A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Ati Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Interesting benchmarks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 04, 08:59 PM
johns
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Interesting benchmarks

I'm trying to figure out what really makes a good upgrade
for gaming. So far, using 3DMark2001, I see the following
somewhat strange results:

1) AMD AthlonXP 2000+ with ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128, 1gig ram: 6747
2) Same as above, but with ATI Radeon 9600XT 128:
9023
3) P4/2.4/800fsb, ATI Radeon 9200 Pro, 512 ddr:
7119
4) P4/1.8/400fsb, ATI Radeon 9000 ( same ), 1 gig ddr
7259
5) P4/2.8/400fsb, nVidia Quadro4 900XGL, 1 gig ddr
12,415

Note: before you run out and buy nVidia, the 900XGL only has
a 300mhz dac clock, and 128 meg ddr !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Card is
several years old. I'm very suspicious of that test.
What is most interesting is the 2 P4s not making much difference,
AND, the ATI 9000 on a 1.8/400 system, beat a ATI 9200 on a
2.4/800 system ???????? Weird. My AMD Athlon clocks at
about 1.7 gbit, but the ATI 9600XT makes a big difference.

So far, I conclude: the biggest difference is Video card. Next is
ram size. CPU speed is marginal. I think I have to jump a lot
to get any improvement. RAM speed is also marginal. My AMD
is using SDRAM 133 and CPU has 266 fsb.

I also conducted the following Far Cry tests by number of above:
1) Ran FC beautifully but all in low setting except water medium.
2) Ran FC super good .. water medium, environ high .. fish/ birds
3) Ran FC about same as 1)
4) Ran FC well, fish/birds, but crappy seaweed.
5) I have not been able to test FC on that machine ( I'll try )

Conclude: not much so far. I could spend a lot of money and
have nothing to show for it. Far Cry is a better benchmark than
3DMark2001.

johns


  #2  
Old July 22nd 04, 10:35 PM
Sunbow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"johns" wrote in message
...
I'm trying to figure out what really makes a good upgrade
for gaming. So far, using 3DMark2001, I see the following
somewhat strange results:

1) AMD AthlonXP 2000+ with ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128, 1gig ram:

6747
2) Same as above, but with ATI Radeon 9600XT 128:
9023

Strange indeed, my 9600XT with an XP2000+ at stock speed got over 12000 in
3dmark2001SE.
Sorry to snip off the rest of the message but that`s all i wanted to say..


  #3  
Old July 23rd 04, 12:01 AM
Mike P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

3dm01 is very cpu intensive, far cry is more video card intensive.

"johns" wrote in message
...
I'm trying to figure out what really makes a good upgrade
for gaming. So far, using 3DMark2001, I see the following
somewhat strange results:

1) AMD AthlonXP 2000+ with ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128, 1gig ram:

6747
2) Same as above, but with ATI Radeon 9600XT 128:
9023
3) P4/2.4/800fsb, ATI Radeon 9200 Pro, 512 ddr:
7119
4) P4/1.8/400fsb, ATI Radeon 9000 ( same ), 1 gig ddr
7259
5) P4/2.8/400fsb, nVidia Quadro4 900XGL, 1 gig ddr
12,415

Note: before you run out and buy nVidia, the 900XGL only has
a 300mhz dac clock, and 128 meg ddr !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Card is
several years old. I'm very suspicious of that test.
What is most interesting is the 2 P4s not making much difference,
AND, the ATI 9000 on a 1.8/400 system, beat a ATI 9200 on a
2.4/800 system ???????? Weird. My AMD Athlon clocks at
about 1.7 gbit, but the ATI 9600XT makes a big difference.

So far, I conclude: the biggest difference is Video card. Next is
ram size. CPU speed is marginal. I think I have to jump a lot
to get any improvement. RAM speed is also marginal. My AMD
is using SDRAM 133 and CPU has 266 fsb.

I also conducted the following Far Cry tests by number of above:
1) Ran FC beautifully but all in low setting except water medium.
2) Ran FC super good .. water medium, environ high .. fish/ birds
3) Ran FC about same as 1)
4) Ran FC well, fish/birds, but crappy seaweed.
5) I have not been able to test FC on that machine ( I'll try )

Conclude: not much so far. I could spend a lot of money and
have nothing to show for it. Far Cry is a better benchmark than
3DMark2001.

johns




  #4  
Old July 23rd 04, 04:32 PM
johns
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Strange indeed, my 9600XT with an XP2000+ at stock speed got over 12000 in
3dmark2001SE.
Sorry to snip off the rest of the message but that`s all i wanted to

say..

I'm not surprised. My mobo is a Gigabyte-7ZXE with VIA BIOS. It is
notoriously a POS. What mobo are you using? Also, I think(?) that
I might be seeing big hard drive effect. I have 19 gig on my AMD,
and I notice that if I don't keep it defragged, I get drops in frame
rates in Far Cry. I can't think of any other problems. My system
runs fine. I do have McCaffee running, and I don't shut down
any running processes. I think the reason the P4/400 beat the P4/800
is the 400 has a 40 gig drive, and the 800 has a 160 gig drive.
However, the 800 with the 9200 looks better in Far Cry and
runs with higher settings.

johns


  #5  
Old July 23rd 04, 04:38 PM
johns
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

3dm01 is very cpu intensive, far cry is more video card intensive.

I see that too. 3dm01 is probably not a good benchmark
when trying to eval upgrades. I hope to be able to get
a gross measurement that points to doing a gaming
upgrade that doesn't cost a fortune, and still doesn't get
the job done. I built my AMD system for about $650
total. It holds its own with $2000 computers, because
they simply did not realize what was needed, and went
out and bought a Dell and started tacking in "options".

johns


  #6  
Old July 23rd 04, 07:17 PM
Sunbow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"johns" wrote in message
...

Strange indeed, my 9600XT with an XP2000+ at stock speed got over 12000

in
3dmark2001SE.
Sorry to snip off the rest of the message but that`s all i wanted to

say..

I'm not surprised. My mobo is a Gigabyte-7ZXE with VIA BIOS. It is
notoriously a POS. What mobo are you using? Also, I think(?) that
I might be seeing big hard drive effect. I have 19 gig on my AMD,
and I notice that if I don't keep it defragged, I get drops in frame
rates in Far Cry. I can't think of any other problems. My system
runs fine. I do have McCaffee running, and I don't shut down
any running processes. I think the reason the P4/400 beat the P4/800
is the 400 has a 40 gig drive, and the 800 has a 160 gig drive.
However, the 800 with the 9200 looks better in Far Cry and
runs with higher settings.

johns


my mobo is an abit NF7 with 512MB ddr400 ram. got a 40 gig and a 33 gig
HDD`s on one ide channel. i dont shut anything down to run 3dmark or the
farcry demo (dont have the full game). can you still benchmark the farcry
demo?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tualatin on P2B Benchmarks? P2B Asus Motherboards 7 January 19th 04 03:45 AM
Tualatin on P2B Benchmarks? P2B Overclocking 8 December 29th 03 07:52 AM
confusion about doom3 vs HL2 benchmarks Sumedh Ati Videocards 15 September 16th 03 03:44 AM
Interesting 'optimisation' article + benchmarks. nightic Ati Videocards 0 July 23rd 03 09:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.