g__day
29/9/04 9:04:48 AM
Hero
Titan
|
Due 3pm on 29th - but which timezone guys?
The Inq I see has leaked somed expected performance numbers:
3Dmark 05 scores revealed
Before launch
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Tuesday 28 September 2004, 19:22
WE HAVE SOME numbers that we would like to share with you before Futuremark finally introduces this long awaited test.
With current drivers, Nvidia will score 5000 points with the 6800 Ultra while the X800XT PR will score only 4500 with 4.9 drivers. With the new ATI driver codenamed 8.07, ATI score will jump to an incredible 5800. All these scores are on a 3.4GHz Pentium 4 machine. The ATI driver will be introduced as the Catalyst 4.10 and we learned it should get its WHQL very soon.
The Geforce FX 5950 Ultra will score a modest 1270 while the Radeon 9600XT will provide 1570 marks. The mainstream card kicks the former high end in its performance nuts.
The Geforce 6800 GT will score 4500.
You will be able to see many more scores on the 29th of this month at 3PM CET when Futuremark lifts the non disclosure agreement (NDA) veil
-----
Talent + Integrity == Atomic
|
Ihsan
29/9/04 9:13:30 AM
Guru
|
Thats a pretty big jump for marks between the ATI drivers :S
I'm personaly planning on just being able to install the program. I don't think I wanna subject my computer to the horror of trying to run the thing though... -----
Quote by Virtuoso
It's hysterically funny. So fuck off.
Atomic Wrestling Association Database:
http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=1&c=1&t=37684&m=737126
|
SSJ
29/9/04 9:20:02 AM
Champion
|
why does the 9600XT beat the 5950U? -----
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean, if Pac-Man affected us as kids,
we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and
listening to repetitive electronic music."
Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
|
Taela
29/9/04 12:12:49 PM
Champion
|
Quote by SSJ
why does the 9600XT beat the 5950U?
Probably because ATi are cheating their new drivers to benchmark higher regardless of actual real performance levels. -----
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
|
mozza
29/9/04 12:20:33 PM
Champion
|
Surely not! ATI would never do such a thing! ;) -----
|
Azz
29/9/04 2:13:04 PM
Master
|
LIES!!
did ati say that these new drivers will help older cards like my 9600xt? -----
hotbox is rigged
|
THE DEVASTATOR
29/9/04 2:25:20 PM
Master
|
nVidiots. Ati does not use driver cheats the results are reflected by the HL2 VST,the only reason the 5950U beat the 9600xt in 3dmark03 is because of nvidia's massive app detection and driver cheats. -----
The Geforce FX 5950 Ultra will score a modest 1270 while the Radeon 9600XT will provide 1570 marks. The mainstream card kicks the former high end in its performance nuts.
|
Amiga4eva
29/9/04 2:27:42 PM
Guru
|
Correction THE DEVESTATOR - Both Nvidia, ATI & even XGI have been found to use "optimisations" or "cheats" (whatever word you prefer) when it comes to benchmarks.
No one is guilt free, no fanboy comments are applicable... -----
http://www.utopiatech.tk A corner of the internet devoted to everything tech & pc related. Join to learn why there's a HSF on top of planet Earth.
A64 3000+, 1024mb GEIL DDR400, Powercolor x800pro 256mb, G5 Midi Case,
|
Squidy
29/9/04 2:30:14 PM
Immortal
|
Yes, all the companies have cheated. Nvidia and Ati have both been caught a few times. -----
Quote by gramyre
Procrastination is like masturbation....you are only fucking yourselves
|
Amiga4eva
29/9/04 2:31:53 PM
Guru
|
Quote by Squidy
Yes, all the companies have cheated. Nvidia and Ati have both been caught a few times.
SEE! Squidy said it! so it must be true :).
-----
http://www.utopiatech.tk A corner of the internet devoted to everything tech & pc related. Join to learn why there's a HSF on top of planet Earth.
A64 3000+, 1024mb GEIL DDR400, Powercolor x800pro 256mb, G5 Midi Case,
|
SexKitten
29/9/04 2:32:35 PM
Overlord
|
Amiga - agreed. I completely ignore theoretical benchmarks these days, and although many games have inbuilt "optimisations" and I prefer reviews throw in a few non-standard games into their benchmarking.
3DMark just don't interest me any more. -----
This is where the story ends
Get real drunk and ring yer friends
'Cause they love ya, and they need ya
They just don't want to see ya
http://www.tantryltech.com.au/angry-dome.mp3 (74kB)
|
Squidy
29/9/04 2:33:53 PM
Immortal
|
Yeah, 3dmark sucks anus.
Yes, I said it, it must be true :) -----
Quote by gramyre
Procrastination is like masturbation....you are only fucking yourselves
|
Khrushchev
29/9/04 2:35:45 PM
Hero
Titan
|
I'll D/L it just to see how pretty it is.
I never really cared for the e-penis score it gives anyway.
Cheers
Khrushchev -----
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change.
|
Taela
29/9/04 2:36:20 PM
Champion
|
'fanboi' or not, the fact that a 9600 beats a 5950 is absolutely stupid. The 5950 is a superior card in every aspect, any actual game will prove that.
I don't really want to get in to the whole ATI vs. nVidia war crap, but it's quite obvious ATI is cheating/optimising their drivers or something if a mid range card beats a higher range one in benchmarks when in actual games the higher one, as it should, performs significantly better.
If this is intentional from Futuremark, then they're just fucking stupid. Benchmarks should be done on pure card power and ability, not 'this card is more common so we'll make it look better...'
While I do personally prefer nVidia cards, I don't deny that ATI make mighty fine products and some of their cards have been exceptional, but the 9600 beating a 5950 is ludicrous.
(ed: speling r gud)
Edited by Taela: 29/9/2004 2:37:54 PM -----
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
|
Amiga4eva
29/9/04 2:37:00 PM
Guru
|
Although 3dmark has lost a good chunk of credibility as a benchmarking tool (as far as accuracy is concerned) I still find it a really good way to get a broken down look at the latest in shading/modelling/lighting techniques. It's a great demo of cutting edge 3d techniques because most tests are broken down to focus on one particular aspect of 3d.
For that purpose, it's a blast. For benchmarking though - I find the "play it and see if you're happy with how it runs" benchmark. Version 1.8 of course. You just play the game and if you're happy with how it runs, you're happy with your card. If you're not, then buy a new card.
-----
http://www.utopiatech.tk A corner of the internet devoted to everything tech & pc related. Join to learn why there's a HSF on top of planet Earth.
A64 3000+, 1024mb GEIL DDR400, Powercolor x800pro 256mb, G5 Midi Case,
|
vp747
29/9/04 2:38:22 PM
Overlord
|
Are they really cheats or are they clever "software optimization (sic)" for specific applications (namely 3Dmarks) -----
There is nothing friendly about "friendly fire"
'Judge Kiwi'
________________
Shop Smart ... Shop 'S' Mart
|
Squidy
29/9/04 2:39:06 PM
Immortal
|
I got lower scores in 01 with my 9600pro than I did with my ti4200. But in games the 9600pro slaughtered the 4200 in framerates and whatever else.
Benchmarking is only relative to the size of your dick, not gameplay.
Edited by Squidy: 29/9/2004 2:41:04 PM -----
Quote by gramyre
Procrastination is like masturbation....you are only fucking yourselves
|
Khrushchev
29/9/04 2:45:01 PM
Hero
Titan
|
Quote by Taela
'fanboi' or not, the fact that a 9600 beats a 5950 is absolutely stupid. The 9590 is a superior card in every aspect, any actual game will prove that.
Ummmm . . Taela - the entire Nvida 5XXX range of cards had much worse DX9 performance than their DX8 performance because of an "interesting" hardware implementation that meant they had a lot of extra features on the cards, but at the cost of performance on those features.
Seeing as 3DMark has ALWAYS been very heavily focussed on cutting edge, it is not at all difficult to suppose that the majority of 3DMark05's points will come from DX9 features and performance rather than general game performance.
Which is why I don't really find 3DMark05 rating the 9600 above the 5950 all that surprising.
The huge jump in performance due to a new driver release is sus however :oP -----
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change.
|
Amiga4eva
29/9/04 2:45:19 PM
Guru
|
Taela - In all fairness it IS the Inquirer, and we are talking about a product which has no tangible substance as far as the average consumer can see yet.
Therefore I think it's in everyones best interest to take those performance figures, and any information prior to release with a grain of salt the size of a baby elephant.
Edited by Amiga4eva: 29/9/2004 2:48:29 PM -----
http://www.utopiatech.tk A corner of the internet devoted to everything tech & pc related. Join to learn why there's a HSF on top of planet Earth.
A64 3000+, 1024mb GEIL DDR400, Powercolor x800pro 256mb, G5 Midi Case,
|
g__day
29/9/04 4:27:24 PM
Hero
Titan
|
As Khrushchev says - NVidia's 5950 didn't have enough temporary fp32 registers for its SM 2.0 path to fly, Pixel Shader 2.0 had alot of pipeline stalls from memory. Too its drivers used to optimise by minimising instructions executed by maximising temporary variable used - which tended to really hurt its performance.
And as Amiga says - it is the Inq, which is the toilet bowl of informed assessment IMHO. But they may well be simply mouthing others thoughts. Guess all will be known in just a few days as the benchmark gets out and their database gets flooded with scores. -----
Talent + Integrity == Atomic
|
. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in any form without prior authorisation.