Post your 3dMark 2005 scores here. (Link to list in 1st post)

7404.jpg


=)
 
Ok this is so weird. This eVGA 6800GS overclocks to 549/1400 with STOCK cooling.... Is it just me or something is wrong there? lol i got 6600 with it. damn seems like 7000 is not happening :mad:
 
new rig, and new cpu etc.

Sapphire Radeon X1800XT
690 core / 800 mem
Catalyst 5.13
3dmark05 - 9290

my how the score scales with cpu. on a venice 3000 at 1.8ghz (stock), with the same video card oc ( 690 / 800 ), i only got 7943. now i'm dual core opteron stock at 2.0 ghz. Can't wait to oc the opty to see what i get!

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c233/r00k/3dmark05-9290.jpg
 
MrSlacker said:
Ok this is so weird. This eVGA 6800GS overclocks to 549/1400 with STOCK cooling.... Is it just me or something is wrong there? lol i got 6600 with it. damn seems like 7000 is not happening :mad:
Click to expand...
From what I understand about the 6800GS, it's based on a smaller process technology than the other 6800s. Same process as 7800 I hear, only I guess it is the 6800 core still. It does explain why it is able to reach clocks that I don't really think you'd try for very long even on a 6800 Ultra with watercooling and voltmodding. I'm guessing nVidia truly did this because they wanted something more mobile friendly than anything else but aren't stupid enough to think that it will only sell to mobile designers considering it's potential.

Anyway, don't complain, I get 6.7K and max out my settings in just about every game (the few that I can't I suspect have a problem more with my memory or something like that.) Who needs 7000, right? d-:
 
Name: Sedgie!

3DMark05 Score: 7916

GPU: 7800GT

Core Clock: 507 MHz

Memory Clock: 1208 MHz

ForceWare Version: 81.98
 
5206

System:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ stock speeds
512x2 DDR400 valueRAM obvioulsy @ stock speeds
PCI-e eVGA e-GeForce 6800 GS also @ stock speeds
Gigabyte nf4 sli board
 
Blue3ffect said:
@ stock speeds
@ stock speeds
@ stock speeds
Click to expand...

That's just wrong. I'm crying over here. Ok, not really, but, I'm working on it. Come on, you can be in the 6K range if you push a little.
 
Nazo said:
That's just wrong. I'm crying over here. Ok, not really, but, I'm working on it. Come on, you can be in the 6K range if you push a little.
Click to expand...

Once I get the money for some nice performance ram and a silencer for my 6800 I more than plan to OC her like hell :D
 
Nazo said:
From what I understand about the 6800GS, it's based on a smaller process technology than the other 6800s. Same process as 7800 I hear, only I guess it is the 6800 core still. It does explain why it is able to reach clocks that I don't really think you'd try for very long even on a 6800 Ultra with watercooling and voltmodding. I'm guessing nVidia truly did this because they wanted something more mobile friendly than anything else but aren't stupid enough to think that it will only sell to mobile designers considering it's potential.

Anyway, don't complain, I get 6.7K and max out my settings in just about every game (the few that I can't I suspect have a problem more with my memory or something like that.) Who needs 7000, right? d-:
Click to expand...
well it crashed today while playing CoD2 and corrupted the game LMAO. I forgot that i left those settings and my brother was playing while i was at work. He calls me like "dude wtf is going on" heh. Anyways, I am not compaining because this is not even my card. Im building my friend a rig with it so im playing around with it. I get like 8200 with my 7800GT. When i have some time, i'll post my official results for both cards.
 
Blue3ffect said:
Once I get the money for some nice performance ram and a silencer for my 6800 I more than plan to OC her like hell :D
Click to expand...
Well, you can still oc the CPU anyway I guess. I'm thinking that a 3800 X2 runs at pretty low speeds (they love to stamp a large number on there thanks to that second core, but, not everything benefits much from the second core, so somtimes you're demoted to what the one can do.) That said, be sure you check the memory database for your memory: http://www.techpowerup.com/memdb/ Sometimes value memory can surprise you and actually be pretty decent stuff when you crank up the voltages. Sometimes. A few, like UTT CH5 shoot way up into the 275+ range when you give them enough juice. Most require more than an ordinary board will provide to do that kind of thing though.

Also, I see people ocing their 6800GS cards on stock cooling and getting more than they expected for stock cooling.
 
Well I cant publish my 3dmarks 2005 becuase its not uh legit hehe but anyways I just got 8574 with a 7800gt oc'ed 554,1300 with a x2 3800 oc'ed 2.6 ghz on xp pro
 
Shane said:
Well I cant publish my 3dmarks 2005 becuase its not uh legit hehe but anyways I just got 8574 with a 7800gt oc'ed 554,1300 with a x2 3800 oc'ed 2.6 ghz on xp pro
Click to expand...

uh, you're allowed 1 publish with the free version.
 
System Specs (Completely Air Cooled)

Athlon X2 3800+ @ 2.8Ghz
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe
Geil DDR600 2x 512megs
XFX Geforce 7800 GTX 512 XXX Edition SLI (624mhz core and 1.8Ghz mem)
Lian Li PC 7077 Black Case

3DMark 2005

14673 3DMarks (May be able to break 15K easy if I use water cooling)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1572948

3DMark 2003 and 2005 since they have been released, have been performing better with ATI Cards. Finally Nvidia has released a new card to outperfom ATI's latest offering in 3DMark 2003 and 2005.
 
LittleMe said:
uh, you're allowed 1 publish with the free version.
Click to expand...

How do you do that? It seems to require a login. Don't know that it makes much difference, but, if you tell us how, I'll publish mine while I'm at it.
 
Sometimes Futuremark won't publish results because the display drivers are not certified. Just results are not counted.
 
plywood99 that is a really groovy score.
Can you please tell me at what core and memory speeds the X1800 XT was at to achieve it?
 
That is a damn good score... and he's no doubt getting some love from that dual core @ 2.9. :D
 
mentok1982 said:
plywood99 that is a really groovy score.
Can you please tell me at what core and memory speeds the X1800 XT was at to achieve it?
Click to expand...


Iv'e since blasted that score:



Core 770
Mem 990
 
wow.. I installed the latest drivers from NVIDIA and my score went from ~ 10500 to 5500! Time to revert... heh
 
Stevemr2t said:
wow.. I installed the latest drivers from NVIDIA and my score went from ~ 10500 to 5500! Time to revert... heh
Click to expand...
Wow... Just... Wow......

If I had a nVidia card right now, I'd be pretty ticked.
 
Nazo said:
Wow... Just... Wow......

If I had a nVidia card right now, I'd be pretty ticked.
Click to expand...
why? because ATi cards have higher 3dmark scores? sorry im sure many of us dont play 3dmark all day :p and no this is not to flame ATi because i have both Ati and NV cards and love em both :D
 
btw mentok, how many scores do you have? I wanna see myself in the top 300 :D :cool:
 
omz said:
why? because ATi cards have higher 3dmark scores? sorry im sure many of us dont play 3dmark all day :p and no this is not to flame ATi because i have both Ati and NV cards and love em both :D
Click to expand...
Uhm, no, that's not why. Try looking at the post above my post that you were responding to to see why. BTW, 3DMark05 was optimized for nVidia, which ticked off more than a few people, so if ATI gets higher scores, I think that says something. Don't get me wrong, I hate both companies and use either cards equally depending on what's best at the time (at least, I did until nvidia decided to ignore the problem they created for us nForce 3 users, now I hate nVidia just a little more than ATI and would have bought this card even if it wasn't the absolute most powerful for AGP.)
 
Actually, ATI does better than nVidia in 3Dmark05 or 03 when considering similar game play FPS. For example, the x850XT does much better than an 6800 Ultra in 05, but game play is the same. AM3 definitely favored nVidia, however.
 
10743. Can anyone link me up to some advice (w/o Google) in how to increase this score?
 
HeavyH20 said:
Actually, ATI does better than nVidia in 3Dmark05 or 03 when considering similar game play FPS. For example, the x850XT does much better than an 6800 Ultra in 05, but game play is the same. AM3 definitely favored nVidia, however.
Click to expand...
It was FutureMark I heard everyone complaining about. Actually, it was explicitely 3DMark that I heard the complaints of favoritism over. Aquamark may be guilty of the same thing, but, it didn't make quite such popular news. BTW, isn't the X850XT actually supposed to be better than the 6800 Ultra? I thought the Ultra was supposed to be more comparable to a X800 Pro or something more along those lines? I loose track of the ATI vs nVidia war though. Bear in mind that games are guilty of optimizing for one over the other a LOT more than FutureMark is even. I still remember what it was like back with the original Unreal games with their huge favoritism towards 3DFX and how nVidia and ATI cards would run into issues with jerking, slower framerates than they should have had, etc on games like that, but, run a Glide wrapper, and suddenly the game runs smoothly as silk if the system can handle that.


BTW, Cykes, there are tips in this own thread. Actually, I mentioned that you should set your control panel settings to the minimum (and be sure to use "let application decide" instead of forcing settings.) Beyond that, you'll have to close down unnecessary programs, use good drivers and clean old drivers before installing and other such things that should be generally common sense.
 
Nazo said:
Wow... Just... Wow......

If I had a nVidia card right now, I'd be pretty ticked.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking there was something wrong with that driver... it caused crazy artifacting on my card even at stock speeds.... I went back 1 rev and now I'm back at 10000+ :)
 
5,134 3DMarks.

Is this a good score for the specs in my sig. Everything is @ stock speeds, using the 82.12 Beta.
 
HeavyH20 said:
Actually, ATI does better than nVidia in 3Dmark05 or 03 when considering similar game play FPS. For example, the x850XT does much better than an 6800 Ultra in 05, but game play is the same. AM3 definitely favored nVidia, however.
Click to expand...

Yes, 3DMark 2003 and 3DMark 2005 does much better with ATI cards. Futuremark must be receiving a bigger cheque from ATI than Nvidia. He He!!!
 
Ok, my mistake, this is what I remembered hearing about way back when: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Jun/bga20030609020320.htm It was actually an optimization cheat nVidia did, kind of similar to ATI's well known Quake3 screwup (and, as always, the biggest problem isn't that they cheated, but, that they lied about it...)

Anyway, 3DMark uses Direct3D. NVidia prefers OpenGL (gee, surprise, I mean, they took over it after all,) ATI prefers Direct3D, which, used to be the best option until nVidia took over OpenGL and FINALLY got around to updating it, but, now nVidia owns it and I suspect ATI is having a hard time playing catchup with something the competition fully controls. Then again, I'm not sure how much they really want to since D3D enjoys actually a bit more support on the overal market than OGL as nearly as I've been able to see.

But, I must point out that this means the benchmark is still valid. We need a better benchmark for OGL I suppose, but, the fact is, since a lot of games are D3D, we need to know how nVidia cards perform in those as well and an easy direct comparison of apples to oranges in numerical values (in this case, nVidia to ATI -- and don't ask me which is the apple and which is the orange because I sure don't know, I just know that my d3d flavor content is in the area of 6.7K.) d-: I guess it'd be pretty useful to get a better idea of ATI performance with OGL than seriously outdated Aquamark03 provides though. Looks like Futuremark isn't going to help us here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top