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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-11-03, 02:58 PM   #1
***CENSORED***
Enter the Homertrix!
 
***CENSORED***'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: My own private hell
Posts: 193
Thumbs down 3dmark 2003 9700 vs. GFFX actual results here

From [H]ard OCP:

***CENSORED*** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 03:06 PM   #2
intercede007
American
 
intercede007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Destin, Florida
Posts: 331
Send a message via ICQ to intercede007 Send a message via AIM to intercede007 Send a message via MSN to intercede007 Send a message via Yahoo to intercede007
Default

Wrong forum. Volt?
intercede007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 03:08 PM   #3
poursoul
i eat people
 
poursoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orcutt, CA
Posts: 614
Default

WOW!

wow.

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

low ps perfomance. hmm.
poursoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 03:10 PM   #4
intercede007
American
 
intercede007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Destin, Florida
Posts: 331
Send a message via ICQ to intercede007 Send a message via AIM to intercede007 Send a message via MSN to intercede007 Send a message via Yahoo to intercede007
Default

Good point. Not much of a comparison if they aren't using the same setup, is it?
intercede007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 03:15 PM   #5
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

CENSORED: some software are benchmarks
__________________
[b]Optimization guidelines by Koji Ashida of NVIDIA:[/b][list][*]Use fx12 instructions whenever possible[*]Use lowest pixel shader version[/list][url=http://developer.nvidia.com/docs/IO/10878/ChinaJoy2004_OptimizationAndTools.pdf]source[/url]

[size=1]The politics are invading the technology. We don't really like to mess with politics because that kind of adversarial relationship has nothing to do with pure technical operations and the technical specifications of what we like to play with, the hardware![/size]
volt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 03:49 PM   #6
ReDeeMeR
The Guy Next Door *wink*
 
ReDeeMeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 605
Send a message via ICQ to ReDeeMeR
Default

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.
ReDeeMeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 03:55 PM   #7
ALobpreis
 
ALobpreis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ramos
Posts: 413
Default

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

Quote:
Asus A7N8X, AthlonXP 3000+ @ 2.5Ghz (14x180Mhz), 512MB Kingston HyperX PC3500, Maxtor 40GB HDD, Windows XP w/SP1, DirectX 9.0
ALobpreis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 04:28 PM   #8
Nutty
Sittin in the Sun
 
Nutty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,835
Send a message via MSN to Nutty
Default

Still came out top tho! Even with its broken/unoptimized pixel shaders.
Nutty is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-03, 04:34 PM   #9
Aglarond
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maribor
Posts: 3
Unhappy

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!!
Aglarond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 04:46 PM   #10
gmontem
Registered User
 
gmontem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 536
Default

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?
gmontem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 04:49 PM   #11
jnd3
Sword Saint
 
jnd3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alpharetta, GA USA
Posts: 465
Send a message via AIM to jnd3 Send a message via Yahoo to jnd3
Default

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...

Cheers,
JND
jnd3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 04:54 PM   #12
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

check this out...

"old" drivers

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?im...1fNF8xX2wuZ2lm

"new" drivers

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?im...1fNF80X2wuZ2lm

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...
Sazar 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
Former Nvidia user: 9700 impressions nin_fragile14 Other Desktop Graphics Cards 58 11-01-02 01:38 PM
FalconNW and Voodoo under ATI 9700 spell!!! mizzer Other Desktop Graphics Cards 12 09-20-02 07:53 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.


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