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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-14-03, 11:34 PM   #1
bkswaney
Mr. Extreme!
 
bkswaney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SC
Posts: 3,421
Send a message via Yahoo to bkswaney
Thumbs up Futuremark patch 440 does not effect 5700u

Anyone know anything else about this?

It's a Club 3D card.








Futuremark patch doesn't affect Club 3D FX 5700 Ultra

In house test


By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Friday 14 November 2003, 11:16

THE MAINSTREAM Geforce FX 5700 Ultra doesn't seem to be the slightest bit bothered about the latest Futuremark patch, it has emerged.
We are doing all we can to post a review of this card vs. Radeon 9600XT but in the meantime we took time to look deeper into this Futuremark patch 340 that is supposed to lower performance of Nvidia cards.

I haven't had time to test the FX 5900 non ultra the only high end FX part that I have, but here is what happens when you run this test on FX 5700 Ultra that was provided to us by the plucky Club3D company that is not even listed among Nvidia partners but still uses NVDA chips.

On the Club 3D Geforce FX 5700 Ultra patch 340 don't decrease performance in any way and even increases its performance by a very small margin on this 475/909 MHz clocked card.

I must admit that I had to retest this a few times to believe after I saw all this claims on the web, and was expecting that the FX 5700 Ultra would dramatically drop its performance in 3dmark03 but there it is. It's a fact.

Anyway only the game results and total score changed and in patch 330 3dmark03 scored 3961, Game 1 - 158.8, Game 2 - 25.9, Game 3 - 21.1, Game 4 - 22.0 while the other results were unaffected.

With patch 340 Club3D FX5700 Ultra scored 3965, Game 1 - 159.2, Game 2 - 26.0, Game 3 - 21.2, Game 4 - 21.9 so even better.

A full review will follow in the goodness of time, whatever that is.
__________________
Notebook!
Compaq Presario CQ60-215DX
AMD 64 Athlon X2 @ 2GHz (QL62)
15.6 inch HD WideScreen
Nvidia 8200M-G 895mb
2Gig system ram
250Gig SATA 5400rpm HDrive
Vista Premium
bkswaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 11:52 PM   #2
euan
Fully Qualified FanATIc
 
euan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 387
Default

What driver?
__________________
Sys.txt
euan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 11:56 PM   #3
bkswaney
Mr. Extreme!
 
bkswaney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SC
Posts: 3,421
Send a message via Yahoo to bkswaney
Default

Good ? .... They do not say. hummm

Here is the guys email address if someone wants
to try and get a reply via email.

fudo@theinquirer.net
bkswaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-03, 12:23 AM   #4
GlowStick
CoD4!
 
GlowStick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,786
Send a message via AIM to GlowStick
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bkswaney
Good ? .... They do not say. hummm

Here is the guys email address if someone wants
to try and get a reply via email.

fudo@theinquirer.net
Actually i do like to email the writers at the inq alot, and they allways reply.
__________________
Intel i7-2600K, Corsair 8Gig, Corsair H100, Corsair 650D, Corsair HX750, ATi 6970, WD Caviar Black 2TB
Sony Vaio SB: i7, 8Gig, Intel 320 300gig
GlowStick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-03, 01:22 AM   #5
bkswaney
Mr. Extreme!
 
bkswaney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SC
Posts: 3,421
Send a message via Yahoo to bkswaney
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by GlowStick
Actually i do like to email the writers at the inq alot, and they allways reply.
I sent him one a few min ago.
bkswaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-03, 02:44 AM   #6
Miksu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 76
Default

Not true, according to Baron:
Quote:
Don't know original results, but a 5700U at stock clocks gets 3347 (hey, wasn't that what my 9600 Pro got? scary).
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...0&pagenumber=3
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1553380
Miksu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-03, 04:40 AM   #7
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
On the Club 3D Geforce FX 5700 Ultra patch 340 don't decrease performance in any way and even increases its performance by a very small margin on this 475/909 MHz clocked card.

I must admit that I had to retest this a few times to believe after I saw all this claims on the web, and was expecting that the FX 5700 Ultra would dramatically drop its performance in 3dmark03 but there it is. It's a fact.
If that is True and They have done everything correctly on their end then this indicates honest Compiler Optimizations for the 5700U. Which is a good thing.
__________________
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 11-15-03, 06:00 AM   #8
Dazz
"TOON ARMY!"
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,138
Send a message via AIM to Dazz
Default

52.16 of course, them and the 52.70 are the only drivers that support the FX5700.
__________________
"Never interupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Processor: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition @ 4.25GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3
Graphics: ASUS ENGTX470
Memory: 4GB Kingston HyperX Blu PC12800 DDR3
Monitor: LG E2260V-PN Full HD WLED 22" & DELL 20" 2005FPW,
Power: Coolermaster Silent Pro Modular 850w PSU
Sound: Logitech Z5500 Digital.
Cooling: Thermalright Silver Arrow.
1st Storage: Kingston V100 SSDNow128GB SSD
2nd Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB
Dazz is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-03, 09:00 AM   #9
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

DaveB said Fudo screwed up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-03, 09:22 AM   #10
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Dazz
52.16 of course, them and the 52.70 are the only drivers that support the FX5700.
Unless nVidia gave 'em a newer beta set with a "fix" for the 3.40 patch.

Besides which, I'm calling "bullspit!" on this story since no one else has been able to replicate it and in fact others have had a 13-15% score decrease on a 5700 Ultra using the 52.16 & 52.70 drivers.

I think FUDo did screw up and then got all excited and jumped the gun and posted the story a bit prematurely and is gonna be writing a tiny little retraction soon.
__________________
[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 11-15-03, 09:23 AM   #11
Uttar
Registered User
 
Uttar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,354
Send a message via AIM to Uttar Send a message via Yahoo to Uttar
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Unless nVidia gave 'em a newer beta set with a "fix" for the 3.40 patch.
NVIDIA talking to Fudo?
That's that'd be a first!


Uttar
Uttar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-03, 09:48 AM   #12
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Uttar
NVIDIA talking to Fudo?
That's that'd be a first!
Yeah, he probably just screwed up.
__________________
[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
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.


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