PC Poll...

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:59 am

... pretty sure I've run it since I've had DX9.0 installed, but maybe I haven't. I'll give it a try when I get home. There is also a DX9.0A. I don't know if that would have any effect at all, but you never know.

Post by **enderzero** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 11:05 am

I am running DX9A. Let me know what you uncover.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:23 pm

I'm having the same problem with SE. The standard non-SE 3DMark 2001 works fine though. It is only missing that little pond/fish/boat test at the end. It has Game 4 Nature. I was getting over a hundred frames per second in Nature at some points. It never dipped below fifty either. Not too bad.

Post by **enderzero** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:39 pm

What was your 3DMark score? for both 1600 and 1024?

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 10:44 am

Should be rather quick now I imagine.

Post by **enderzero** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:54 pm

...to YES DAMNIT!!!

Here is a visual representation of how much my new PC rocks.

For the full details go to: http://enderzero.net/benchmarks/2003

Also interesting to note that if you ever have a choice between an original Geforce 3 and Ti200 (even with 128MB) the original is far better.

Thanks J3RK

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 8:16 am

... those scores aren't too far from what I get. I get around 5300 in 3DMark 2003 and around 15000 in 2001. A decent spread, but at those numbers it doesn't really seem like much. (Especially the way it looks.) If you turn on VSync in your games, they never drop below silky.

Ocean11 · Post by **Ocean11** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 5:27 am

You're all looking a bit puny in here in the PC trousers department. I'm not even a pornstar and I got a pretty big one I reckon.

So big, in fact, I haven't even bothered to get the spec ruler out to measure it.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 9:35 am

... but we all clicked on the "Add inches to your PC over night naturally" ad in our email inboxes.

Post by **enderzero** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:01 am

Benched with my new video card that I am not even gonna get to use. :'(

http://enderzero.net/benchmarks/2003

Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB

Q3A 1024 248fps
Q3A 1600 203fps

3DMark2001 1024 14528 3DMarks
Nature 1024 113.2fps

3DMark 2001 1600 11351 3DMarks
Nature 1600 55.6fps

3DMark 2003 1024 5298 3DMarks
Game 1 1024 158fps

3DMark 2003 1600 3065 3DMarks
Game 1 1600 100.9fps

Interesting the Game 1 scores in 03 are lower than the 9700.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 8:52 am

...possibly because it's not a DX9 test. It's not using shader-heavy code, which is what the 9800 Pro is optimized for. If you put those two cards side by side with Halflife 2, you'd notice quite a difference. I haven't posted with mine either. I would like to see the difference, since you and I have the same card, but different board, ram channels, etc.

Post by **enderzero** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:06 pm

McNevin! How about some new benchmark scores out of you!!

...and you too J3RK!

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:43 pm

Sorry, I don't benchmark anymore. What I do is a little bit different. These days, I just upgrade things one at a time until my games run the way I want them to. I'll just say this: Far Cry runs in 1280x1024 with settings maxed (shadows are one down from max) and it looks plenty smooth. Quake 3 in 1600x1200 with AA and AF maxed never drops below 85Hz sync. UT2004 runs in 1600x1200 with settings maxed without dropping below sync (except once in a while in heavy battles.) My C64 games run full-speed. My desktop is stable, crisp, and clear. It's all just going to get better and better. The Catalyst 4.7s came out yesterday or today, and give speed increases in Far Cry for most people. I'm going to try them when I get home.

Far Cry patch version 1.3 is going to support 3DC which will speed it up considerably. Well, it will either speed it up or allow more detail. It compresses normal maps and other lighting/texturing related things 4 to 1, so they can either do more, or the same amount but faster. I know the X800 supports this, but I'm not sure if the 9x00 series does or not.

The Catalyst 4.7 drivers just allowed the checkbox for Temporal Antialiasing. (Which is supported by all 9500+ cards) This changes the AA sample every other frame to make it look better. I guess it effectively doubles how good the AA looks. So if you turn it on, 2X looks like 4X etc. VSync is required, as it will not work when the card runs below VSync. So this will be good for games where you're running over 60fps. Q3 and UT2004 will look nice this way.

Everyone should go get these drivers.

Maybe I'll just do an all defaults run of 3DMark 2003 when I get home. I'm only posting one score, and since it's not registered, it will be at defaults. VSync will be off, and my card will be clocked higher than default, (because that's how I run it.) AA and AF will be set to the lowest settings, and then switched to application preference in the ATI control panel. I always leave my texture and LOD settings on maximum too. So, if anyone is going to post new scores for comparison, use those settings.

WORD!

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:32 pm

OK...

Catalyst 4.7
AA all the way down in CP and then set to app pref
AF all the way down in CP and then set to app pref
All LOD and Texture quality settings at max

Default non-registered 3DMark 2003 settings

X800 overclocked to stable/not too hot settings (530 Core 1000 Mem)

Score: 10768

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:58 pm

3D-Mark 2001 SE

1024 x 768 - Triple Buffer

Score: 12561

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 9:50 pm

What about 03? I can't run 01. At least not SE...

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:20 am

I'm bumping this back to the top. (Since I went to all the trouble of running a stupid benchmark.)

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:39 am

Bump....

Bumpity....

Bizump!!!

Pow!

Back to the top....

Where are these frickin' 03 results? Hmmmmmm??

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:42 am

Did everyone get the 4.7s? Anyone with an ATI card, (which is most people in this forum) should go get them. This means people like you Choki, who are too lazy to do maintenance on their computers without someone jabbing them with sticks. Go get the new drivers, uninstall the old ones, install new, then you have better stuff.

Post by **enderzero** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:44 pm

Register it up

Are the default non registered 03 settings the same as my default registered settings. Default is 1024X768 right?

My settings:
AA/AF all the way down in CP and set to app preference.
Texture/LOD max (High Quality)
TRUFORM (What is this?) Off
AGP 4X (mb's max)

Catalyst 4.6 Fastwrites Disabled
5599 - 3dmarks
169.1 - game 1

Catalyst 4.7 Fastwrites Disabled
5600 - 3dmarks
168.8 - game 1

Catalyst 4.7 Fastwrites Enabled
5639 - 3dmarks
171.6 - game 1

So if it is working fine with fastwrites on then I guess I should be using them eh?

I need RAM, AGP 8X, Dual Channel Memory, and 800MHz bus to be really happy. The veedeeo is great tho.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:52 pm

Fast Writes should work fine on Intel and Nvidia chipsets. I wouldn't really trust them on anything else. I've see flakiness with SiS and Via. I haven't logged any significant graphics time on the new ATI chipsets, (though the chipsets themselves are pretty nice.)

Truform (when supported) lets the hardware tesselate objects and give them more polygons automatically. (To make smoother curves, edges, etc.) I think Wolfenstein supports it. Other things do too, that's just one that I remember having support. (If I'm not mistaken.)

Default on my 3DMark is 1024.

I'll update after I unlock the extra pipelines.

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:15 pm

I cant run 3dmark 03, it poops out and goes back to desktop.

My card is still not working good, going to get that motherboard today.

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:04 pm

Uh i just ran 3dmark 2001 SE yesterday...

It worked fine, and i even have direct x 9.0c

AND THE NEW MOTHERBOARD IS IN MY HANDS RIGHT NOW...

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:55 pm

WOOOOOOO!!!! Go school! Let me know how it goes with the new board. WORD!

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 1:45 pm

Got the new board in, had to do a clean install.

Didnt have time to try any 3d stuff, because i had to go to stinking work.

But fast writes are on, and i didnt have to disable that 2d thing.

I will post more info when available.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 5:14 pm

Excellent. I just put a crazy new Zalman cooler on my CPU, it's circular, with an 80MM fan built into the round spiny looking things. It dropped my CPU temp 20 degrees!!! I used Arctic Silver 5 for the goo. The highest I've ever been able to clock my 2.4C was around 2.6 before. Now it's at 2.8 and could possibly go higher

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! And that's with cheapo-Kingston Value RAM. Anyway, let me know how it is. I'm sure you'll notice a sizable difference.

Post by **enderzero** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:06 am

teh ovarclocking mastar!!

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 12:30 pm

Teh conservative OCer

I still like things stable. The minute I get a speed related crash is the minute everything goes back to stock. I don't think that's going to happen with my current settings though. It's been running for a couple days without a problem now.

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:21 pm

kingston value ram is actually pretty good. I have crucial, but it is no way near "performance ram"

3-4-4-8

I have a some 3D mark benchmarks for everyone.
Runing CPU 2GHZ, ram 400mhz, catalyst 4.7

3DMK03: 5547

Ran with dustins special d3d settings

3DMK01: 13495

Ran with rylands pc gamer compatibily (triple buffer)

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:12 pm

Ok it is now my personal goal to pull 92 3dmarks out of my ass to try and beat ryland, with the power that is AMD!

teh Forum

teh Forum

PC Poll...

Are you happy with your current PC?

I'm...

OK....

How's the system 3nd3r???

I would like to officially change my response to this poll

Excellent...

Woopdedoop

You'd think that wouldn't you...

New Benchmark Scores

That's...