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

9600 Pro Benchmark Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 18th 04, 07:58 PM
Paul Quin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 9600 Pro Benchmark Question

I've just installed my big Christmas present, a "PowerColor" 9600 Pro card.
So far I'm very impressed by it. My old card was a 32Mb GForce 2 MX...

The rest of my system consists of the following: ECS P4VXASD2+ Mobo (Via
Apollo P4X266 chipset) Intel Celeron 2.2 Ghz, 512 Mb SDRam, 30 Gb 7200RPS
HD.

My benchmarks are around 5000 for 3DMark2001SE and 2700 for 3DMark2003.

I have a question regarding 3DMark2001SE. The 2nd test (first game in
highres) seems to bring my system to it's knees. The framerates drop to
below 10 fps at times. What is it about this test that my system struggles
with? I imagine that it is either the Celeron or the slow SDRam that is
causing a bottleneck. All the other tests run with good to great
framerates, so I'm wondering what is different about this test. My MoBo
will accept DDR ram. Should that be my next upgrade?

TIA

Paul.



  #2  
Old January 18th 04, 11:05 PM
DaveW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes; upgrade to DDR and a P4. Celerons are slowww.

--
DaveW



"Paul Quin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I've just installed my big Christmas present, a "PowerColor" 9600 Pro

card.
So far I'm very impressed by it. My old card was a 32Mb GForce 2 MX...

The rest of my system consists of the following: ECS P4VXASD2+ Mobo (Via
Apollo P4X266 chipset) Intel Celeron 2.2 Ghz, 512 Mb SDRam, 30 Gb 7200RPS
HD.

My benchmarks are around 5000 for 3DMark2001SE and 2700 for 3DMark2003.

I have a question regarding 3DMark2001SE. The 2nd test (first game in
highres) seems to bring my system to it's knees. The framerates drop to
below 10 fps at times. What is it about this test that my system

struggles
with? I imagine that it is either the Celeron or the slow SDRam that is
causing a bottleneck. All the other tests run with good to great
framerates, so I'm wondering what is different about this test. My MoBo
will accept DDR ram. Should that be my next upgrade?

TIA

Paul.





  #3  
Old January 18th 04, 11:46 PM
Dark Avenger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Paul Quin" wrote in message news:[email protected]
I've just installed my big Christmas present, a "PowerColor" 9600 Pro card.
So far I'm very impressed by it. My old card was a 32Mb GForce 2 MX...

The rest of my system consists of the following: ECS P4VXASD2+ Mobo (Via
Apollo P4X266 chipset) Intel Celeron 2.2 Ghz, 512 Mb SDRam, 30 Gb 7200RPS
HD.

My benchmarks are around 5000 for 3DMark2001SE and 2700 for 3DMark2003.

I have a question regarding 3DMark2001SE. The 2nd test (first game in
highres) seems to bring my system to it's knees. The framerates drop to
below 10 fps at times. What is it about this test that my system struggles
with? I imagine that it is either the Celeron or the slow SDRam that is
causing a bottleneck. All the other tests run with good to great
framerates, so I'm wondering what is different about this test. My MoBo
will accept DDR ram. Should that be my next upgrade?

TIA

Paul.


GET THAT CELERON OUT OF THAT SYSTEM!

YOU FOOL! Do know that the celeron kills ALL possible performance of any system!
  #5  
Old January 19th 04, 02:38 AM
Paul Quin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



GET THAT CELERON OUT OF THAT SYSTEM!

YOU FOOL! Do know that the celeron kills ALL possible performance of any

system!

LOL, yes, good advices, I will upgrade to a P4 when finances allow. Does an
extra 384 Kb of cash really make that much difference??

But no-ones answered my question about just what in 3DMark2001 SE test #2 is
so tough on my system?





  #6  
Old January 19th 04, 07:39 AM
Darthy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:58:25 GMT, "Paul Quin" wrote:

I've just installed my big Christmas present, a "PowerColor" 9600 Pro card.
So far I'm very impressed by it. My old card was a 32Mb GForce 2 MX...


A decent upgrade of a video card... GF2mx is a few years old...

The rest of my system consists of the following: ECS P4VXASD2+ Mobo (Via
Apollo P4X266 chipset) Intel Celeron 2.2 Ghz, 512 Mb SDRam, 30 Gb 7200RPS
HD.

My benchmarks are around 5000 for 3DMark2001SE and 2700 for 3DMark2003.


You are a victim of having an LOW-END Intel Celeron system... Someone
sold you MHZ, not performance. In the real world, your system is
pretty much nothing more than a P3-1000Mhz.

With a decent CPU (Like a $80 AMD 2500+) you're 3DMark2001 would be
around 10,000~11,000... with the same video card. He

GAME AMD 2600 Celeron 2.4 / 2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT2003 61.84 36.07 / 32.12
Wolfenstein 67.9 34.2 / 31.4
Quake3 269.2 159.0 /151.5
WarCraft 3 36.43 19.74 / 13.12
SimCity 4 65.58 34.39 / 32.82
GunMetal2 Bench 32.96 27.84 / 24.84 (Is this it?)
H A L O 51.46 33.65 / 31.38
Aquamark3 bench 37.43 28.64 / 26.09
3D Studio Max 4min 7.7mins / 8.9mins (render)

* 3D Benchmarks are designed more for VIDEO CARD torture, rather than
CPU. In most cases, Game play on the Celeron is unacceptable!

As proven by people posting here (and Nvidia group) and this
preformance article below, which was done with a $400 ATI 9800Pro -
when most people who buy such machines tend to buy $100 fx5200, maybe
a 9600/5600 card. Which means you can cut these scores by half
(5600/9600) or almost 1/4 for the $100 cards.

So those playable 36fps you see on UT2003 for the Celeron2.6 drops to
around 15fps.. or worse.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1

Because youre Mobo is SD-RAM, even if you put a REAL P4 on the system,
it would still be hampered by the memory. Unless your RAM is 512mb
SD-RAM DDR, which I think it is... up to you to confirm. If so, then
you can buy a P4 2.2Ghz CPU for about $150.

I have a question regarding 3DMark2001SE. The 2nd test (first game in
highres) seems to bring my system to it's knees. The framerates drop to
below 10 fps at times. What is it about this test that my system struggles
with? I imagine that it is either the Celeron or the slow SDRam that is
causing a bottleneck. All the other tests run with good to great
framerates, so I'm wondering what is different about this test. My MoBo
will accept DDR ram. Should that be my next upgrade?


1 - BOTH your CPU and RAM is the problem

2 - Mixed memory system boards are never the best. But DDR would
help.

3 - Replace both with an AMD setup... get more for your money. Even
today, an AMD64-3000 (64bit) costs about $225+$150 for the mobo and
it'll run circles around the $400+ P4 3.2Ghz. No matter what, you
need to AT least replace the CPU and RAM at the same time, as just
one of those items isn't enough to get any real performance out of the
system.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!
  #7  
Old January 19th 04, 07:39 AM
Darthy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:38:26 GMT, "Paul Quin" wrote:



GET THAT CELERON OUT OF THAT SYSTEM!

YOU FOOL! Do know that the celeron kills ALL possible performance of any

system!

LOL, yes, good advices, I will upgrade to a P4 when finances allow. Does an
extra 384 Kb of cash really make that much difference??


Its a lot more than that.... The design of the P4 requires as much
cache as possible for speed, same for hi speed memory.

But no-ones answered my question about just what in 3DMark2001 SE test #2 is
so tough on my system?


Because your system is slow... Test 2 is an easy one... I get an AVG
of 300fps on LOW detail and 160fps in High Detail... even with my old
GF3 on my P3, it was easy... Its Nature (Test 4) thats rough on
graphics card. I avg about 120fps on that test.

But I'm on an ATI9800Pro. Nothing is overclocked and I'm downloading
stuff in the background.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!
  #8  
Old January 19th 04, 01:30 PM
Dark Avenger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Paul Quin" wrote in message news:CqHOb.165576$X%[email protected]

GET THAT CELERON OUT OF THAT SYSTEM!

YOU FOOL! Do know that the celeron kills ALL possible performance of any

system!

LOL, yes, good advices, I will upgrade to a P4 when finances allow. Does an
extra 384 Kb of cash really make that much difference??

But no-ones answered my question about just what in 3DMark2001 SE test #2 is
so tough on my system?


If it only was the 384 Kb then it would be not a joke as now, it's the
whole design of the P4.

The P4 needs as much cache has it's can get, it dies or lives with
it's cache. And since the P4 Celeron is castrated to 128kb cache it
has not enough to effectively do it's job.

You'll find out that a real P4 "feels" 10 x as fast and has the
performance of at atleast 3x as fast.

The 3dmark2001 tests are all simple..except that that last test, the
nature test. Untill I got a ti4x00 I never could run it.
  #9  
Old January 20th 04, 12:06 AM
Paul Quin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Guys,

Right now, my clunker of a Celeron is able to draw frames just as fast as my
monitor will display them (for the games that I play{not a hard core gamer
yet...}). I don't want to spend a bunch of money to draw polygons that I
will never see. But I do have that option when I need it... :-)

If you're hitting 300 fps, then you're never seeing 3 out of 4 frames that
your video card is drawing (assuming a monitor refresh rate of 75 - 100 Hz).

If your games allow it, cap the maximum fps so that it equals your monitor
refresh rate and free up your processor to spend time on AI etc...

pgq



"Darthy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:38:26 GMT, "Paul Quin" wrote:



GET THAT CELERON OUT OF THAT SYSTEM!

YOU FOOL! Do know that the celeron kills ALL possible performance of

any
system!

LOL, yes, good advices, I will upgrade to a P4 when finances allow. Does

an
extra 384 Kb of cash really make that much difference??


Its a lot more than that.... The design of the P4 requires as much
cache as possible for speed, same for hi speed memory.

But no-ones answered my question about just what in 3DMark2001 SE test #2

is
so tough on my system?


Because your system is slow... Test 2 is an easy one... I get an AVG
of 300fps on LOW detail and 160fps in High Detail... even with my old
GF3 on my P3, it was easy... Its Nature (Test 4) thats rough on
graphics card. I avg about 120fps on that test.

But I'm on an ATI9800Pro. Nothing is overclocked and I'm downloading
stuff in the background.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!



  #10  
Old January 20th 04, 07:52 AM
Darthy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:06:50 GMT, "Paul Quin" wrote:

Thanks Guys,

Right now, my clunker of a Celeron is able to draw frames just as fast as my
monitor will display them (for the games that I play{not a hard core gamer
yet...}). I don't want to spend a bunch of money to draw polygons that I
will never see. But I do have that option when I need it... :-)


Not really.... In modern games (2003 and newer) there is a lot more
graphic detail.... playing CS or Quake 3 is a no brainer for a GF2mx /
440mx or an ATi 9200. Those are DX6 games or older OpenGL.

Play a game like UT2003 at full detail... it looks nice... but you
need horse power to see it. getting an avg of 50fps is what I would
require minimal requiremetns... newer games will knock it down more
so.

If you're hitting 300 fps, then you're never seeing 3 out of 4 frames that
your video card is drawing (assuming a monitor refresh rate of 75 - 100 Hz).


True... Quake3 is very old.


If your games allow it, cap the maximum fps so that it equals your monitor
refresh rate and free up your processor to spend time on AI etc...


Yep... kinda... but not much concern with that.. with todays good
CPUs, plenty of power to work with.

--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!
 




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
aiw 9600 pro question Michael Taylor Ati Videocards 0 December 21st 03 07:03 AM
9600 Pro DVI question J.Clarke Ati Videocards 5 November 30th 03 11:55 AM
Ordered AIW Pro 9600 - question for you Granny Ati Videocards 1 November 24th 03 07:55 PM
Radeon 9600 SE performance question Justin Baker Ati Videocards 0 November 10th 03 07:34 PM
Question about S-VIDEO and connecting my TV to my computer (via graphic 9600 Pro graphic card).... Melandre Ati Videocards 7 November 4th 03 04:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.