use the maximum size.
You conveniently missed this bit from the Futuremark press release...
Quote:
Parts of the program code have been changed so that possible 3DMark03 specific optimizations in current drivers will not work. 3DMark03 specific optimizations in drivers are against run rules of 3DMark03, because they invalidate the performance measurement results and thus make it impossible to compare performances of different hardware. A list of drivers that have been tested - and confirmed to produce valid 3DMark03 scores - has been published on Futuremark’s website.
Edit: Press release link
__________________
Dying is not going to kill me.

Last edited by Ady; 11-11-03 at 02:57 PM.
Ady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:55 PM   #56
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jas28
Man, my day is ruined....my 3dmark score will go down now. But, I guess I am glad that my games run fine with my 5900!!
Just be Glad that Developers are not doing the same thing to safeguard the integrity of their Code. Otherwise your day would be VERY Ruined
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-03, 02:55 PM   #57
-=DVS=-
.:. Lafiel .:.
 
-=DVS=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Outerspace
Posts: 3,009
Talking

So Nvidia is EVIL whats new ?

They should release new benchmark 2k4 for new cards R420 and NV40
__________________
.:. Lian Li X500FX .:. i7 2600k .:. PNY GTX 680 .:. Corsair DDR3 8GB .:. Silverstone 800W PSU .:. Asus P8P67-M Pro .:. Crucial M4 SSD 512GB .:.
-=DVS=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 02:58 PM   #58
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Ok people...

Point Sprite Sizes have absolutly NOTHING To do with the performance of each idividual test at all. ATi cards support larger point sprites as well. Their scores did not drop.

This means that the Benchmark Code itself does not require more than 256x256. Which is pretty Standard for games anyway.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 03:10 PM   #59
otheipion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by AnteP
Detailed results:

http://www.nordichardware.se/artikla.../3DMark03_340/

Well, these tables tell the tale rather well. Thanks AnteP!
__________________
Asus P4PE, P4 2.53 GHz, 512 MB Corsair XMS 2700, Radeon 9500 Pro
otheipion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 03:13 PM   #60
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

I really want to start a new topic for this.. but for now ill put it in here...

This is why Cheating in 3dMark or any other game used for Benchmarking are important.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031111/sftu065_1.html

PC magazine is at it again and awards Nvidia its "editors choice award" Saying things like this...
Quote:
PC Magazine recognized NVIDIA for its graphics expertise by stating, "The HP's NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5600 graphics make it the better choice for mobile gaming: its 3DMark03 score was 81% ahead of the nearest competitor..."
Which we all know is just complete popy****. Not only is Nvidia CHEATING to improve their scores but actual review sites show that the ATi mobile 9600 creams the Go5600 in (i think) every single test and benchamark..

I mean look at these statements.. its Absurd.
Quote:
"NVIDIA products are the critical differentiators for every standout product in this review round-up," said Jeff Fisher, executive vice president of worldwide sales at NVIDIA. "The way NVIDIA-based products excelled in this issue underscores the quality, importance, and relevance of cutting-edge graphics and high-performing digital media functionality for today's advanced computing environments."
Stuff like this should make every single person here who cares about the industry, Honesty and fair practice, Blood Boil.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]

Last edited by Hellbinder; 11-11-03 at 03:42 PM.
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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

BB 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
NVIDIA Driver 295.53 installs into kernel 3.4 without a patch! jdmcdaniel3 NVIDIA Linux 3 06-08-12 10:41 AM
Need Help Installing NVIDIA Tesla M2070Q in Linux RHEL5 Ferianto85 NVIDIA Linux 0 05-18-12 09:35 PM
Rumor regarding lack of 680 availability ViN86 Rumor Mill 6 05-09-12 05:48 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 AM.


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