• 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.

9700Pro 3d mark scores?

375/335. My 03 score does seem screwy but I don't really care.
Click to expand...
Nah, seems about right for that card. Mine does about 4750 stock in '03, set at default settings.
 
everything stock speeds (fsb + vc) i get 17450 in '01

p4 3.0
ddr 400, 2-5-2-2
tyan 9700pro
 
I would have expected him to get higher, my 9600xt gets 4792 in 03 (default benchmark since I don't care to buy it).
Click to expand...
I said default settings (as in default clock speeds, not overclocked), not default benchmark.

Compared to similar processor speeds and stock GPU clock speeds (as with my 9700) on 9700 Pro cards, the top scores all fall pretty close to 4750.
As evidenced Here

Hence, my determination that his score of a little over 5k in 03 , was probably about right for that card.
 
I have a 9800Pro but I'd like to chime in anyways. Gives me a chance to try and persuade people to bench FER REELZ!!

See my sig for REAL scores. My shit IQ scores are 14,079 and 6021. Little low on the '01 side but 400mhzFSB sucks major dirty bunghole. :eek:
 
Originally posted by Sarge
I said default settings (as in default clock speeds, not overclocked), not default benchmark.

Compared to similar processor speeds and stock GPU clock speeds (as with my 9700) on 9700 Pro cards, the top scores all fall pretty close to 4750.
As evidenced Here

Hence, my determination that his score of a little over 5k in 03 , was probably about right for that card.
Click to expand...

I still would have expected higher. But I've never had/used a 9700pro either...maybe I'm expecting too much. Because even with my 9600xt o/c'd I still would'nt expect it to match the stock performance of a 9700pro (due to the whole 8-pipe/256-bit vs 4-pipe/128bit architecture)
 
I still would have expected higher. But I've never had/used a 9700pro either...maybe I'm expecting too much. Because even with my 9600xt o/c'd I still would'nt expect it to match the stock performance of a 9700pro (due to the whole 8-pipe/256-bit vs 4-pipe/128bit architecture)
Click to expand...
No doubt about it, the 9600 XT is a real good card. Not at all hard to believe hitting 9700 stock scores though. The 9500's can hit those speeds too, with a bit of tweaking.
I think that for price/performance ratio (as in, I paid over $300 for my 9700), the 9600 is a pretty good deal. Actually, I was looling to get a 9500 Pro when I got this card, but couldn't find any in stock, so I bought the 9700 cause I couldn't wait (boy was the wife P.O.'d!!).
Now, to top it all off, I've seen 9800 Pro's going for $215, IIRC.
Yuck, I hate the taste of sour grapes.:D
 
My sapphire 9700pro gets me;

19,000 @ stock and 21000 overclocked to 396/374

In 03 it gets me 5,300 @ stock and 6280 overclocked to speed above.

Thats in a 3200 A64. :)
 
I run a AMD Athlon 1700+ 1.47 oc/ed to 1.65 w/ 512MB PC-2100 and a Powercolor 9700Pro. However, I'm only getting like an 11500 in 01. Do you guys think that is normal, or do I need to try doing some things to boost the scores?
 
Originally posted by Papa Smurf
I run a AMD Athlon 1700+ 1.47 oc/ed to 1.65 w/ 512MB PC-2100 and a Powercolor 9700Pro. However, I'm only getting like an 11500 in 01. Do you guys think that is normal, or do I need to try doing some things to boost the scores?
Click to expand...

normal.
 
To be honest, I'm quite disappointed in the Powercolor 9700 Pro that I purchased off Newegg for $202 during that brief sale period.

My stock core clock and memory speeds on it are 324/310.5, respectively. I ran 3dMark03 on it with these stock settings along with setting anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering to 2x a piece and I only received a score of 3,794.

I honestly don't know why it doesn't perform that well. It's the XF97-C3G version with the 9800 PCB and molex connector. I currently am running the Catalyst 4.1's.

System Specs:

Abit IC-7
Pentium 4 2.4c running stock because it won't post overclocked anymore
512 MB of Hyperx PC3500 3.5-3-3-8
2 Maxtor 120 GB SATA DM9's in RAID-0
Antec TruBlue 480W PSU
Fortissimo III

My computer performance is just becoming more dismal as time is going on...quite sad really.

Dark Assassin
 
I have an ATi Radeon 9700 AiW Pro, and I get a score of around 2850 in '03. This is due to 256mb PC2100 generic RAM, motherboard with max 4x AGP, and an AMD Athlon XP 1600+ OCed to 1568Mhz.

Oh , and the card was OCed to 395 Core and 350 Memory at the time of the benchmarking, but I've been told by my friend, the owner of www.extreme-pc.ca (who is really buddy buddy with ATi and goes to many conferences) that OCing a locked Radeon 9700 PRO such as mine will mess up the RAMDAC and kill the card after 3 months. Since it is my memory, mobo, and CPU holding back the video card, I have no reason to OC it.

But has anyone else heard of killing a locked card by OCing it? By that, I mean resetting the Core and Memory speeds after every boot (done automaticaly by ATITool). My friend also told me that if you flash the BIOS of a locked PRO with a hacked one, and you screw up, it completely screws up the card, and ATi will not replace it. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
 
Originally posted by Semose
I have an ATi Radeon 9700 AiW Pro, and I get a score of around 2850 in '03. This is due to 256mb PC2100 generic RAM, motherboard with max 4x AGP, and an AMD Athlon XP 1600+ OCed to 1568Mhz.

Oh , and the card was OCed to 395 Core and 350 Memory at the time of the benchmarking, but I've been told by my friend, the owner of www.extreme-pc.ca (who is really buddy buddy with ATi and goes to many conferences) that OCing a locked Radeon 9700 PRO such as mine will mess up the RAMDAC and kill the card after 3 months. Since it is my memory, mobo, and CPU holding back the video card, I have no reason to OC it.

But has anyone else heard of killing a locked card by OCing it? By that, I mean resetting the Core and Memory speeds after every boot (done automaticaly by ATITool). My friend also told me that if you flash the BIOS of a locked PRO with a hacked one, and you screw up, it completely screws up the card, and ATi will not replace it. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Click to expand...

Did you leave AA/AF on? This seems WAY too low, as 03 is mostly just a GPU test.
 
I get just over 5000 with my setup in sig in 3dmark 03. But who cares, 3d mark is a shitty non realiable, graphics measurer.
 
5,164 3D'03
18,539 3D'01

Originally posted by ATI9700Pro
I get just over 5000 with my setup in sig in 3dmark 03. But who cares, 3d mark is a shitty non realiable, graphics measurer.
Click to expand...

why the score,reply and the moniker?...:p ...j/k :D
 
Originally posted by nst6563
I still would have expected higher. But I've never had/used a 9700pro either...maybe I'm expecting too much. Because even with my 9600xt o/c'd I still would'nt expect it to match the stock performance of a 9700pro (due to the whole 8-pipe/256-bit vs 4-pipe/128bit architecture)
Click to expand...

You are looking at it the wrong way though. Default benchmark is run at 1024X768 res with no aa/af on. Try upping the res and adding aa/af to the benchmark or any game and the 9700pro will distance itself from the 9600XT by quite a bit. My 9700np only gets 4440 in 3dmark 2003, but I play all my games at 1280X960 res with 4x aa and 16x af.
 
Originally posted by xenogears
You are looking at it the wrong way though. Default benchmark is run at 1024X768 res with no aa/af on. Try upping the res and adding aa/af to the benchmark or any game and the 9700pro will distance itself from the 9600XT by quite a bit. My 9700np only gets 4440 in 3dmark 2003, but I play all my games at 1280X960 res with 4x aa and 16x af.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that one bit, but as it stands now, I already play my games at 1280x1024 2xaa, 16xaf and the run fine in my eyes. Hell, anything that runs things with detail and smoother than my GF2 is cool to me.
 
Here's another scenario to chew on.

My friend is running a 2.6P4 OCed @ 3.2 right now. He's using Geil PC3500 Ultra Series Ram, SATA, and running a ATI 9600XT, but he's only pulling a 12500 in '01. That gives? I would have though he would be running 15k or more.
 
havent benched at 437 yet, but in 2k1 at 374 335 i was getting about 18,100 ish. 3dmark03 with same speeds, was about 5600
 
Originally posted by ATi_Loyalist
havent benched at 437 yet, but in 2k1 at 374 335 i was getting about 18,100 ish. 3dmark03 with same speeds, was about 5600
Click to expand...

what kind of cooling do you have on that card?
 
2k1 is very dependant on cpu. running a higher fsb will yeild more results than overclocking the video card. 2k3 is the other way around. You'll get negligable increases o/c'ing the cpu, but overclocking the video card will get you a lot more.
 
Originally posted by Papa Smurf
Here's another scenario to chew on.

My friend is running a 2.6P4 OCed @ 3.2 right now. He's using Geil PC3500 Ultra Series Ram, SATA, and running a ATI 9600XT, but he's only pulling a 12500 in '01. That gives? I would have though he would be running 15k or more.
Click to expand...

he may have the graphics options set to default in the display settigns. change them to no aa, no af, highest performance on the other settings. Then re-run the test.

He's not too far off, I get in the 14,000's with my system in my sig.
...but then again, the 9600xt is oc'd pretty far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top