It was a joke. I guess it wasnt too funny. lol
I mean, I think we're right about the CPU, but I dont expect him to send me his card.
It was a joke. I guess it wasnt too funny. lol
I mean, I think we're right about the CPU, but I dont expect him to send me his card.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,090
- 32,629
- 146
Well, my A64 3000+@2.4ghz and GT@stock 370/1ghz scores an average 63.5fps in AQ3 and 21650 in 3DMock'01 which is approx. 14% and 10% respectively. That's a very substantial difference given the same card and clockspeeds. His drivers may be a factor as well though as I haven't used that set.
apoppin
Lifer
And when i posted eVGA's "comparison" between the (lowly- vanilla) 6800 - that it was only (at least a full) +12% performance improvement over the Radeon 9800-XT - i got flamed.
this looks about right.
(edit: . . . looking again, the GT seems unnaturally low)
The GT is an exceptional card, BTW . . . the Radeon Pro was last generatrion's extraordinary one.
EDIT: What's with NOT being able to run 3DMark?
SOMEthing is NOT right! . . . did you use a driver cleaner before you installed the 6800?
Always a new core is meant to show some more potential on high end gpus. But with some exceptions most of the times it's negligible
But not a single company IMO expect from a gamer/customer to have such a high end cpu.
And IMO only a 6800UE or X800XT might have somethin worthy to give at such a high end cpu.
And if that's true, do ~ 5-15max fps more really worth double or triple the cost?
I'm not saying that a high end cpu don't help at all. But 2.8E and this is a bottleneck??? Cmon
It's a very very good cpu (though I would prefer a northwood at the same speed) and I can't believe that going from 2.8E to a high end cpu you will see dramatic differences. Only P4EE or a FX-53 will make a significant difference IMO. That should be paired with 6800UE or X800XT IMO. But here comes the question as I said. Does that worth double or triple the price?
Of course not! High-end hardware is NEVER a good value. That's not the point however. The 2.8E IS a bottleneck for the 6800GT, and DAPUNISHER just proved that to you. If it's 14% faster on a 3000+ A64 which costs 27% more than the 2.8E, it's not such a bad deal. In theory, the 6800GT should run 27% faster on a 3400+ A64 in comparison to a 2.8E. AFAIK we don't know the upper limit on these new GPUs; we don't know when they stop becoming CPU-limited. From what I understand, they continually gain performance all the way up to an FX-53.
The 2.8E is NOT a "very very good CPU" if you want my honest opinion. You're correct in stating that the Northwood is superior, but you neglected to mention that the A64 is even better than a Northwood in gaming. An A64 2800+ would have been a substantially better processor in this situation for the same price.
People are exaggerating the CPU limited aspect of these cards. The only CPU limited game I've played is UT2k4. Just about every other game I've played (Farcry, Splinter cell PT, Painkiller, WOW to name a few), is for the most part GPU limited at 1600x1200 with AA and AF on. At 1280x1024 it might be a different story, but it's hardly critical.
I only have a barton @ 2.2 ghz as well. Unless your CPU can't push 60 frames paired the cards, it's no big deal. I'd say 2.5 ghz or so overclocked would be adequate. And if you are gonna dump $300+ on a video card, I don't see any reason not to dump $150 or so on a mobile barton/NF7s combo if you don't have something like that already.
I only have a barton @ 2.2 ghz as well. Unless your CPU can't push 60 frames paired the cards, it's no big deal. I'd say 2.5 ghz or so overclocked would be adequate. And if you are gonna dump $300+ on a video card, I don't see any reason not to dump $150 or so on a mobile barton/NF7s combo if you don't have something like that already.
Im impressed at how well the 9800 pro puts up a fight
i modded mine to an xt, and just did benchmarks, not bad for 194 +12 for vga silencer all shipped, eh?
i modded mine to an xt, and just did benchmarks, not bad for 194 +12 for vga silencer all shipped, eh?
SickBeast I know you know better!! The guy may have done somethin wrong and he could probably score just a little better.But what are we comparing? Synthetic benches? I wanna see real differences in games. Also it's an o/c 2.8@3,2ghz!!! So how far do you think that someone can go in real gaming? I don't believe that there's much more to see from a GT. From a 6800UE or X800XT maybe but not from a GT IMO.
As for the A64 at similar speeds you're correct and right and I forgot to mention them. If I was to buy an equilevant to intel speeds A64 then I would do it in a heartbeat.
My thoughts exactly. Of course as you scale higher res with full AA/AF you will see some differences.
But let's not exaggerate and say that a 2.8ghz cpu is bottleneck for a system,just because a few more fps are made from an expensive high end cpu.
went up more than i had expected, overall, im pleased with my 200 dollar purchase
this thing should be easier to sell than a 6800 vanilla, and it was cheaper to buy now
ill just wait til something REALLY amazing comes along, but until then, ill enjoy what I have
ignorance is bliss when playing at my max rate of 1280x1024 on my 17" LCD
this thing should be easier to sell than a 6800 vanilla, and it was cheaper to buy now
ill just wait til something REALLY amazing comes along, but until then, ill enjoy what I have
ignorance is bliss when playing at my max rate of 1280x1024 on my 17" LCD
First of all, the GT is only around 10% slower than a 6800U. Second, if you look at the HardOCP CPU scaling article, you will see that the X800XT scored 37.9FPS on an A64 3500+ but only 28.5FPS on an XP2500+. This is at 1600x1200 w/ 4XAA/16XAF in Far Cry; basically the most GPU-limited situation you can find at the moment. It's 33% faster on the 3500+. In lower resolutions, I would assume that the gap would be even wider. I am certain that there are many people out there who are limited to 1280x1024, such as myself (17" LCD).
I did not consider the 6800U scores in the HardOCP article because the numbers appear to be way out of whack (surprise surprise). The X800XT should not be scoring 37.9FPS in comparison to the 6800U at 27.4FPS; it's ridiculous. Unfortunately we're stuck in this case as I don't know of another CPU scaling article ATM.
Here is a link to the article, straight to the "apples to apples" section.
Oldfart, your tests are based on a 9800PRO. Pete's benchmarks were performed on a wide range of graphics cards, and the newer cards (X800XT, 6800U) performed significantly better on the A64 system. This makes sense since those cards are much more CPU limited.
Look at this.
The A64 scores 78FPS vs. 65FPS for the P4 in Far Cry at 1024x768 on a 6800U. That makes the A64 20% faster at equivalent rated speeds to the P4.
apoppin
Lifer
You guys have the 256MB version or the 128MB version of the 9800Pro flashed to "xt"?
Mine is the 256/256MB ATI pro > XT. i got ~10% performance increase in the newer games just by doing the flash.
Still, i gotta ask,
why canNOT 3Dmark run? . . . did you remove every TRACE of the ATI drivers B4 you installed the 6800GT?
Yeah, you are right. It seems you need a new gen GPU to really see the difference. It is much more noticeable on a 6800/X800 class of card. Even so, once you increase the res beyond 10 x 7, it gets smaller down to a few fps @ 16 x 12. Still, A64 kicks some serious butt!
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,090
- 32,629
- 146
For real gaming the difference isn't enough to get overly excited about. The reason the A64 is touted by so many as being clearly superior to the P4, FX&EE aside, is when you drop the res to 640x480 or 8x6 the A64 will smack the P4 around fairly hard. Of course none of us are going to be playing@that res unless D3 puts it on a 9600xt level or lower card so hard they have to play@8x6
apoppin
Lifer
Damn, looking at that 1600x1200, not only is the P4 just slightly behind the a64; the Radeon 9800Xt is just slightly behind the vanilla 6800 at BOTH 16x12 AND 12x10.
At 'normal' hi-end gaming resolutions, the P4 isn't as far behind the a64 as i thought
(i feel better now).
(nor is the xt much behind the 6800)
(i feel DOUBLY better now)
:roll:
At 'normal' hi-end gaming resolutions, the P4 isn't as far behind the a64 as i thought
(i feel better now).
(nor is the xt much behind the 6800)
(i feel DOUBLY better now)
:roll:
Did anyone else notice that?
Also, great benching! Now i am not so compeled to save my money for the GT anymore. Now i can get a car insted :S
he said that he ran 3dmark03 on 2 different systems and that he got better 3dmarks with the a64 insted of the 1.7 celly he had before... i think that is kinda extreme example tho. And he said that "i know that it isn't a game but you can't denie..." something like that.
I thought DC didn't make much if any of a of a diff with A64?
Dont get me wrong , the A64 is a great setup and it would be my top choice if I were looking at a new rig. I just dont see many benches where it dominates unless you are at lower res (10 x 7). 16 x 12 you are mostly talking a few FPS. Without a newest gen GPU, the difference is almost nil. You really need a 6800GT/X800P or above to take advantage of the A64 power.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter