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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-11-03, 11:48 PM   #73
The_KELRaTH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Heath UK
Posts: 44
Default

Well I'm a tad suprised:-

P3-1Ghz w/9700Pro

I was expecting something around 1500 ish...

***** 4019 *****

Using a P3-1Ghz - 9700Pro - Win2K Sp3 - DX9 cat3.1
Nothing overclocked.
The_KELRaTH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 11:54 PM   #74
Riptide
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 8,303
Default

9700/9500 seems to be making a *big* difference...
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 04:44 AM   #75
Smokey
Team Rainbow
 
Smokey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 2,273
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by The_KELRaTH
Well I'm a tad suprised:-

P3-1Ghz w/9700Pro

I was expecting something around 1500 ish...

***** 4019 *****

Using a P3-1Ghz - 9700Pro - Win2K Sp3 - DX9 cat3.1
Nothing overclocked.
So what does this show us? It doesnt matter if you have a low end cpu, you just need to have a top end ATI video card
__________________
HTPC/Gaming
| Hiper Type R 580W PSU
| Intel Q9550 @ 4GHz | Gigabyte EP45 UD3R |4x 1024MB OCZ Reaper PC9200 DDR2 | Seagate 320GB/ Maxtor 320GB/ Maxtor 500GB HDD|Sapphire HD5850 | Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Pro | Harmon Kardon AVR135 reciever | Jamo S718 speakers | 42" Plasma 720p (lounge room)-Samsung P2450H (bedroom)
Smokey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 05:45 AM   #76
Liddypool
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7
Default

5129 with a 9700 and P4@3.04.
Liddypool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 06:56 AM   #77
Pafet
GeForce 7900GT
 
Pafet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 430
Default

musn't buy video card for benchmark... musn't buy video card for benchmark... musn't buy video card for benchmark... musn't buy video card for benchmark...

I keep telling myself but how long can I hold it???!!!?!?!
Pafet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 07:19 AM   #78
The_KELRaTH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Heath UK
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Smokey
So what does this show us? It doesnt matter if you have a low end cpu, you just need to have a top end ATI video card
And this is perfectly representative in games, for instance, in UT2003 I can have every top ingame graphics feature on max BUT I have to turn down Karma and use software sound as thats where I take a big performance hit.
There are few games I play where my fps isn't above 60fps for the most part, which is all I look for. My main game just now is Battlefield 1942, I have Vsync on and refresh set to 85Hz and my fps stays around the 85 mark expect where there's lots going on - then it can drop as low as mid 40's. (with max ingame graphics settings on + 4xAA/AF).
Same situation with RalliSport Challenge.

My upgrade path has been mainly graphics card rather than CPU - using the same CPU / mobo kit I had a Geforce 2GTS, upgraded to GF3Ti200 but sold it month later as there was no real difference, then upgraded to Ti4200 - the fps was much the same but I could turn on more graphics detail and thats really much the same with the 9700Pro - fps much the same but even more graphics detail.
...................

Can't wait to buy that flight sim, it reminds me of my all time favourite "Aces over Europe" and "Aces over the Pacific". It had real close up dogfighting which I've not found on any recent Sim - the only other game I've found with that kind of close up dogfighting is Crimson Skies.
The_KELRaTH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 08:20 AM   #79
Lars
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 118
Default

This is definetely not a gamers benchmark. It's a videocard benchmark allright, so I think that's what they should call it. I have seen systems running with 1+ Ghz lower cpu speed than I and still outscoring me because their R9700PRO was clocked like 10 Mhz higher....

And a 1 Ghz P3 with a R9700PRO outscoring a 2.4+ Ghz P4 with a Ti4600 I know for sure which rig I'd rather play games on. It'll be interesting to see what the entire gaming community will end up thinking about this one.

Btw my score is 5436 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=39178

.... and it doesn't change unless I change the speed on the R9700PRO. Even 600 Mhz less on the cpu hardly changed the score at all.....
__________________
Pentium E6600 ES 2.4@3.5 Ghz | Mach II GT | Asus P5WD2-E | 2GB Corsair PC5400UL | X-Fi Fata1ity
Viewsonic VP201s + Dell 2001FP | 2x Club3D x1900xt CF | 2x WD Raptors | PCP&C 850W PSU
3dmark2001se 62845 | 3dmark05 20043 | 3dmark06 11642 | 3dmark03 36921 | pcmark05 9754
Lars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 09:17 AM   #80
sMull
Registered User
 
sMull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 308
Default

A P3900MHz with a Radeon 9700 PRO will get higher results than a XP2400+ with TI4600. But try and play UT2003 with that P3900MHz and you will be highly disapponted. 2400+ will run the game times better. I really dont think that 3DMark03 is the "Gamer's Benchamrk" its rather a "GPU Benchmark". By doing this, Futuremark basically state that the CPU plays little or no role in gaming which is outrageous.
sMull is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-03, 10:06 AM   #81
Riptide
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 8,303
Default

Considering how goddawful slow this thing runs in parts of the benchmark and how much stress I put myself through finding a good mirror yesterday I am wondering whether it was really worth it... There are some purty spots in the benchmark but it is a choppy mess and I'm scoring around 4600 (not great, but not shabby either).

It definitely seems ridiculous to call this anything but a GPU benchmark when you take into account the scores people w/ti4600's are getting vs. 9700 pros.

Lame futuremark, very lame...
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 10:30 AM   #82
deckard
Registered User
 
deckard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 22
Default

I think now that the initial disappointments at the low scores have subsided and people have had time to reflect, I believe a very KEY conclusion has been made, that 3DMark03 is really a videocard benchmark and not a gaming benchmark.
I used to think 3DMark was a gauge on game performance and maybe older versions were. This version sure doesn't seem that way though.

As far as the difference in scores between various Nvidia boards being almost negligible, I agree this is a little alarming. We need some explanation from Futuremark about that one.

However, the difference in scores between a Ti4600 and 9700 Pro I fully expected and don't see why people got so alarmed. The 9700 Pro IS nearly twice as powerful as a Ti4600 so a Ti4600 scoring 1600 and a 9700 Pro scoring 4500 is to me totally reasonable.

As far as the generally abysmal frame rates running the tests (my P3 1 Ghz and Ti4600 sometimes registered ZERO FPS!), this too I think should be expected. 3DMark is a stress benchmark. It's SUPPOSED to drive your system to its knees. As PC technology continues to grow in power, eventually even 3DMark03 will be spitting out 18,000 marks on the systems of a couple years from now. This is the same situation for all prior versions of 3DMark. Our systems at the time really gagged but within a couple years we were eating it for lunch then, you guessed it, new version of 3DMark comes out and the cycle began anew.
deckard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 11:47 AM   #83
Riptide
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 8,303
Default

I hope you are right deckard. You very well may be.

With parts of the benchmark dropping down to 1-3fps on my system I have to wonder if hardware available in 2-3 years is going to be up to the job of pushing even 15 frames in those slow spots. It really will take at least quadruple the system speed that I currently have in order to accomplish that.

I guess I'm skeptical that in 2-3 years we'll be running systems that are overall 4x faster... Maybe, but I'm not so sure..
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 11:59 AM   #84
The_KELRaTH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Heath UK
Posts: 44
Default

I certainly agree that it's a graphics card benchmark rather than a gaming benchmark but in many ways thats more useful. An example would be that although I can run games with max detail I can't run EAX HD - it kills my fps. Now look at my benchmark and it clearly shows why.

I can use this benchmark to help identify what area I need to upgrade - in this case my CPU (if I want EAX HD sound!).

If you run 3Dmark 2001 you get a score but you don't really know what the best upgrade component is.
The_KELRaTH 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
Official GeForce GTX 670 Review and Discussion Thread MikeC NVIDIA GeForce 600 Series 23 10-28-12 11:19 AM
Official nForce 2 Thread Matthyahuw CPUs, Motherboards And Memory 148 04-16-03 05:39 AM
Official Linux driver 1.0-3123 thread bammbamm808 NVIDIA Linux 126 12-05-02 07:21 PM
Official Grand Theft Auto 3 thread volt Gaming Central 6 08-01-02 08:04 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 AM.


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