I was interested in startin' a topic for computer benchmark comparisions on our machines at work, home, or otherwize.
What is the most widely accepted benchmark program lately?
I just downloaded PerformanceTest V4.0 from passmark.com. It seems simple enough, it tests a bunch of things, like cpu, ram, HD, Video, CD-rom etc. and gives you one combined score for the machine.
Anyone have a beter program?
I thought we could all post our machines scores. up here once we decide on the best benchmark program....
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
I have used:
3DMark2001 or 3DMark2003 PCMark2002 Both from MadOnion.com
[ 01-06-2004, 15:43: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Here are some real world benchmarks for 1942. These are all 1024x768 60hz. There is no official demo - you just have to turn on the FPS display and keep your eye on it. This can be done by typing in the console "console.showfps 1" (no quotes). Change the 1 to a 0 to turn off.
FX5900 128m XP2800 - 99 FPS 99% of the time. GF4 4200 128m XP2200 - 90FPS 80% of the time. GF3 500ti 64m XP1800 - 35FPS 80% of the time.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
FX5200 128m XP1600 512m RAM runs 1942 20-30 FPS at 800x600 medium quality. IMO this card is a piece of shit. It's about equal to a GF4 MX400 (junk) card. I do not recommend this card even for a value system.
I haven't tried to overclock it yet - will post results when I get around to it.
Anyone have a ATI card? I was going to go that direction with HL2 coming out (free copy when you buy certain models) but with more delays for that game I decided against it.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
I thought you were buying that FX5900 non-ultra?
I ran the 3dmark2001 last weekend on my machine, but really couldn't make any sense of the results. Overall score was in the 8800 level, but I didn't see results about FPS or anything, plus most of this is still another language to me when you start talking about how to optimize a system.
I added another 256 RAM after I ran that bench test, seems to run smoother. I also attempted messing with the built in overclocking setup on my vid card, but I must be running different drivers or something, because the setup/help they have does not match the displays/settings my computer is showing me (ie. I'm afraid to mess with it for fear of f'n up somehthing that works fine)
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Yes, I bought the FX5900 listed below. But I have a FX5200 that I purchased last summer to throw in that computer I was building for the shop. On Saturday night when we had 4 people playing 1942 (remember that Joe ) I had to set one of the systems up with the 5200 and it ran like shit.
If you run that 3dmark 2001 after the test there is an online results browser that will show you similar systems and their results. I would compare those scores. I think it gives you a summary of each test it ran and what the average fps was also. 3dmark 2003 saves a text file with all that info in it. Also run the in game console.showfps 1 in 1942 for your fps.
If you follow the directions for enabling coolbits in the Nvidia drivers you should see the clock freq area in the display properties. That's what you want to mess with. Test your system before and after. 3dmark is also a good way to test the stability of your overclocked settings. Just run the demo in a loop.... If it freezes up you have overclocked to high...
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
I've downloaded 3dmark 2003 and hope to try it this weekend: I have 1GB of new PC2700 RAM coming today and I'd like to compare before/after with my current PC133 @512MB, then I'll try the Coolbits and see where I end up. Right now everything runs smooth at 1024x768 with 2xQ AA and 2xAF forced. I can actually lightly recommend the FX5200 if you are upgrading from a GeForce 3 or less (it's what Jack's PC uses now) and things run smooth @ 800x600, Medium settings, NO forced AA or AF (and his system only has 128MB of PC100 RAM!).
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Make sure to do 3dmark 2001 also. The 2003 is only really accurate with dx9 cards. You can get a full serial number if you google for it. I have one what works with 2003 - will post it later.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Well I ran 3dMark'03 over the weekend and got some pretty shitty scores. Before the Memory upgrade to 1Gig I was around 2300 to 2500, after I only went up to 3500 (all perfomance settings). Where I score lowest is the CPU tests - I even drop to 1 FPS at points during the troll scene. This seems pretty jaded as I have an Athlon XP 2000 (and noe 1 GIG of PC2700).
I try to get 3dMark'01 and see where that gets me.
Scott, if more people try this, maybe you can set up a folder on the FTP site where we can upload those *.3dr files?
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Good idea about uploading the results. I will see what I can come up with.
I would try the same tests with 3dmark 2001. The 2003 tests expect a Directx 9 video card. If you don't have one your CPU will be the bottle neck and your results will be lower. Even my 5900 (pretty much the lowest Dx9 card) had trouble with the troll scene. 2003 is mostly for the super high end cards like the 5950 ultra and the Radieon 9800 Pro- everything else scores like shit. There has even been rumors that Mad Onion designed the tests to do alot better on ATI cards.
I like real-world tests the best. I remember Quake 3 had that built in demo that would run and return a FPS at the end. I however have lost my CD. And Unreal Turny 2003 has a built in one also (I can't find my key). I think there is a small program called FRAPS that you can run to give a FPS in any game, but I haven't tried it.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Call of Duty is supposed to have a timedemo, I'm going to try that as well as AquaMark3. Still haven't tried Coolbits to see where I can push it, maybe this weekend...
Posted by Crack_Dealer (Member # 68) on :
So I ran my benchmarks and compared them to the online results. Seems I can probably get another 400 out of my computer. I got 6766, but some online results with my exact setup post in the 7100's. What are things I can do to up the score?
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Overclocking is usually the difference: you can OC your RAM, CPU and Video card. OCWorkbench Tweaktown Otherwise look for bottlenecks: AGP slot speed, harddrive access time. I have successfully OC'd my RAM to a CAS Latency of 2 (from 2.5; Crucial is the king of memory) and so far SW:KOTOR has been stable (that's all I've been playing). It was a simple BIOS setting. Have not tried coolbits yet, but that's next...
HEADS UP: If you smell something like wood burning and you don't have a fireplace, your CPU fan went out! 121 Celcius baby!
[ 02-13-2004, 09:27: Message edited by: Cremator ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
There are a bunch of BIOS setting you can mess with to squeek out a bit more. Everything by default is set low. I know I increased my AGP size and turned on the fast cacheing and got an performance increase. Consult a discussion forum about your video card or motherboard and see what others have done - that's how I figured out what to mess with.
Figure out where your bottle neck is.... Is it the CPU or the video card? Once you find that out you will know where to upgrade ect.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Here's an update on my overclocking:
My FX5700U started at 475/900 and I now have it at 480/909 and it's stable. I changed my CAS by .5 in the BIOS with no problems. My BIOS doesn't allow for CPU OCing, and I don't want to put in a hacked BIOS to do it, so that stands at XP2000. My new favorite benchmark is Aquamark3, its quick to test and you can see the immediate results of overclocking.
Current AM3 score: 28,694
I started under 26k, so my tweaking is definitely improving performance. I'll keep you posted where my OCing tops off.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Here are my latest results. First, I thought I'd push that button that said "Automatic". Well, after some clicks and screen blanks, it came back with 522/1.0GHz! I just about pooped my pants. So I ran Aquamark 3 and got this: 29,885 But it got me thinking, so I looked at my Temp Gauge and for the first time ever, I had a couple of green temp bars showing. This made me think I might start having heat issues during long gaming sessions, so I trimmed back to 500/950 and AM3 was this: 29,086
Funny thing, though. The next time I boot up my PC, my memory clocking has been rolled back to 906. This has happened several times, so I'm going to leave it at that. I might try some real-game benchmarking next with TimeDemos to see how I fare there as AM3 by default sets AF to x4 and AA turned off (you can change these if you PAY for the software). I do like to run at x2Q for AA to get rid of most of the jagged lines; sure makes environments look much better.
C'mon bitches! Are you all afraid my rig will make your PCs look like tiny penises? You spoiled brats have broadband connections, download AM3 and see where you are.
My current system: Athlon XP 2000 1 Gig PC 2700 RAM (Which my MB cannot handle, so it only runs at 133) IBM Deathstar 40G @ 7200RPM (hope it lasts!) GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 475/900 OC'd to 500/906
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Eric run a couple benchmarks with your new computer, I would like to see the scores with the 5700.
Brent I will download Aqua tonight and see what I come up with.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Here are my results using AquaMark 3 with my three systems(Coolbits used to overclock):
System 1: Athlon 2500 (@ 2.09Ghz - 2800 speed)12.5x166 1Gig PC3200 Corsair XMS RAM WD Raptor 10,000RPM SATA HD FX5900 128m 8X
Default GPU speed (400/850) 36767
Auto detect overclock speed (465/980) 40974
System 2 Athlon 2200 A7N8X-Deluxe 2.0 512 Corsair XMS 2700 Memory Seagate 7200.2 7,200 RPM SATA HD GF4 4200ti 128m 8X
[ 03-27-2004, 11:48: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
What MB do you use for your main system (#1)? Is that the Asus?
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Asus A7N8X-Deluxe
It's a Nvidia Nforce2 chipset - supposed to be the fastest chipset out if run in dual channel mode (matching amounts of RAM in each of the two channels).
If the chips multiplier is unlock (mine is) you can change that in the BIOS. The memory speed can also be stepped up in 1pt increments. I tried these setups with my 2500 Barton:
2500 (1.83Mhz) 166*11=1826 (Default) 2800 (2.08Mhz) 166*12.5=2075 (no change in temp/voltage - running stable for 6 months) 3200 (2.20Mhz) 200*11=2200 (Temp up 2-4 deg. - unstable - might need to up voltage)
Would like to find something around 3000 speed like 12*180 - but haven't messed with it yet.
[ 03-24-2004, 10:23: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cremator: Here are my latest results. First, I thought I'd push that button that said "Automatic". Well, after some clicks and screen blanks, it came back with 522/1.0GHz!
B. What were you using that gave you the automatic choice for OC'ing. Coolbits that I dwnloaded didn't have that.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Ok AMD Athalon XP2000+ ASUS A7V8X via KT400 PNY GeForce4 Ti4200 64mb (2x)Corsair XMS 256 RAM (PC3200-400mhz) 80Gig WD 7200rpm HD (8mb cachebuffer
Default settings Clock Freq 250/513 w/AquaMark3
Scored 15,154 GFX =1845 CPU =4224
OC'd to 270/533 w/Coolbits
Scored 16,188 GFX 2007 CPU 4187
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Coolbits is activated by going into the registery and changeing one value. This makes Coolbits show up under display properties. It's built into the Nvidia drivers.
I know, I did that. But the feature it added for OCing didn't include a "Automatic" function so I was curious where Cremator was able to do this.
quote:Originally posted by Cremator: First, I thought I'd push that button that said "Automatic". Well, after some clicks and screen blanks, it came back with 522/1.0GHz!
[ 03-26-2004, 11:43: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Bumped it to 272/540
Got 16,401 GFX 2037 CPU 4204
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Sorry Joe, I don't know what the exact name of the button was, but it's right next to the TEST button when you enable Coolbits. Also, I am using the 56.xx drivers (which meant I had to re-enable Coolbits in the registry after upgrading).
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Under the clock freq area there is a automatic button. It will run a couple tests and then set it to the highest safe speed. I also had to redo the coolbits deal in the registry after the latest driver.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cremator: but it's right next to the TEST button when you enable Coolbits.
Thanks, I don't have it. I havent' updated drivers on mine in a while. And they didn't work on Lukes Ti4200 ?? so I'm not messing with them, my machine works fine.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
My results,
AQM3 Score: 20,319
Vid Card is Bottlenecking the system bad.
ABIT AT7 AMD Athlon 2400 1gig PC2700 Ram XFX GForceFX 5600 (default 270/333) Overclocked to 354/398
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Wow, that card overclocks pretty good tho. What were the scores before and after overclock??
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
My old system (Jack's current): Athlon 900 512 RAM eVGA GFX 5200 at default (OC = crash)
AM3: 8603 Posted by Matress (Member # 71) on :
ok I tried to do the auto detect and it came back 0/0 wtf???? anyone have any imput, gf4 ti4200 128ddr 8x so help if you can
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Never seen it come back with zeros, but my old PC might have done that if it had worked: instead when I hit the auto, it tried a few settings, then REBOOTED!
I think your going to have to do this manually, bumping your speeds 1,5,10, etc. MHz at a time (whatever you're comfortable with) and test each setting - play a graphic intense game for a while and make sure the system is stable, then bump it again until you either become unstable of the temperature looks like it will become a problem.
If coolbits doesn't work for youm there are two others I know of but never tried: Rivatuner and nVHardpage.
Good luck!
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
I always run the AM3 or 3DM Demo in a loop overnight to see if it's stable. I think the best thing I ever did to improve my overclocking was buy the big case with 6 fans in it. The Volcano CPU cooler set at 2000 RPMS (goes to 6000) and 2 input fans and 2 output fans have created a very stable system. Previously I had heat issues with only one intake and a very loud CPU fan - the case was just too hot (so it didn't matter how great my CPU cooler was)
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
If you really want to have a cool case you need a 120mm variable speed intake or exh fan. I have 80mm exh fans and 120mm variable speed intake fan. Having a variable speed intake in effect also makes the exhaust fans variable speed as well so it works out. Another good reason is when the 120mm fans start to go YOU KNOW IT.
Case starts to sound like a jet.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Latest Scores:
31,578 (Not Overclocked)
32,662 (OC'd)
ABIT AT7 AMD Athlon 2400XP 1gig PC2700 Ram XFX GForce FX 5700 Ultra (default 300/950) Overclocked to 512/1024
[ 03-31-2004, 16:09: Message edited by: Chadwick ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Was bored this morning - thought I would mess with my CPU speed and see if I get any FPS increases. I did two tests AM3 and the Halo time demo.
Halo Time Demo (1024*768,AA=off, all settings max) 2500 (12*166=1.84GHZ) 44.34FPS 2800 (12.5*166=2.10GHZ) 44.57FPS 2800 (12.5*175=2.20GHZ) 45.26FPS
Halo Time Demo - GFX OC to 5950Ultra speed (475/950) 2500 (12*166=1.84GHZ) 52.20FPS 2800 (12.5*166=2.10GHZ) 52.34FPS 2800 (12.5*175=2.20GHZ) 52.43FPS
Conclusion - Video card is the bottle neck on my system. Changing the CPU speed did not net any real FPS gains.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
One thing I noticed while using Coolbits this weekend with the newer drivers - I had to select Manual Overclock, then change the drop downlist to 3D - after that the auto button was active. I hit that and it tested and came up with a higher setting. I bumped it a further still and hit test (and it passed I guess). Then I checked apply at startup so that I wouldn't have to re-do the overclock everytime I reboot.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
For some reason, my RAM clock speed (higher #) often will reset itself to default when using Coolbits. Have you seen this at all Scott? I use the "Apply at startup" checkbox and always choose test, then Apply, then OK. Both my PCs do this. This happens when using the 56.56 and 53.03, cards are from different mfg, both using Win XP, SP1 DX9.0b...
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Results with new driver:
Halo Time Demo (1024*768,AA=off, all settings max) 2800 (12.5*166=2.10GHZ) 44.57FPS (Old Driver) 2800 (12.5*166=2.10GHZ) 43.85FPS (New Driver)
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
I ended up with an upgrade for my extra system for free - from a 2200 to a 2400. Ran AM3:
System 2 Athlon 2400 A7N8X-Deluxe 2.0 512 Corsair XMS 2700 Memory Seagate 7200.2 7,200 RPM SATA HD GF4 4200ti 128m 8X
Default GPU speed (250/514) 15930 <-----SAME EXACT AS W/2200 Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
My PC is still disassembled, but I did go out and get a BFG GFX 5900 XT OC (Overclocked right out of the box). So once I get up-and-running again, I'll post new benches...
Posted by Ender (Member # 55) on :
Ran aquamark on my new computer. Its a Athlon XP 3000+ with a GeForce FX 5700 Ultra in it. Got the following scores:
Normal card speed (about 950/470): ~29,700 Overclocked to about 1.06/580: ~32,900
Summary: My computer will smoke yours like a 5 cent cigar. Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
My computer is almost a year old and scored almost exactly the same.
So much for big heat sinks....
Here comes the boilover... ...j/k
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
On a serious note: the GFX5700Ultra is a KICK ass card. Same or better speed and results as all but the 5950Ultra at half the price.
Thanks for finding such a gem cremator!!!
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Huh? What are you smoking Chad? My 5900 scores better then the 5700Ultra overclocked... And it was about $60 more.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
From all the reviews I've read, the 5900 and the 5700U are ballpark with the nod going to the 5900. Now the 5900s are down in price and they run better at higher resolutions, but I've always used 1024x768, the higher res' shrink too much for me. I bought the 5700U when it first came out for ~$200 and then I bought the 5900XT OC for the same so that Jack's PC will run better when I move over the 5700U. I do like the 5700U, but if you can get a 5900 for the same price, it's worth it. ** UPDATE: I will be setting up my PC tonight! **
On a separate note, have you guys seen the stats on the new nVidea 6800s? They require TWO power connections and at least a 480W power supply!!! Christ-on-a-bike! That's going to force most of us to upgrade our power supplies. If anyone else is thinking about upgrading their graphics card, try and hold out until the end of may when these new cards come out as it usually means a price-drop for the older cards...
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Yeah I saw that card review this weekend - DAMN... So much for incremental increases...
Here is the start of the reveiw - go read it....
12,000 points in 3DMark 2003. A score of over 60,000 in AquaMark 3. Over 60fps in Halo at 1600x1200 and more than 50fps in FarCry with High FSAA and 4tap anisotropic filtering at 1024x768 - these are numbers that will bring tears of joy to PC enthusiasts everywhere.
You'd have to go back quite a bit in the history of graphics cards to find a performance leap of similar magnitude. Maybe the transition from 3dfx's Voodoo1 to the Voodoo 2 comes close. Or the jump from NVIDIA's TNT2 to the GeForce 256 DDR, or perhaps the transition from ATi's Radeon 8500 to the 9700 Pro... Maybe these developments might come close, if, for the moment, we left aside the technological quantum leap in the past. But let's start at the beginning.
So even with tha higher Ram/GPU speed the 5700 family can't move as much date/info because of the small pipeline - that's why the scores of the 5900 cards are higher even with a lower GPU speed.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
I do not see that they are appreciably higher in anything but maybe halo. But you can justify it anyway you want.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
I bet your even wrong klaus I bet the 5700Ultra outscores the 5900 if the 5700 were overclocked by 200pts or more inthe AQM3D GFX score (not the overall Score).
And i bet my system with the card only overclocked would be with in 1-2 FPS of your system not overclocked on halo.
In fact Im almost sure my PC scored 5180 or 5190 in the GFX line in AQM3D.
[ 04-26-2004, 14:47: Message edited by: Chadwick ]
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
And the 5700 is 256bit.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Your scores: Aquamark 3 5700U 2400 31578 2400 OC 32662
That's 25% faster comparing overclocked scores.
Again the only claim i ever made was that the 5700U was faster overclocked than any 5900 card box speed.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: GFX SCORES ONLY
MY COMPUTER 5190
YOUR COMPUTER 5082
If you get to overclock yours I get to overclock mine.... So my GFX score is 5940
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Fuck their benchmarks my card overclocked is faster than yours end of story.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: Again the only claim i ever made was that the 5700U was faster overclocked than any 5900 card box speed.[/QB]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: And the 5700 is 256bit.
What about this claim?
Posted by Ender (Member # 55) on :
Chad, the thing is, you cant really compare those two cases. When your card is overclocked to 1.06/670(about), of course its going to be slightly faster than the 5900 at normal speeds of 850/400. But your having to run your card much harder in order to even compare to the 5900. Like Klaus said, when he overclocks his, which only bumps it up to 910/475 or so (not even as high as the 5700U), his GFX score blows yours away. So, your claim is pretty illogical if your saying that your card is better simply because you can overclock it and get a slightly higher speed than the 5900 stock. So stop all this "my dick is bigger than your dick" shit.
I KNOW that the 5900 is slightly better, but i chose to go with the 5700U because it does a good enough job and is more affordable.
[ 04-26-2004, 15:08: Message edited by: Ender ]
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
I honestly think that might be incorect. The box and manual states it is a 256bit card. It may not be the same stat but i doubt it.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ender: Chad, the thing is, you cant really compare those two cases. When your card is overclocked to 1.06/670(about), of course its going to be slightly faster than the 5900 at normal speeds of 850/400. But your having to run your card much harder in order to even compare to the 5900. Like Klaus said, when he overclocks his, which only bumps it up to 910/475 or so (not even as high as the 5700U), his GFX score blows yours away. So, your claim is pretty illogical if your saying that your card is better simply because you can overclock it and get a slightly higher speed than the 5900 stock. So stop all this "my dick is bigger than your dick" shit.
I KNOW that the 5900 is slightly better, but i chose to go with the 5700U because it does a good enough job and is more affordable.
My logic is not flawed in the least. At no point did I say that it was faster when both or overclocked or not overclocked or better or anything like that. I simply stated that it was faster when overclocked than the box speeds of a 5900 card. I run it overclocked because I do not care if it burns up. I paid less to get a card that outperformes the 5900s when overclocked. If it didnt I would have bought the 5950U. My Logic (and i would think they would have gone through this with you in school but...) was simply stating a claim and backing it up with results.
Why can I not compare thoes two cases?!? I paid less to get the same result as an un overclocked more expensive card, simple as that. I claimed nothing more and nothing less than that and that is proven fact. Klaus challenged that assertion and I proved him wrong. What is it with you people!?!?! Did any of you take logic in school!?!?!?!
[ 04-26-2004, 15:18: Message edited by: Chadwick ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
By that logic - I also bought a card that outperforms the 5950U (the fastest Nvidia card on the market) when overclocked...... For $200 less (at the time of purchase)
And I would say you should give more weight to the real world benchmarks on tom's hardware - then AM3. I want to see your Halo benchmark txt file....
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: I honestly think that might be incorect. The box and manual states it is a 256bit card. It may not be the same stat but i doubt it.
No your box states 256m of memory - not 256bit speed.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Klaus:
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: And the 5700 is 256bit.
What about this claim?
Then again the box could be incorrect, the site could be incorrect. I could be wrong, I could be right. Who knows. Who cares.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Instead of taking logic classes in school I opted to double-up on sex education just so I could see more pictures of vaginas. Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: By that logic - I also bought a card that outperforms the 5950U (the fastest Nvidia card on the market) when overclocked...... For $200 less (at the time of purchase)
So do you leave the card overclocked all the time?
If so then what you are saying is that you have the same performance as a guy who buys a 5950U and dosnt know how to or dosnt chose to overclock his card (except for benchmarks)?
AND you saved 200$?
[ 04-26-2004, 15:38: Message edited by: Chadwick ]
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
You wanted the performance of a 5950U. You didnt want to pay 200$more. You dont care about the risk of overclocking because by the time the warantee is up you will be upgrading anyway.
This all sound right to you?
Now you see what I was trying to say.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cremator: Instead of taking logic classes in school I opted to double-up on sex education just so I could see more pictures of vaginas.
THAT'S where I went wrong. Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: On a serious note: the GFX5700Ultra is a KICK ass card. Same or better speed and results as all but the 5950Ultra at half the price.
Thanks for finding such a gem cremator!!!
No that's what you said originally.. It's not until your last couple posts that you stated why you bought the card. I researched my card purchase based on being in the latest generation (5900family 256bit/8pipes) and knew I could overclock to the 5950 speed based on results I found on newgroups.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
/me-> Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
I was talking about overclocked 5700U obviously because there is no way to claim it is faster without overclocking.
Again, LOGIC PEOPLE, LOGIC!
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Sorry I can't read your mind Chad
Looking at the GPU speed and memory speed (both faster than the 5900) I could see how someone would think it was a faster card. Obviously, you didn't know it was a 128bit 4pipe card compared to the 5900 256bit 8 pipe card..... So made sense to me you may have thought it was faster, looking at gpu speed etc.....
[ 04-26-2004, 16:25: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
I was consistant all the way through in claiming that.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Claiming what? That the 5700 was a 256bit card?
I am finished debating you on this - you are just like a democrat - making up numbers to suite your arguement....... <-----Kidding relax.
Posted by Ender (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: I am finished debating you on this - you are just like a democrat - making up numbers to suite your arguement....... <-----Kidding relax.
Oh boy, here come a meltdown. Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ender:
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: I am finished debating you on this - you are just like a democrat - making up numbers to suite your arguement....... <-----Kidding relax.
Oh boy, here come a meltdown.
"Hi pot, im kettle, YOUR BLACK!"
[ 04-26-2004, 17:16: Message edited by: Chadwick ]
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: Claiming what? That the 5700 was a 256bit card?
I am finished debating you on this - you are just like a democrat - making up numbers to suite your arguement....... <-----Kidding relax.
I want to know what numbers I made up!?!?!?
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: In fact Im almost sure my PC scored 5180 or 5190 in the GFX line in AQM3D.
Please post a screen shot of your AQM3 score after the tests.... Somehow "I am almost sure" sounds like a made up number. Oh, and don't forget the Halo txt file. Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
How much RAM did you get Ender?
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
OK klaus, fire away. I was wrong, ran AQM3 last night and found that the number I was thinking of was the CPU number it was like 5189. The GFX number overclocked was around 4700. 1024x768x32
Good card, but not on benchmark par with yours, I guess. I do not have AGP 8x on my board and that may limit my scores some.
I didnt have time to figure out running the halo timedemo
I also couldnt get the thing to repeat the overall score i had before I think the best it did was like 31,998 overall. Might be the new driver. Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
I found 8x did make a difference on my computer - and you can set your agp size to 128 with most cards....
Halo time demo can be performed (I think) by copying your desktop shortcut and adding "-timedemo" to the target in the shortcut. It will run the timedemo and produce a .txt file with all the computer settings and fps info - very cool actually.
[ 04-27-2004, 10:44: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posted by Ender (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jomama: How much RAM did you get Ender?
I have 1 gig (2x512MB chips) of PC3200 (DDR400) Corsair low latency SDRAM. Its pretty fast.
[ 04-27-2004, 12:00: Message edited by: Ender ]
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
UPDATE: OK, now my PC is up-and-running again and I've put the 5900XT OC in it adn moved the 5700U to Jack's PC (Athlon 900). !!I am using the new nVidea drivers, version 56.72!! Here are the new AM3 benchmarks: Athlon XP 2000, 5900XT OC @ default: 32476 Old score 5700U OC'd: 29086
I wish I still had my old GeForce 3 that the 5200 replaced because the 5200 seems to be a piece of shit performance-wise, I'd be curious how it would perform in AM3. Klaus, you still running any older cards?
[ 04-28-2004, 08:35: Message edited by: Cremator ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
I will re-run the test tonight - it now has a XP2200 in this system. I also have a 5200 sitting on my desk at home, I can throw in and test in the same system. My thoughts are that the 5200 was a replacement for the GF4 MX400 or the biggest POS ever to carry the GF4 name.
[ 04-28-2004, 08:56: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
LOL Klaus, that last one's not much of a lower score than I got.
And Creamators AMD 900 did better than mine lol..
Based on what Creamator just posted, it would seem that I could get some significantly improved preformance (score wise?) by just upgrading my Vid card.
*I've been waffling on weather to upgrade the MB and Chip to fully utilize my RAM, would rather wait till fall.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
If I were you I would get a 5700U or 5900($150-$220) and a XP2500($80) and you would be set for another year or so.
Your Vcard is your bottleneck for sure.
[ 04-28-2004, 10:44: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Seems like there are some better deals, and more of them, on the high end ATI cards than the Nividia cards (I know your a nividia guy but..)
Posted by Ender (Member # 55) on :
ATI can suck my balls. They have so many fucking driver issues with games its rediculous. But, for all the games i play (NWN, BF1942, CS, etc) i NEVER hear about problems with videocard compatability. True, their cheaper.... and they should be because compared to GeForce cards their garbage.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
[ 04-28-2004, 12:11: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
That's probably a good deal. It's OEM only but who needs all the shitty software etc anyway. I think the 5900XT/SE are $170-180 currently with the 5900 $230. So yeah that's not a bad deal at all - as long as it comes with some warranty.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
I've heard good things about buying and dealing with Newegg on Refurbs.
Looks like they are the same. I like MSI better but that's just me.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Well despite the general disdain for ATI stuff, there are people that use these cards w/out probs.
Just seems like for a similar price, the chipset speeds are significantly faster for these two 9600's, while the Nvidia cards have a higher memory speed. And both of these ATI cards are 256mb DDR??
Prob with all these #'s, is just that. They're just #'s to me, I don't know which one's to look at most for improved preformance??? Is the 256 DDR that important?? ect.
Just pine'ing away like I aways do when I buy stuff, just rarely do I know so little abou what I want to buy.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
I started out with ATI - was loyal until the counter strike problems with 1.3.
Everyone please bookmark the following page/article so that I can quite posting it....
Joe - look at the benchmarks for games like Halo. The 9600 cards are cheaper but are only 128bit and 4 pipes (like the fx5700 family) - It's like comparing a Pent II 400 to a Pent III 450 - alot faster then just 50Mhz because of the generation jump.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Rgr, that does help.
Thanks
I just ordered the MSI 5900xt referb.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Hey Jo, how about an update now that you have the new card?
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
AutoCAD + Chad =
It is NOT a good day...
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Well I just ordered the ASUS A7N8X-X MB from Newegg, so I hope to have that up-and-running in a few weeks. My current MB doesn't recognize the 333FSB for my new CPU, nor does it support PC2700, so currently I am UNDERCLOCKING 2 major components! Then we'll se where my benchmarks go...
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
OK, I'm up-and-running with the new MB (ASUS) and CPU and here's the new run:
Jack's PC now has my Athlon 2000, I'll run his again and add it also (still the 5700U).
Klaus, could you put the 3DMark program you use on your FTP site? It's too big for my dial up to download...
quote:Originally posted by Cremator: OK, now my PC is up-and-running again and I've put the 5900XT OC in it and moved the 5700U to Jack's PC (Athlon 900). !!I am using the new nVidea drivers, version 56.72!! Here are the new AM3 benchmarks: Athlon XP 2000, 5900XT OC @ default: 32476 Old score 5700U OC'd: 29086
CSS video stress test 1024x768 (default gpu/all high settings) 93.07fps 1024x768 (475/975) 109.26fps
In CSS I average about 10-20fps (40-110) more then I did with the 2800. I haven't seen 20fps even in intense battles yet. Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Why did you reduce your memory in the new system.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
When I first built my Athlon 2500 system I bought 512mb of 2700 (166) - the 200 Mhz stuff wasn't out yet. I later added another 512mb of 200 Mhz stuff to make one gig. Soooo the Athlon 64 requires the 200Mhz stuff and I only have 512 of that
Eventually, I will get around to ordering another 512mb.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
New drivers 66.93, Barton 2500, 1 Gig PC2700, GFX 5900XT OC OC to 450/776 AM3: 38007
I'll post new benches after I install the Barton 3200 w/400 FSB (the 2500 has 333 FSB)
[ 11-16-2004, 09:22: Message edited by: Cremator ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
I did not switch to the 66.93 drivers, and saw one post today of someone who had probs with them and HL2, but I don't know what card he had. He rolled back to 66.77, I have 66.72
Nice score! Have HL2 yet? Would like to see how the 6800 scores in that.
Posted by Nazgul (Member # 96) on :
I just ran the Doom3 and HL2 tests and got the following results:
Doom3 "timedemo demo1", 2nd run = 64.4fps Counterstrike: Source Video Stress Test = 105.82 fps
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
What settings in CSS? AA and AF?
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Hasn't crashed since I followed Hausers advice, see if it stays stable.
Aquamark 3d score, with new CPU and prior to Klaus memory tweek.
GFX 5577 CPU 5658
37,359
37.36fps
Score after Klaus memory tweek.
GFX 5643 CPU 5908
38,109
38.19fps
I need to add a sata HD for gaming and OS and I think I can run one more slot at DDR333 so what I need is a 512 or 1G stick of ram...
[ 11-25-2004, 16:40: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Well I updated to the MOST recent Nvidia Drivers, and finally did XP SP2....
Cut my 3d AquaMark score back down to 35,000
Still randomly locks up games (no complete crashes tho), seems to be more Steam/HL2 than DC over the weekend, although I was never on a real busy DC server with lots of combat going on...
Have a lot of input from people suggesting that my this type of issue is symptomatic of a RAM problem...
[ 11-29-2004, 13:13: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
You have really good RAM so I doubt that is the problem. You might consider running on only one stick (you have 2x256 right?). Or move the RAM around in the slots. If there is no difference you can rule RAM out. Do you have the latest BIOS?
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
I had mucho problems running more than one stick with different MB.
I now run 2x512 PC2700. No problems. Both are exactly the same kind of ram though.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
They're both exactly the same RAM... Corsair XMS series..... Running 256 would not be very fun...
I've no idea if its the newest version of Bios, I've never changed it, and I was glad I didn't have to change it. ASUS said I needed version 1011 or higher... I had 1014.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Update your BIOS if there is a new one available.
Only run on the 256 to see if you don't crash - if you still do it's not the RAM>
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Strange and unexplained crashes are often RAM. Games that require a lot of RAM will use more and more until it reaches the "end" of your second (third, etc.) stick and this is often where the problem lies - a sector deep into the last stick. So Klaus is right, take out the second stick and see if the problem goes away. Also, you can run with the second stick only (in the first slot) and see if you crash more often. Related to this then, are bad Hard Drive sectors in the Swap File section. Run a full scan disk, thorough setting.
Posted by BoondockSaint (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: Eric run a couple benchmarks with your new computer, I would like to see the scores with the 5700.
Wow, finally got around to downloading and installing the benchmark program.
Should I even bother overclocking anything?
Posted by Hauserdaddy (Member # 50) on :
Got an aquamark 3 score of 53,000 on first attempt. I am downloading the new bios revision and drivers for my mobo. They are supposed to improve my video card quality Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
CSS video stress test 1024x768 (default gpu/all high settings) 120.17fps
World of Warcraft: 1280x1024 all settings maxed out. 50-90fps outside 40-80fps during battles 20-50 Iron Forge near AH.
It's nice to play at 1280x1024 so multiple chat windows can be moved around the screen.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Upgraded to BFG GFX6800 GT - OC System: AMD 3200 Barton, 1GB PC2700 Crucial Drivers 77.77 AM3: 49,813 Stock settings, no OC other than the BFG stock setting OC which is card default. This is mostly a dead thread but I like to come back to compare my numbers when I upgrade hardware, thus this post.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Dell 9300 1 Gig RAM 1.73 Pentium M processor (equal to 3+ gig P4) Nvidia 6800go 256m (default clock) Slow 5400 RPM 60 Gig HD (soon to be replaced)
Aquamark3 49,712
Not bad I bet I could get it over 55k with tweaking.
Posted by Mikey (Member # 42) on :
That score alone should make anyone buy one of those laptops.... 49k score in a laptop for under 1200 bucks WOW!
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Stop it! I dont have the money for this!!
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Well, adding a SATA drive, switching to NTFS and remembering to shut off my Anti-virus have all combined to give me quite a bump:
AMD 64 3200+ 1 Gig PC2700 BFG 6800GT OC (no additional OCing) Forceware 81.85 Aquamark3: GFX: 9177 CPU: 8374 AM3: 59286 Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Aquamark3 Score GFX 18,210 CPU 11,211 Overall 100,496 100.50 FPS
Halflife 2 Stress Test 179.45 FPS everything maxed
[ 01-03-2007, 06:40: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Yep, I think it might be time to phase out AM3. Kinda sucks cause it was so easy and definitive.
I also just upgraded, but MB and Video only: ASUS A8V -> ASUS A8N-SLI Premium GeForce 6800GT (AGP) -> GeForce 7900GS (PCI-e)
Haven't installed anything but BF2 for now. Benchmarks to follow...
Brent
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
You suck, by the way. You're as bad as Jay.
Get married and have a kid... watch your money disappear.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
You will get good results with that combo. At least you didn't need to get new memory. I didn't think I did either until I tried my DDR into the new MB and it didn't fit. That sucked.
Play anything else? Be sure to pick up your trial version of WOW at BB for $1.99.........first fix is free.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Battlefield 2 is my fix at this point, and I start up online college again today, so that shoots my play time right in the ass. I would be worthless in WoW as I cannot commit any decent block of time to raid, so I need games where I can just jump in, slaughter the innocent, and get out.
Brent
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Have you tried 2142 yet? I have it but forgot my EZ login and password. I really want to try it on the new system but need to call EA or something. I guess I could load BF2 and try that.
WOW has really changed from the way it started. ALOT of content has been added in the last two years. It's actually a very solo friendly game now. With the introduction of Battlegrounds last year it is easy to jump on join a few games - kill some people and log. I just always though you would make a good warlock or something.
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Actually I prefer to Tank, rather than sit back and toss the pretty lights. Time is always what is against me, and since we've been using Ventrilo, we haven't had the itch for a LAN party. I bought a new truck Saturday and spent more than I should have, so that just killed my gaming budget. That means I'll be sticking to what I have for some time. Haven't tried BF 2142, not sure if I ever will. There is someone from our BF2 clan on almost every night, so if I need a fix, I usually have help. I know I'd enjoy WoW, but the monthly payment is where it gets me - I think there are many games in that genre that don't require a fee and I won't have to deal with little pimples bothering me. My 2 cents,
Brent
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
The fee is well worth it. I felt the same way back in 2004 when I made the decision to try wow. Now I don't even think about it. A game that is supported well (most of the time) with new content added constantly is worth 50 cents a day. Oh, and we have extra accounts you could play for free - a priest and a rogue.
I need to find my BF2 disks because I do want to play that on my new computer. I liked the game play but I had some graphics issues that I never figured out. Same with 2142 - I had crashes to desktop and I got tired of rebooting.... Now I can't figure out my user name....
Computer is running well about 15C in windows and 25C while playing WOW with everything cranked to max. Average FPS is 60 in IF with a low of 30 during the Nef Zerg.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Purchased a Nvidia 8800GT OC and a Athlon 6400 so that I could play Call of Duty 4 and Crysis. The rest of my system stayed the same.
I tried several bench marks and was able to get 120,000 in AM3 and did decent in 3D Mark06 compared to systems like mine.
I ran the 8800GT with my 5200 for a week and was surprised how much the bump from 2.7g to 3.3g helped not only my CPU scores in benchmarks but my GPU ones too.
I also changed my memory timing to what my memory was rated for last night and noticed a nice performance increase in benchmarks. Nvidia chipsets seem to default to pretty high memory setting when set to auto.
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) I had to set one of the systems up with the 5200 and it ran like shit.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[pointedstick]](graemlins/pointedstick.gif)
...j/k
![[crazy]](graemlins/crazy.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
![[horse]](graemlins/horse.gif)
![[argue]](graemlins/argue.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/jpshakehead.gif)
![[wstupid]](graemlins/withstupid.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[sleep]](graemlins/ZZZsleep.gif)
![[gun1]](graemlins/uzi.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[shoot]](graemlins/shootout.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)