G70 does 7703 in 3DMark05

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Because I'm attempting to get some of the minds that seem mired in here (Ronin et al) to turn their analytical lobes to something more productive than Pen0rMark05.

3DMark should NEVER be used as the sole reason for buying X video card. But I do feel that it provides a piece of the overall picture if used in conjunction with actual game benchmarks.

If it was entirely useless, none of the websites I've listed above would still be using it.

 

[Ronin]

Wrong. The websites cater to what the public thinks is important.

2k5 does not have the ability to push the 7800 to it's full potential.

BTW, a 600 point increase is a healthy one, especially if with 2k5, so saying it's not is plain stupid (if you want to use those numbers).

Creig, say what you will. My benchmarks are real, and from someone you 'know'.

 

[imported_X]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Creig
Must just be some massive conspiracy to discredit both you and Nvidia, Ronin.

pWned!@ Thank you.

Amazing that despite so many reviews confirming the Inquirer's claims, he continues to stand by his original mockery. Ah well.

 

[Ronin]

Because my scores validate what I said. How is that amazing? It's simple, really. If you can't wrap your little head around it, don't hurt yourself trying.

 

[imported_X]

You were just given 8 reviews from reputable sites which spot on confirmed the results that were reported by the Inquirer. In the face of that kind of evidence, it is nothing but bloated ego that keeps you from admitting the Inquirer was right.

 

[Ronin]

Dude, my ego has nothing to do with my scores. If you want to be blind to what's in front of your face, fine. My scores are 3 weeks old. I didn't fabricate them yesterday, and they were the basis of my comments.

I am not a website, but I'm someone who has connections, and knows what he's doing. If that isn't validation enough for you, oh well.

 

[jpeyton]

Well Ronin, you should go ahead and self-publish a web review of the 7800GTX that shows how wrong everyone is. Or maybe it will just show that your card came with faster than normal clock speeds?

I'm not saying you overclocked it, but I doubt you can replicate your score with a card purchased at a retail outlet.

You got connections, you got a early card sample, and it obviously came overclocked by default. Are most retail cards shipping out with the same default clock speeds as yours...No. In fact, all manufacturer's are shipping with a 430/1200 core/memory clock save BFG, which is shipping with a 460/1300 core/memory clock. Those are manufacturer's numbers. Those are numbers replicated by a half-dozen established websites.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: X
You were just given 8 reviews from reputable sites which spot on confirmed the results that were reported by the Inquirer. In the face of that kind of evidence, it is nothing but bloated ego that keeps you from admitting the Inquirer was right.

Good god how hard is this for you to understand. Look at his system and compare it to the ones used in the benchmarks. It is obvious that 3dMark is bottlenecked by CPU. Merely OCing a CPU does not yield a 600 point gain in 05.

While i tend to agree with you in that Ronin did seem to hype up the scores quite a bit (i was thinking closer to 9000 stock after what he said) but while it is hyped up it is true. His score were higher than the ones posted in the benchmarks. Get off his back, it is obvious where the points are from.

-Kevin

 

[imported_X]

I agree your ego has nothing to do with your scores. I'm referring to the fact that the Inquirer was VALIDATED by 8 reputable objective sites. Any way you slice it, the derogatory comments you made about the Inquirer's results were unfounded. If you can admit that, then your ego is just fine

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Well Ronin, you should go ahead and self-publish a web review of the 7800GTX that shows how wrong everyone is. Or maybe it will just show that your card came with faster than normal clock speeds?

I'm not saying you overclocked it, but I doubt you can replicate your score with a card purchased at a retail outlet.

You got connections, you got a early card sample, and it obviously came overclocked by default. Are most retail cards shipping out with the same default clock speeds as yours...No. In fact, all manufacturer's are shipping with a 430/1200 core/memory clock save BFG, which is shipping with a 460/1300 core/memory clock. Those are manufacturer's numbers. Those are numbers replicated by a half-dozen established websites.

LMAO. I can't believe this.

Ronin overclocks his card 100 mhz then claims that EVERY review site benching at STOCK speeds is wrong. :laugh: What a joke.

Incidentally, in games such as Farcry and Doom 3 the 7800 holds a lower % lead than in 3dmark.

And we see the Nvidia fanbois once again bashing 3dmark05 as a worthless benchmark.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ronin
Dude, my ego has nothing to do with my scores. If you want to be blind to what's in front of your face, fine. My scores are 3 weeks old. I didn't fabricate them yesterday, and they were the basis of my comments.

I am not a website, but I'm someone who has connections, and knows what he's doing. If that isn't validation enough for you, oh well.

it sure does NOT look like you know what you are doing.

The inq posted - weeks ago - that the 7800GTX scores ~7700 in 3DMark 05,

YOU said those numbers were BS.
[heatedly, over-and-over]

that is FACT

NOW that the reviews are in, the inq was RIGHT and your claims of BS are FALSE.

All you can do - NOW - is claim that 3DMark05 itself is BS. Maybe it is . . . but that does not detract from the FACT that the Inq was right and you are/were WRONG or BS'ing us].

Your credibility is gone.
:thumbsdown:

 

[Ronin]

Twit, pay attention.

The runs are at stock (430/600). My card did not come overclocked in any way, shape, or form, nor have I tried runs with it overclocked. With intelligence like yours, stating my credibility is gone means nothing.

How is it that scores that I achieved, obviously and validly, are wrong? You can't refute what's in front of your face, can you? If you do, that speaks volumes about you, and your complete lack of common sense.

The information is in front of you, and you choose to ignore it.

BTW, 2k5 IS a worthles benchmark, since it's a limiting factor in the scores the card COULD achieve. The AQ3 score is a pretty good indicator of that.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ronin
Twit, pay attention.

The runs are at stock (430/600). My card did not come overclocked in any way, shape, or form, nor have I tried runs with it overclocked. With intelligence like yours, stating my credibility is gone means nothing.

How is it that scores that I achieved, obviously and validly, are wrong? You can't refute what's in front of your face, can you? If you do, that speaks volumes about you, and your complete lack of common sense.

The information is in front of you, and you choose to ignore it.

BTW, 2k5 IS a worthles benchmark, since it's a limiting factor in the scores the card COULD achieve. The AQ3 score is a pretty good indicator of that.

the ONLY thing i am stating - which YOU are ignoring - is that the Inq predicted that ~7700 would be the 7800GTX' score. You DID - in FACT - call that BS.

It has been substantiated that the reviewed 7800GTXes - all the reviews of them concur - that the Inq was CORRECT.

NOW, you are still calling the inq and 3DMark05 [both BS when your numbers are the only ones that are 'off'.

Your not 'owning up' - instead 'throwing up a smokescreen' of FLAMES and namecalling - to cover for the FACT that YOUR numbers are the ONLY ones +600 [+7%] of an UN o/c'd GPU - says volumes about you.

i really don't care to discuss it with you further . . . i can only state what i see. anything else and i may get as heated and as immature as you. Twit, yourself. ::roll:
:thumbsdown:

EDIT: i really DO have to go . . . my entire valley is on fire

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Good god how hard is this for you to understand. Look at his system and compare it to the ones used in the benchmarks. It is obvious that 3dMark is bottlenecked by CPU. Merely OCing a CPU does not yield a 600 point gain in 05.

While i tend to agree with you in that Ronin did seem to hype up the scores quite a bit (i was thinking closer to 9000 stock after what he said) but while it is hyped up it is true. His score were higher than the ones posted in the benchmarks. Get off his back, it is obvious where the points are from.

-Kevin

Actually, if you looked at his linked 3DMark and AquaMark pages, you'll notice they show that it's the card that's extremely overclocked. His card is reported as running at 535 MHz core and 1417 MHz memory in the first and second link, 450 MHz core/1397 Mhz memory in the third and 536 MHz core/1418 MHz memory in the fourth (AquaMark) when the standard cards are running 430 MHz core and 1200 MHz memory.

I find it odd that he believes the 8,367 3DMark05 score is accurate but that the reported 535 MHz core & 1417 MHz memory values are not. An overclocked card would easily explain the higher than normal scores, wouldn't it?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Good god how hard is this for you to understand. Look at his system and compare it to the ones used in the benchmarks. It is obvious that 3dMark is bottlenecked by CPU. Merely OCing a CPU does not yield a 600 point gain in 05.

While i tend to agree with you in that Ronin did seem to hype up the scores quite a bit (i was thinking closer to 9000 stock after what he said) but while it is hyped up it is true. His score were higher than the ones posted in the benchmarks. Get off his back, it is obvious where the points are from.

-Kevin

Actually, if you looked at his linked 3DMark and AquaMark pages, you'll notice they show that it's the card that's extremely overclocked. His card is reported as running at 535 MHz core and 1417 MHz memory in the first and second link, 450 MHz core/1397 Mhz memory in the third and 536 MHz core/1418 MHz memory in the fourth (AquaMark) when the standard cards are running 430 MHz core and 1200 MHz memory.

I find it odd that he believes the 8,367 3DMark05 score is accurate but that the reported 535 MHz core & 1417 MHz memory values are not. An overclocked card would easily explain the higher than normal scores, wouldn't it?

He tried to claim that the apps were reading core speeds incorrectly. Funny how they both read the same incorrect value.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ronin
Twit, pay attention.

The runs are at stock (430/600). My card did not come overclocked in any way, shape, or form, nor have I tried runs with it overclocked. With intelligence like yours, stating my credibility is gone means nothing.

How is it that scores that I achieved, obviously and validly, are wrong? You can't refute what's in front of your face, can you? If you do, that speaks volumes about you, and your complete lack of common sense.

The information is in front of you, and you choose to ignore it.

BTW, 2k5 IS a worthles benchmark, since it's a limiting factor in the scores the card COULD achieve. The AQ3 score is a pretty good indicator of that.

the ONLY thing i am stating - which YOU are ignoring - is that the Inq predicted that ~7700 would be the 7800GTX' score. You DID - in FACT - call that BS.

It has been substantiated that the reviewed 7800GTXes - all the reviews of them concur - that the Inq was CORRECT.

NOW, you are still calling the inq and 3DMark05 [both BS when your numbers are the only ones that are 'off'.

Your not 'owning up' - instead 'throwing up a smokescreen' of FLAMES and namecalling - to cover for the FACT that YOUR numbers are the ONLY ones +600 [+7%] of an UN o/c'd GPU - says volumes about you.

i really don't care to discuss it with you further . . . i can only state what i see. anything else and i may get as heated and as immature as you. Twit, yourself. ::roll:
:thumbsdown

You're not discussing. You're ignoring facts in front of your face. Your loss.

Creig, 2k3 and 2k5 use the same polling procedures to pull information off the card. Don't you think that a 100MHz Core OC is a bit much on just about any card (with air cooling. If it was anything else, then I would have OCed the CPU massively as well)? Use your common sense.

Stop and use your brain for a minute, and you'll realize what I'm saying is fact, and that I have no reason to lie, AND I've posted links to explain exactly what I said previous to the NDA being lifted. Those are my results, and those results are what I based my comments on. If you don't agree/believe, oh well. Not my loss, nor do your opinions matter all that much to me.

zendari, the same incorrect value reason is explained above.

Try and close your tags next time, so it doesn't screw up other people quoting your drivel . Thanks.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Good god how hard is this for you to understand. Look at his system and compare it to the ones used in the benchmarks. It is obvious that 3dMark is bottlenecked by CPU. Merely OCing a CPU does not yield a 600 point gain in 05.

While i tend to agree with you in that Ronin did seem to hype up the scores quite a bit (i was thinking closer to 9000 stock after what he said) but while it is hyped up it is true. His score were higher than the ones posted in the benchmarks. Get off his back, it is obvious where the points are from.

-Kevin

Actually, if you looked at his linked 3DMark and AquaMark pages, you'll notice they show that it's the card that's extremely overclocked. His card is reported as running at 535 MHz core and 1417 MHz memory in the first and second link, 450 MHz core/1397 Mhz memory in the third and 536 MHz core/1418 MHz memory in the fourth (AquaMark) when the standard cards are running 430 MHz core and 1200 MHz memory.

I find it odd that he believes the 8,367 3DMark05 score is accurate but that the reported 535 MHz core & 1417 MHz memory values are not. An overclocked card would easily explain the higher than normal scores, wouldn't it?

we ALL noticed that. of course an o/c'd GPU will produce a higher result.

it's the fact that he is behaving so immaturely and throwing up a "smokescreen" of flames and namecalling - dissing a benchmark which is not at issue - is what makes me "suspect'.

And i may just drop out of this discussion - anyway - they fire department is calling for voluntary evaculation which may become manditory. i got my "own flames" to worry about . . . looks like about 3,000 acres are ablaze!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ronin
Twit, pay attention.

The runs are at stock (430/600). My card did not come overclocked in any way, shape, or form, nor have I tried runs with it overclocked. With intelligence like yours, stating my credibility is gone means nothing.

How is it that scores that I achieved, obviously and validly, are wrong? You can't refute what's in front of your face, can you? If you do, that speaks volumes about you, and your complete lack of common sense.

The information is in front of you, and you choose to ignore it.

BTW, 2k5 IS a worthles benchmark, since it's a limiting factor in the scores the card COULD achieve. The AQ3 score is a pretty good indicator of that.

the ONLY thing i am stating - which YOU are ignoring - is that the Inq predicted that ~7700 would be the 7800GTX' score. You DID - in FACT - call that BS.

It has been substantiated that the reviewed 7800GTXes - all the reviews of them concur - that the Inq was CORRECT.

NOW, you are still calling the inq and 3DMark05 [both BS when your numbers are the only ones that are 'off'.

Your not 'owning up' - instead 'throwing up a smokescreen' of FLAMES and namecalling - to cover for the FACT that YOUR numbers are the ONLY ones +600 [+7%] of an UN o/c'd GPU - says volumes about you.

i really don't care to discuss it with you further . . . i can only state what i see. anything else and i may get as heated and as immature as you. Twit, yourself. ::roll:
:thumbsdown

You're not discussing. You're ignoring facts in front of your face. Your loss.

Creig, 2k3 and 2k5 use the same polling procedures to pull information off the card. Don't you think that a 100MHz Core OC is a bit much on just about any card (with air cooling. If it was anything else, then I would have OCed the CPU massively as well)? Use your common sense.

Stop and use your brain for a minute, and you'll realize what I'm saying is fact, and that I have no reason to lie, AND I've posted links to explain exactly what I said previous to the NDA being lifted. Those are my results, and those results are what I based my comments on. If you don't agree/believe, oh well. Not my loss, nor do your opinions matter all that much to me.

zendari, the same incorrect value reason is explained above.

Try and close your tags next time, so it doesn't screw up other people quoting your drivel . Thanks.

As far as the tags go, i got a lot more to worry about . . .

First of all, you given ANYONE who even QUESTIONED your scores, a through flaming and a namecalling.

Secondly, we have ZERO reason to believe you . . . only your previous "reputation" - which as far as i am concerned has been OK - up till now.

Thirdly, you have yet to lay out a solid EXPLANATION - in easy to follow terms in a SINGLE post - WHY you think your score differs from ALL the others. i don't want to hear what gamingphreek has to say - i want YOUR explanation.

Please collect your thoughts together, take a deep breath and TELL us [again]. i promise to read it carefully - at least twice - before replying if i can [the hills are ablaze across my highway - i may be reading it from a hotel room or shelter if i have to move quickly].

and thanks in advance

 

[Ronin]

Let's see...why to trust me.

nVidia does, for one.
ATi does, for two.
Intel does, for three.
AMD does, for four.
My company does, for five.

And I can provide multiple other companies as well. If that's not enough for you, then I don't know what to tell you. That, in itself, should be enough. Hell, I held true to the NDA until I was able to post benchmarks, when others did not. What does that say about my ethics?

I've been at this for a lot of years, and I've earned the trust of a lot of people along the way. Truth be known, I don't need forum jockey's acceptance to validate anything, but when my integrity comes into question, that's a separate situation altogether. I hold my integrity very closely, because at the end of the day, if you can't at least be honest (with yourself and/or others), what do you really have?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ronin
Let's see...why to trust me.

nVidia does, for one.
ATi does, for two.
Intel does, for three.
AMD does, for four.
My company does, for five.

And I can provide multiple other companies as well. If that's not enough for you, then I don't know what to tell you. That, in itself, should be enough. Hell, I held true to the NDA until I was able to post benchmarks, when others did not. What does that say about my ethics?

I've been at this for a lot of years, and I've earned the trust of a lot of people along the way. Truth be known, I don't need forum jockey's acceptance to validate anything, but when my integrity comes into question, that's a separate situation altogether. I hold my integrity very closely, because at the end of the day, if you can't at least be honest (with yourself and/or others), what do you really have?

the ONLY thing i am asking for is an explanation - 'Why" you think your card's score differs from the reviewers' card. An explanation from you in a calm manner would go a long way for me [although i certainly can't speak for the others].

i DID say, up till now - "your previous reputation - which as far as i am concerned has been OK". . . . please, just the explanation.

 

[Ronin]

If I had an explanation, I would be happy to provide one. I can't speak for the other reviewers, only my own experiences, and results. I'm not invalidating their results, as that isn't my place, but I have some speculations based on some conversations I had with a couple of nVidia guys at the Launch, but it's not information I'm able to provide, as it was provided in confidence.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ronin
If I had an explanation, I would be happy to provide one. I can't speak for the other reviewers, only my own experiences, and results. I'm not invalidating their results, as that isn't my place, but I have some speculations based on some conversations I had with a couple of nVidia guys at the Launch, but it's not information I'm able to provide, as it was provided in confidence.

so far so good

one more question and i'll say 'fair enough'

do you now think that the inq had a source that turned out to be accurate - even though your own personal result differ?

and [ok, a 2nd question] do your 3DMark05 scores still reflect the +7% disparity from the reviewers scores . . . in other words, could it have been an 'oddity' - from using different drivers, etc?

 

[Ronin]

The drivers I used were developer drivers, released on the developer site. I don't know what aspects of those drivers could account for a 7% variance in score, but I suppose it's possible.

As far as the Inq is concerned, I'm still waiting on Charlie to get back with me to find out where exactly the information originated from, but again, I suppose it's possible the source was deemed reliable enough to provide the information (although, we all have a pretty good idea about Inq's overall track record when it comes to providing information).

As I said, I'm not out to invalidate the other results, just that my personal experience shows a better result for the card, and perhaps a more accurate one.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ronin
The drivers I used were developer drivers, released on the developer site. I don't know what aspects of those drivers could account for a 7% variance in score, but I suppose it's possible.

As far as the Inq is concerned, I'm still waiting on Charlie to get back with me to find out where exactly the information originated from, but again, I suppose it's possible the source was deemed reliable enough to provide the information (although, we all have a pretty good idea about Inq's overall track record when it comes to providing information).

As I said, I'm not out to invalidate the other results, just that my personal experience shows a better result for the card, and perhaps a more accurate one.

fair enough
[it seemed that you were trying to invalidate the inq's prediction as still being BS . . . thanks for the explanation . . . it is clear to me now

thank-you

and please let us know what you can when you can. . . . +7% is not a huge difference but it is significant.

 

[Ronin]

With the 77.72's released, I'll give it another run (and hopefully, at some point in the very near future, AQ and Futuremark will get their databases updated to read the speeds properly). AND, hopefully, the scores will be able to be published.