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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-22-03, 11:13 AM   #1
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default gf FX 5800 NON-ultra....can anyone verify this?

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=270840

saw this score posted @ b3d... wondering about it and if the non-ultra has any issues in architecture ? that score seems a touch low
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-03, 12:12 PM   #2
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

No, no...that's right. The FX 5800 Non-ultra just kind of sucks.
__________________
[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 02-22-03, 01:39 PM   #3
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
No, no...that's right. The FX 5800 Non-ultra just kind of sucks.
lol... well it seems weird that the card is only 100 mhz slower and has half the 3dmark03 score of the ULTRA version...

I say only becaues I am looking in terms of the bigger picture... 400-500 mhz... == 800 - 1000mhz ddr ( II )

it just seems a lot less than what I expected...

for reference.. my STOCK sore on 3dmark03... no oc'ing of anything... unlike the cpu in question for the 5800 non-ultra score...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=118274
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-03, 01:47 PM   #4
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Your score looks a lot more realistic to me, but I liked my answer better anyways.
__________________
[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 02-22-03, 02:09 PM   #5
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Your score looks a lot more realistic to me, but I liked my answer better anyways.
currently for stock systems @ stock gpu clocks... I have the 3rd highest score for my clocks... not bad considering my memory is not exactly the fastest in the world for benchmarking... though supremely adequate for my day to day use (I am not a big benchmarker... )
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 AM.


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