My reference clocked XFX 7900GTX is installed and running great. Ran 3D Mark 2005/2006, played about 30 minutes of Quake IV and an hour of Guild Wars. Also watched 2 chapters from the Matrix full screen with PureVideo enabled. So far not a hitch or freeze, very smooth perfromance and MUCH quieter than the stock cooler on my eVGA 7800GT.
I'm not a big believer in 3D Mark (with the exception of comparing relative system performance), but do these numbers look right? I know they could be higher, but this mobo doesn't OC well so I am trying to be patient and see what Conroe looks like and what AMD has on the horizon.
3DMark 2005 default settings = 9676
3DMark 2006 default settings = 4825
I have more benches to run, but don't have time tonight. In game performance feels right, still have to see just how high I can crank up my Quake IV settings but Guild Wars runs at a locked in 60fps (vsync on always) with everythign cranked but water, 4x AA/16x @1920x1200.
And as a foot note, there is nothing more boring than watching the CPU test run in 3D Mark 2006. Bundle that up with the ridiculous bias for dual core and that is truly a wasted package.
I'm not a big believer in 3D Mark (with the exception of comparing relative system performance), but do these numbers look right? I know they could be higher, but this mobo doesn't OC well so I am trying to be patient and see what Conroe looks like and what AMD has on the horizon.
3DMark 2005 default settings = 9676
3DMark 2006 default settings = 4825
I have more benches to run, but don't have time tonight. In game performance feels right, still have to see just how high I can crank up my Quake IV settings but Guild Wars runs at a locked in 60fps (vsync on always) with everythign cranked but water, 4x AA/16x @1920x1200.
And as a foot note, there is nothing more boring than watching the CPU test run in 3D Mark 2006. Bundle that up with the ridiculous bias for dual core and that is truly a wasted package.