HOT DEAL - ATI RADEON X800 PLATINUM @229.00

[cuttergallery]

Originally posted by: waxking1
3DMark05 6689

P4 3.4 Northwood
1GB
All running at stock speeds.

6689 is impossible for a default benchmark run at "stock speeds"

[/quote]

I agree...When I saw that score, I said, "No way"

 

[pxc]

Originally posted by: cuttergallery

I agree...When I saw that score, I said, "No way"

yeah. Claiming 6689 @ stock is a bit of a stretch when the *highest* P4 3.4GHz/X800 XT PE score in the ORB is only 6558... and the video card is running at 567/600 (+47MHz core, +40MHz memory). http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=996839

edit: update to my score: 6653 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1143667
The TIM must have set because I can get a higher overclock now with ATITool than on Friday. Don't bother using overdrive if you use ATITool to overclock. Overdrive resets the speeds down.

 

[xiaobao12]

pcx,

thanks for the info. but i'm confused. can you explain the difference between ati tool and overdrive? plus and minuses?

thanks.

 

[bob4432]

is anybody able to get the omega drivers to work with this card yet?

 

[Budarow]

I ran Doom 3 "Timedemo Demo1" at "high settings" and resolution of "800x600" using the older ATI drivers (dated Oct 04....I think V5.1) and got ~68 FPS (ran 3 times in row).

With the newer drivers 5.7 or 5.8, my FPS dropped by 1/3 to 48 FPS.

What's the deal with the newer drivers? At least with Doom3...they seem to suck.

I experienced the same kind of drop with my 9800 Pro (went down to 32 FPS with 5.8 drivers from 47 FPS with 5.1 drivers and Doom 3 with same settings. So it's not the change from 9800 Pro to X800XT PE.

 

[pxc]

Originally posted by: xiaobao12
thanks for the info. but i'm confused. can you explain the difference between ati tool and overdrive? plus and minuses?

overdrive is the overclocking built into the drivers and accessed through display properties or Catalyst Control Center. Overdrive dynamically (and pretty mildly) overclocks the card in games if the temperature isn't too high.

ATITool lets you detect and set the maximum stable speeds the card will run at. What I usually do with ATITool is:
1. reset the core and memory speeds first with the second button
2. detect the maximum core speed (i.e. note the core speed when it fails and the clock at the bottom resets)
3. reset the speeds again
4. detect the maximum memory speed (i.e. note the memory speed when it fails and the clock at the bottom resets)
5. reset the speeds and manually select core and memory speeds about 5-10MHz under the maximums detected in steps 2 and 4. Then click the first button to set the new speeds.

If all goes well you won't see any glitches in games caused by overclocking. If you see weird stuff (artifacts) in games or benchmarks, lower the speeds and try again.

 

[waxking1]

I ran the test again with similar results. I only have the free version so it is running at a lower resolution than most of the ones published. I have no reason to lie about the results, but I don't know how to publish them without buying the program which I am not going to do.
I copied the results and am pasteing below. I know it doesn't prove anything but they are the results I got. The score looks right to me. The P4 linked above was running at 1024 x 768 and was a couple hundred points lower than mine running at 848 x 480. He also had his video card overclocked.


3DMark05 Project Details
Project info was updated successfully!


Project Info
Name

Description

Date

2005-08-21
Project ID

1144099
Published
Compare URL

Project not published

» Full System Details » Export Results in XML


NOTE: This project has not been run with Futuremark approved drivers, or the status of the drivers can not be determined. The accuracy of the results can not be guaranteed. For more information on how to get a valid and comparable result, please refer to this page.

System Configuration

General Information
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
DirectX Version 9.0c
Mobo Manufacturer http://www.abit.com.tw/
Mobo Model IC7-MAX3(Intel i875P-ICH5)
AGP Rates (Current/Available) 8x / 4x, 8x
CPU Intel Pentium 4 3409 MHz
FSB 200 MHz
Memory 1024 MB

Display Information
Graphics Chipset ATI RADEON X800 XT PE
Driver Name RADEON X800 XT Platinum Edition
Driver Version 6.14.10.6561
Driver Status WHQL - Not FM Approved
Video Memory 256 MB
Core Clock 519 MHz
Memory Clock 560 MHz

Benchmark Settings
Program Version 3DMark05 Revision 2 Build 0
Resolution 848x480@32 bit
Anti-Aliasing None
Texture Filtering Optimal
Vertex Shader Profile 2_0
Pixel Shader Profile 2_b
Force Full Precision Off
Disable DST Off
Disable Post-processing Off
Force Software Vertex Shaders Off
Color Mipmaps Off
Repeat Count Off

Main Test Results
3DMark Score 6712 3DMarks
CPU Score 4442 CPUMarks

Detailed Test Results

Game Tests
GT1 - Return To Proxycon 28.7 fps
GT2 - Firefly Forest 19.8 fps
GT3 - Canyon Flight 34.1 fps

CPU Tests
CPU Test 1 2.3 fps
CPU Test 2 3.9 fps

Feature Tests
Fill Rate - Single-Texturing N/A
Fill Rate - Multi-Texturing N/A
Pixel Shader N/A
Vertex Shader - Simple N/A
Vertex Shader - Complex N/A

Batch Size Tests
8 Triangles N/A
32 Triangles N/A
128 Triangles N/A
512 Triangles N/A
2048 Triangles N/A
32768 Triangles N/A



Activated Pro ORB Features
3DMark05 Pro: No
3DMark03 Pro: No
PCMark05 Pro: No
PCMark04 Pro: No
FM Approved Drivers

To ensure valid and comparable 3DMark03 and 3DMark05 benchmark results, use only Futuremark approved display drivers.
» More information

 

[pxc]

Originally posted by: waxking1
I ran the test again with similar results. I only have the free version so it is running at a lower resolution than most of the ones published.

The free version only runs at 1024x768.

You have to crack or pay for it to run in other resolutions... and you wrote you have a "free version." I'm surprised you were brave enough to upload the results from your "free version." :roll:

 

[bob4432]

Resolution 848x480@32 bit

this is why yours #'s are high. cracked version?

i am sure we would all be a lot higher if we were running @ your resolution. why even post it when the resolutions are different? come on man, this is weak....why don't you try to run it at 320x240 so you can hit 10,000 05 marks...

 

[xiaobao12]

thanks pxc...appreciate that.

 

[waxking1]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I just did a search for 3Dmark05 and downloaded the free trial version and it is not an illegal program. I ran it in the only resolution it allows without paying. I don't see a need to buy the program.

Here's where you can get the legal trial version. http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark05.shtml

 

[pxc]

Originally posted by: waxking1
I just did a search for 3Dmark05 and downloaded the free trial version and it is not an illegal program. I ran it in the only resolution it allows without paying. I don't see a need to buy the program.

LOL @ playing innocent. Everyone knows that the free version of 3DMark05 has always only run at 1024x768, just like 3DMark03.

Boy, you're 1337!

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: waxking1
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I just did a search for 3Dmark05 and downloaded the free trial version and it is not an illegal program. I ran it in the only resolution it allows without paying. I don't see a need to buy the program.

Here's where you can get the legal trial version. http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark05.shtml

so there is a website out there allowing you to d/l the pro version for free?? wow, that is amazing......

you don't have to send us a link on where to get the legit trial version, we obviously know

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: pxc

Originally posted by: waxking1
I just did a search for 3Dmark05 and downloaded the free trial version and it is not an illegal program. I ran it in the only resolution it allows without paying. I don't see a need to buy the program.

LOL @ playing innocent. Everyone knows that the free version of 3DMark05 has always only run at 1024x768, just like 3DMark03.

Boy, you're 1337!

pwned

 

[xltomcat]

Got my new card yesterday looked brand new and runs brand new .yahoo.

 

[pxc]

It makes no sense to pirate 3DMark unless you want to compare higher resolutions with web reviews, or look at the other tests that don't count as part of the score (i've seen 'em, you're missing nothing). And most sites don't even use 3DMark in reviews anymore.

That's why I put the 1337 remark, it's piracy for no purpose other than being 1337. :roll:

 

[waxking1]

LOL @ playing innocent. Everyone knows that the free version of 3DMark05 has always only run at 1024x768, just like 3DMark03.

I don't know what your malfunction is, but I don't pirate software. The link is the version I downloaded and I had no choice on which resolution to run. Maybe 3DMark05 trial version has been changed in a newer version than what you have. I guess the lower resolution default would be an undesirable feature and maybe cause more people to buy. I have never used this program until I bought this card. Have you tried downloading this program and running it to see?

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: waxking1

LOL @ playing innocent. Everyone knows that the free version of 3DMark05 has always only run at 1024x768, just like 3DMark03.

I don't know what your malfunction is, but I don't pirate software. The link is the version I downloaded and I had no choice on which resolution to run. Maybe 3DMark05 trial version has been changed in a newer version than what you have. I guess the lower resolution default would be an undesirable feature and maybe cause more people to buy. I have never used this program until I bought this card. Have you tried downloading this program and running it to see?

i have used it for a long time and it is always 1024x768 for me, even when it first came out, along with 03 - 1024x768. i think the only free one you could change resolutions at was 01se.

 

[pxc]

Originally posted by: waxking1
I don't know what your malfunction is, but I don't pirate software. The link is the version I downloaded and I had no choice on which resolution to run. Maybe 3DMark05 trial version has been changed in a newer version than what you have. I guess the lower resolution default would be an undesirable feature and maybe cause more people to buy. I have never used this program until I bought this card. Have you tried downloading this program and running it to see?

Every single free public version of 3DMark03 and 3DMark05 have limited the user to 1024x768. C'mon, the innocent act is getting old.

Publish your project ID 1144099, post the compare link and we'll see how non-warez your version is. :roll: I don't expect you to return to this thread because you were caught red-handed.

edit: i'll even do you a favor by posting the link: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1144099 all you have to do now is click Published on it and then click Update. LOL

P.S. Let me know how cool the Pro ORB looks.

 

[waxking1]

Sorry, I accidentally double posted. The post below actually was first. I just ran the test again and posted it and updated. I wasn't sure what you were talking about above as I am new to this. Here is the new Project ID

1144536
Published
Compare URL

I just checked the link and its still not there but I got the following when I hit update. Is it possible the Cat 4.8s are the problem?


3DMark05 Project Details
Project info was updated successfully!


Project Info
Name

Description

Date

2005-08-21
Project ID

1144536
Published
Compare URL

Project not published

» Full System Details » Export Results in XML


NOTE: This project has not been run with Futuremark approved drivers, or the status of the drivers can not be determined. The accuracy of the results can not be guaranteed. For more information on how to get a valid and comparable result, please refer to this page.

 

[waxking1]

This is kind of a silly argument. I'm not worried because I've done exactly what I said above. Either you are mistaken or their is a malfunction in the program. I ran the program with my display in its native resolution of 1280 x 720 but I don't think that is a problem. I just changed the display to 1024 x 768 and 3dm05 still comes up with the 848 x 480 resolution. Also I clicked on the link above you posted and got the following.

The project id is not valid - it is possible that this project has not been published. Please check the URL.

I don't know how to prove this. I've been around here a while and I'm not going anywhere although this is the most I've posted in some time.

 

[pxc]

Originally posted by: waxking1
The project id is not valid - it is possible that this project has not been published. Please check the URL.

I don't know how to prove this. I've been around here a while and I'm not going anywhere although this is the most I've posted in some time.

It's simple. Go to the ORB, click the published box on that project and click update. I explained that above. LOL

Warez Waldo? On your computer!

 

[waxking1]

I just figured that out and it is now done. The link works now. I am open for apologies.

 

[pxc]

Originally posted by: waxking1
I just figured that out and it is now done. The link works now. I am open for apologies.

Project Comparison
The project id is not valid - it is possible that this project has not been published. Please check the URL.


just ***publish*** the project and post the link. It takes 15 seconds.

 

[waxking1]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1144536

It works for me.