• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

3DMark 2005 released!

Osiris said:
Ok, the 9800pro isn't the cutting edge of graphics tech now, but its hardly outdated. Theres nothing on the market now that the 9800pro couldn't play.
Click to expand...

*cough* outdated. :eek:

Very true.. the 9800pro is a great card and will 'hang' in there with newer games coming. I have several buddies who are using them, and they bought them for A LOT of money less then a year ago. Needless today, all of them along with most 9800pro/xt users I talk to get all defensive about their card when not too long ago they were the guy who would spend anything to have the top end card.

I guess people have a hard time understanding that their once Dominating card worth hundreds of dollars has been belittled to nothing more then comments of... "I just upgraded from my 9800pro."

I came from a 9500pro to my current 6800GT and I must say it is nice to look down on my friends who used to rub it in my face that they had a 9800pro. :D
 
S_Z said:
Source?
Click to expand...


why the hell is the x800xt agp 500 points higher then the x800xt pci-e? Alot of people at rage 3d are saying what ya just said, unfortunatly most of the guys there that are saying this have a quarter of a brain, and never saw the tests on the x800xt pcie :p
 
Correction, both my ramsticks are made by OCZ, unlike yours which 1 is generic and 1 is mushkin, my mb owns your hardcore, better chipset, 4 ide ports, 2 sata, plus i got a 3200+ which is running at 400 fsb which..*cough* rapes your 2600+ in all cpu benchmarks, so..as "I" see it, the only thing that outperforms my pc is your video card.
plus if you wanna bust out the HD benchies..1 word, 2 sylibols "RAP-TOR"
 
Last I checked we were posting under [H]ardforum > [H]ardWare > Video Cards > 3DMark 2005 released! discussing video benchmarks.

But you are correct... your computer eats mine alive on hardware benchmarks. But then again... do you just run hardware benchmarks and applications all day or game ? ... *cough* I R winnar.

/rocky theme song
/me punches the air jumping in place
 
stryder2720 said:
3831 here:
That nature scene is AWSOME!!!!!!!!! Just 1or 2 question though. Exactly how does that CPU test work? Whats the big load they are puting on the CPU as in what are they testing the CPU with? Physics and things like that?
~Peace
Click to expand...

The CPU tests render all the grahics through the CPU instead of the GPU...

It is really meant for systems that lack any sort of video card worth playing with... So, I dont understand why they are still keeping it around besides to just test how good the cpu is(which doesnt matter much imo with all the physics being calculated in the demos)
 
theNoid said:
Last I checked we were posting under [H]ardforum > [H]ardWare > Video Cards > 3DMark 2005 released! discussing video benchmarks.

But you are correct... your computer eats mine alive on hardware benchmarks. But then again... do you just run hardware benchmarks and applications all day or game ? ... *cough* I R winnar.

/rocky theme song
/me punches the air jumping in place
Click to expand...


Every game you can play. I can play as well, you get maybe 20 more fps in some games, but level loading? I win. Booting windows? I win.
 
before the "hotfix" i got 4992, installed the hotfix then i got this (6300 :D )....

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=11747

3d05.JPG


video card wasn't clocked as high as whats in my sig
 
rancor said:
why the hell is the x800xt agp 500 points higher then the x800xt pci-e? Alot of people at rage 3d are saying what ya just said, unfortunatly most of the guys there that are saying this have a quarter of a brain, and never saw the tests on the x800xt pcie :p
Click to expand...
Could you please point me to that test with the PCIe version of the XT PE? It sounds very strange that sireric would say that PCIe versions already had the higher score using Cat4.9 if the score would increase another 25% using the "hotfix". If its really so then they must indeed have done more than just fixing the memory bug.
 
acrh2 said:
Who said that the 8.07 results were inflated?
Click to expand...

I did.

As far as I understand this, ATI is claiming that these are correct results that one would get with 256M x800 level cards.
Click to expand...

Nvidia told me I could fly. I believe them because I own a GT. It makes PERFECT sense.

ATI is also claiming that the lower scores with older drivers were due to a bug which became mostly apparent in 3dmark05.
Click to expand...

Then explain the following post:
also my 3dmark05 score went up from 5294 to 5672 a huge boost for just a driver change.

The poster who wrote that has an XT [non-PE]. It's almost the same damned card as the PE yet it only saw 400 point increase from the "hotfix", whereas the XTPEs are seeing 1200 point increases [that's 3x the amount].


For one, I believe them. Two reasons:
1) We've always known that x800 line *simply had more raw processing power* than the 6800 line (with the exception for OGL games).
Click to expand...

Uh no JimBob, I'll assume by RAW processing power you mean high resolution no AA/AF [since AA/AF is more driver dependant and is also API independant]. The 6800U typically beats the XTPE at 1600x1200 noAA/AF, so it has more RAW processing power [and it does it at a 125mhz lower clock]. Also at 1024x768 noAA/AF we're going to be more CPU bound so your statement has no bearing on the conversation in the first place.

2) I own an x800 xt pe.
Click to expand...

The stupidty of that statement pains me. I used to own an FX, that somehow made all of Nvidia's shady bilinear shit perfectly acceptable right? Jesus Christ man, come up with something better.

So, until someone proves that ATI is cheating, or someone discovers that ATI is using some simple trick that is possible (but not yet implemented) on NV hardware -
things are exactly the way they should be - x800 xt pe is beating the pants off everyone.
Click to expand...

For some reason I feel compelled to bust out with some Disney music.

So until someone can explain the disparity of the performence increase between the XT and XTPE I'm going to firmly lodge this "hotfix" in Stalin's rectum.

chrisf6969 said:
Thats a little disappointing to me. For $1000+ worth of videocards.
Click to expand...

Eh, I imagine that'll increase by the time SLI hits retail. Nvidia's still got a few months to tweak it. We all remember what new drivers did for the NV40 series.
 
S_Z said:
Could you please point me to that test with the PCIe version of the XT PE? It sounds very strange that sireric would say that PCIe versions already had the higher score using Cat4.9 if the score would increase another 25% using the "hotfix". If its really so then they must indeed have done more than just fixing the memory bug.
Click to expand...


Its there in that link they got 4950 with the x800xt pci-e with the 4.9

the x800xt agp with the 8.07's got 5450

I do exepct the ATi cards to get around 5000, 4500 is very low for them, so there could have been a memory bug, but that doesn't explain all of the performance increase..
 
Best I've been able to muster so far is only 5,731 with my sig system......with the GT clocked at 440/1200 and the cpu at 3.69GHz. Funny thing is that 450/1300 is completely artifact free in Doom3, Aquamark3, and 3DMark03.....yet it goes almost balistic in 3DMark05.....I'm thinking due to the uBer heavy use of advanced PS's, VS's, HDR Lighting, and Dynamic Shadows in all tests. It looks like 3DMark05 is gonna be "the test" the let loop overnight if you wanna see if your card IS artifact free....cus as I've seen it so far if it's "clean" in 3DMark05 it WILL be fine in everythign else.
 
cornelious0_0 said:
Best I've been able to muster so far is only 5,731 with my sig system......with the GT clocked at 440/1200 and the cpu at 3.69GHz. Funny thing is that 450/1300 is completely artifact free in Doom3, Aquamark3, and 3DMark03.....yet it goes almost balistic in 3DMark05.....I'm thinking due to the uBer heavy use of advanced PS's, VS's, HDR Lighting, and Dynamic Shadows in all tests. It looks like 3DMark05 is gonna be "the test" the let loop overnight if you wanna see if your card IS artifact free....cus as I've seen it so far if it's "clean" in 3DMark05 it WILL be fine in everythign else.
Click to expand...

Loop the D3 timedemo for an hour, at 440/1200 it took an hour before my system crashed. But either way, I found 440/1200 to be unstable. I'm debating getting a waterblock on it, but I'll never touched any kind of watercooling. Is there something out there that would fit a GT AND Be self-complete [ie, I don't have to go and buy any other shit].
 
cornelious0_0 said:
Best I've been able to muster so far is only 5,731 with my sig system......with the GT clocked at 440/1200 and the cpu at 3.69GHz. Funny thing is that 450/1300 is completely artifact free in Doom3, Aquamark3, and 3DMark03.....yet it goes almost balistic in 3DMark05.....I'm thinking due to the uBer heavy use of advanced PS's, VS's, HDR Lighting, and Dynamic Shadows in all tests. It looks like 3DMark05 is gonna be "the test" the let loop overnight if you wanna see if your card IS artifact free....cus as I've seen it so far if it's "clean" in 3DMark05 it WILL be fine in everythign else.
Click to expand...

This is really good info, thanks.
 
If 9700pros are scoring high 790s...and the ti4200 is about 15 cards slower.......low 100s?

gotta remember there is the ti4200, ti4400, ti4600, then the ti4800 8x, then the entire FX line, 5200, 5600, 5700, 5800, 5900, 5950xt, 5900u for nvidia and

9500pro, 9600xt, 9600pro, then the 9700pro.....you do the math :p
 
I just ran it and scored 3867. Isn't this a little low? Specs in sig and compare link is 2. I just skimmed through 12 pages and it looks like most guys with 6800gts are pulling like 4 - 4.5k what gives :confused:
 
EQTakeOffense said:
My 9700 PRO did 790. Your TI should do, maybe like 200-300
Click to expand...

Think again bro....he won't even be able to run it......3DMark05 REQUIRES a DX9 capable card, not like 3DMark03 where you could still get through some of the run with a Ti generation card.

Sry klharmon, looks like you're left to looking at pics for now. ;)
 
rtierney said:
what hotfix?

I scored a 4832 with a 2.4c@3.3 and evga 6800gt@420/1120

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=12305
Click to expand...


Beta ATI drivers. We're questioning their authenticity right now. They give a MASSIVE boost to the XTPE [and only a thrid of that boost to the XT] but they don't seem to give any appreciable performence increase in games like Far Cry [choose another DX9 heavy game].

Also FC 1.2 in SM2b crashes under the new drivers. This is because GI has been disabled. Not only that but it's no longer a selectable option. Which rasies the question, if GI is disabled HOW THE HOLY FUCK is 3dMark05 running under SM2b.
 
The Batman said:
Beta ATI drivers. We're questioning their authenticity right now. They give a MASSIVE boost to the XTPE [and only a thrid of that boost to the XT] but they don't seem to give any appreciable performence increase in games like Far Cry [choose another DX9 heavy game].
Click to expand...

And some ppl are actually seeing performance in some other games suffer a noticeable amount....so I'll wait until these BETA's are "professionally" analysed before I give my thumbs up on it or not. Just so ppl are aware, if it turns out that for some reason it's NOT a legit "fix" in the drivers and it's proven without question that its "sneaky" I'll be removing "hotfix scores" from the Top10.
 
I think we can expect Beta Drivers to be dropping from both companies like mad now that it's out.

A Driver a day keep's the.... or is that an apple. :rolleyes:
 
From what I have read so far the GF4 cards will not run '05...it says you NEED PS2.0 as far as I know... though I haven't tried it yet, feel free to let me know if im just flapping hot air here..
 
rancor said:
Its there in that link they got 4950 with the x800xt pci-e with the 4.9

the x800xt agp with the 8.07's got 5450

I do exepct the ATi cards to get around 5000, 4500 is very low for them, so there could have been a memory bug, but that doesn't explain all of the performance increase..
Click to expand...
Sorry but I can't find that link. So far I see no reason to question the "hotfix" drivers. I havent seen any proof that the PCIe version is affected as much (25%) as you say by the "hotfix" and this "hotfix" is approved by futuremark (thats more than you can say about the 66.70 which seem to give the 6800s quite some boost in 3DMark05).
 
S_Z said:
Sorry but I can't find that link. So far I see no reason to question the "hotfix" drivers. I havent seen any proof that the PCIe version is affected as much (25%) as you say by the "hotfix" and this "hotfix" is approved by futuremark (thats more than you can say about the 66.70 which seem to give the 6800s quite some boost in 3DMark05).
Click to expand...

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/software/2004/3dmark05_der_performance-report/8/

near the upper middle of the page, pci-e tests of the x800xt vs others, 6600gt etc.

Just checked on Futuremark both leaked drivers are futuremark approved.

PCI-e (4.9 ATi)

ATi Radeon X800 XT 4.927


nVidia GeForce 6600 GT 2.915


nVidia GeForce 6600 1.721


ATi Radeon X600 XT 1.450


nVidia GeForce PCX 5900 969



AGP (8.07 ATi)

ATi Radeon X800 XT "PE" 5.817


ATi Radeon X800 XT 5.494


nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra 4.936


ATi Radeon X800 Pro 4.604


nVidia GeForce 6800 GT 4.415


nVidia GeForce 6800 3.141


ATi Radeon 9800 Pro 2.393


nVidia GeForce FX 5900 XT 1.004





Its just not an AGP memory bug that was implimented. If it was only that one bug they fixed the AGP version of the xt would be right around the pci-e version, which is not the case :confused: and what ATi did might be a valid optimization who knows, but they stated they weren't going to do any synthetic benchmark specific optimizations, which would be false under this pretence.
 
S_Z said:
Sorry but I can't find that link. So far I see no reason to question the "hotfix" drivers. I havent seen any proof that the PCIe version is affected as much (25%) as you say by the "hotfix" and this "hotfix" is approved by futuremark (thats more than you can say about the 66.70 which seem to give the 6800s quite some boost in 3DMark05).
Click to expand...

Then let me give you 2.

1) XTPE sees on average 1200 point increase. The almost exact XT only sees a 400 point increase.
2) GI is disabled and non-selectable. So how is 3D05 running under SM2b mode when FC 1.2 SM2b crashes to desktop.

And I only got a 100 point increase when going from the 66.51s to the 66.70s. 100 point increases aren't big shits, 1200 is however.

I think you need to read up some.
 
First Test -
  • [size=+2]IDirect3DDevice9::Create Pixal Shader Failed: Invalid Call {D3DER_INVALIDCALL}[/size]
It seemed to have probs with my Gainward fx5900XT and v66.70 Beta drivers.


Second Test, new Drivers -
  • [size=+2]1119[/size]
The v66.31 WHQLs ran fine, and wow talk about feeling like I lost my left testical .

I will give my GF3 a whirl later in the week in my system.

-=M=-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top